AN EXPOSITION
OF THE
SECOND EPISTLE TO TIlE CORILNTHIANS.
IBY
CHARLES HIODGE, D.D.,
PROFESSOR IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, PRINCETON, N. J.
NEW YORK:
ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS,
630 BROADWAY.
1862.




ENTERED according to act of Congress, in the year 1859, by
ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District
of New York.
JOHN P. TROW,
PRMITER, STEREOTYPER, AND ELECTROTYPER,
46, 48 & 50 Greene Street,
New York.




II. CORINTHIANS.
CHAPTER I.
The Salutation, vs. 1. 2. Thanksgiving to God for the deliverance and conolation which the writer had experienced, vs. 3-11. Defence of himself
gainst the charge of inconstancy and inconsistency, vs. 12-24.
Paul's gratitudefor the deliverance and consolation which he
had experienced. Vs. 1-11.
AFTER the apostle had written his former letter to the Corinthians, and had sent Titus, either as the bearer of the letter
or immediately after its having been sent by other hands, to
ascertain the effect which it produced, he seems to have been
in a state of unusual depression and anxiety. The persecutions to which he had been exposed in Asia placed him in
continued danger of death, 1, 8; and his solicitude about the
church in Corinth allowed him no inward peace, 7, 5. After
leaving Ephesus he went to Troas; but although the most
promising prospects of usefulness there presented themselves,
he could not rest, but passed over into Macedonia in hopes of
meeting Titus and obtaining from him intelligence from Corinth, 2, 12. 23. This letter is the outpouring of his heart occasioned by the information which he received. More than
any other of Paul's epistles, it bears the impress of the strong
feelings under the influence of which it was written. That
the Corinthians had received his former letter with a proper
spirit, that it brought them to repentance, led them to ex.
communicate the incestuous person, and called forth, on the




2             II. CORINTHIANS 1.
part of the larger portion of the congregation, the manifesta.
tion of the warmest affection for the apostle, relieved his
mind from a load of anxiety, and filled his heart with grati.
tude to God. On the other hand, the increased boldness and
influence of the false teachers, the perverting errors which
they inculcated, and the frivolous and calumnious charges
which they brought against himself, filled him with indignation. This accounts for the abrupt transitions from one subject to another, the sudden changes of tone and manner which
characterize this epistle. When writing to the Corinthians as
a church obedient, affectionate, and penitent, there is no limit
to his tenderness and love. His great desire seems to be to
heal the temporary breach which had occurred between them,
and to assure his readers that all was forgiven and forgotten,
and that his heart was entirely theirs. But when he tarns to
the wicked, designing corrupters of the truth among them,
there is a tone of severity to be found in no other of his writings, not even in his epistle to the Galatians. Erasmus conlpares this epistle to a river which sometimes flows in a gentle
stream, sometimes rushes down as a torrent bearing all before
it; sometimes spreading out like a placid lake; sometimes
losing itself, as it were, in the sand, and breaking out in
its fillness in some unexpected place. Though perhaps the
least methodical of Paul's writings, it is among the most interesting of his letters as bringing out the man before the
reader and revealing his intimate relations to the people for
whom  he laboured.  The remark must be borne in mind
(often made before), that the full play allowed to the peculiarities of mind and fieeling of the sacred writers, is in no way
inconsistent with their plenary inspiration.  The grace of
God in conversion does not change the natural character of
its subjects, but accommodates itself to all their peculiarities
of disposition and temperament. And the same is true with
regard to the influence of the Spirit in inspiration.
The salutation in this epistle is nearly in the same words
as in the former letter, vs. 1. 2. Here also as there, the introduction is a thanksgiving. As these expressions of gratitude
are not mere forms, but genuine effusions of the heart, they
vary according to the circumstances under which each epistle
was written. Here the thanksgiving was for consolation.
Paul blesses God as the God of all mercy for the consolation
which he had experienced. He associates, or rather identifies
himself with the Corinthians; representing his afflictions as




II. CORINTHIANS  1, 1.2.                  3
theirs and his consolation also as belonging to them, vs. 3-7.
He refers to the afflictions which came upon him in Asia, so
that he despaired of life, but through their prayers God who
had delivered, still delivered, and he was assured, would continue to deliver him, vs. 8-11.
1. 2. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the
will of God, and Timothy (our) brother, unto the
church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints
which are in all Achaia: Grace (be) to you, and peace,
from  God our Father, and (from) our Lord Jesus
Christ.
The sense in which the word apostle is to be here taken,
the force of the expression by the will of God, the scriptural
meaning of the words church and saints, are all stated in the
remarks on the first verse of the former epistle. In the first
epistle Paul associates Sosthenes with himself in the salutation; here it is Timothy who is mentioned. In neither case
is there any community of office or authority implied. On
the contrary, a marked distinction is made between Paul the
apostle and Sosthenes or Timothy the brother, i. e. the Christian companion of the apostle. From 1 Cor. 4, 17 it appears
that Timothy was in Macedonia, on his way to Corinth, when
the first epistle was written. From the form 6f expression
(if Timothy come) in I Cor. 16, 10, and from the absence of
any intimation in this epistle that Paul had received from him
the information from Corinth which he was so desirous to obtain, it is doubtful whether Timothy had been able to reach
that city. At any rate he was now with the apostle at Nicopolis or some other city in Macedonia. With all the saints
which are in all Achaia. This epistle was not intended exclusively for the Christians in Corinth, but also for all the believers scattered through the province who were connected
with the church in Corinth. These believers were probably
not collected into separate congregations, otherwise the apostle would have used the plural form, as when writing to the
churches of Galatia, Gal. 1, 3. Achaia was originally the
aame of the northern part of the Peloponnesus including Corinth and its isthmus. Augustus divided the whole country
into the two provinces, Macedonia and Achaia; the former
included Macedonia proper, Illyricum, Epirus and Thessaly;




4          II. CORINTHIANS  1, 2. 3.
and the latter all the southern part of Greece. It is in this
wide sense Achaia is always used in the New Testament.
From this it appears that the converts to Christianity in
Greece were at this time very few out of Corinth, as they
were all members of the church in that city. Grace and
peace, the favour of God and its fruits, comprehend all the
benefits of redemption. The apostle's prayer is not only that
believers may be the objects of the love of God our Father
and of Jesus Christ our Lord, but that they may have the
assurance of that love. He knew that the sense of the love
of God would keep their hearts in perfect peace. God is our
Father, Jesus Christ is our Lord. Every one feels the distinction in this relationship, whether he reduces it to clear
conceptions in his own mind or not. God, as God, is our
father because he is the father of all spirits, and because, if
believers, we are born again by his Spirit, and adopted as his
children, made the objects of his love and the heirs of his
kingdom. Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God clothed in
our nature, is our Lord, for two reasons: first, because as
God he is our absolute sovereign; and secondly, because as
Redeemer he has purchased us by his own most precious
blood. To him, therefore, as God and Redeemer, our allegiance as Christians is specially due.
3. Blessed (be) God, even the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and God of all
comfort.
This richness and variety of designations for the object of
his reverence and gratitude, shows how full was the apostle's
heart, and how it yearned after fellowship with God, to whom
he places himself in every possible connection by thus multiplying the terms expressive of the relations which CGod bears
to his redeemed people.  Blessed.  The word E1vXo7YrTos
(blessed) is used in the New Testament only of God. (In
uke 1, 28, where the Virgin Mary is spoken of, EVXoy7VLEmV is
used.) It expresses at once gratitude and adoration. Adored
be God! is the expression of the highest veneration and
thankfulness. It is not God merely as God, but as the Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ who is the object of the apostles
adoration and gratitude. The expression does not refer to
the miraculous conception of our Lord, but the person addressed is he whose eternal Son assumed, our nature, who, as




[I. CORINTHIANS  1, 4.                   5
invested with that nature, is our Lord Jesus Christ. It is he
who so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son,
that whoso believeth in him  might not perish but have
everlasting life. It is therefore the peculiar, characteristic
Christian designation of God, as it presents him as the God
of redemption. Rom. 15, 6. 2 Cor. 11, 31. Col. 1, 3. 1 Pet. 1, 3.
This God who has revealed himself as the God of love in
sending his Son for our redemption, the apostle still further
designates as the Father of mercies, i. e. the most merciful
Father; he whose characteristic is mercy. Comp. Ps. 86, 5. 15.
Dan. 9, 9. Micah 7, 18. The explanation which makes the
expression mean the author of mercies is inconsistent with the
signification of the word Ot'KTLPLO0', which always means mercy
as a feeling. The God of all comfort. This most merciful
Father is the God, i. e. the author of all, i. e. of all possible,
consolation. God is the author of consolation not only by
delivering us from evil, or by ordering our external circumstances, but also, and chiefly, by his inward influence on the
mind itself, assuaging its tumults and filling it with joy and
peace in believing. Rom. 15, 13.
4. Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that
we may be able to comfort them  which are in any
trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are
comforted of God.
(Us here refers to the apostle himself. Throughout this
chapter he is speaking of his own personal trials and consolations. He blessed God as the author of comfort, because he
had experienced his consolations. And the design, he adds,
of God in afflicting and in consoling was to qualify him for
the office of a consoler of the afflicted. In this design Paul
acquiesced; he was willing to be thus afflicted in order to be
the bearer of consolation to others. A life of ease is commonly stagnant. It is those who suffer much and who expe.
rience much of the comfort of the Holy Ghost, who live
much. Their life is rich in experience and in resources. In
all our tribulation, i. e. on account of (art). His tribulation
was the ground or reason why God comforted him. The
apostle was one of the most afflicted of men. He suffered
from hunger, cold, nakedness, stripes, imprisonment, from
perils by sea and land, from robbers, from the Jews, from the




6            II. CORINTHIANS  1, 5.
heathen, so that his life was a continued death, or, as he expressed it, he died daily. Besides these external afflictions
he was overwhelmed with cares and anxiety for the churches.
And as though all this were not enough, he had "a thorn in
the flesh, a messenger of Satan," to buffet him. See 11, 24-30,
and 12, 7. In the midst of all these trials God not only sustained him, but filled him with such a heroic spirit that he
actually rejoiced in being thus afflicted. "I take pleasure,"
he says, "in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake; for when I am weak,
then am I strong," 12, 10. This state of mind can be experienced only by those who are so filled with the love of Christ,
that they rejoice in every thing, however painful to themselves, whereby his glory is promoted. And where this state
of mind exists, no afflictions can equal the consolations by
which they are attended, and therefore the apostle adds, that
he was enabled to comfort those who were in any kind of
affliction by the comfort wherewith he was comforted of God.
5. For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so
our consolation aboundeth by Christ.
This is a confirmation of what precedes.'We are able to
comfort others, for our consolations are equal to our sufferings.'  The suferings of Christ, do not mean'sufferings
on account of Christ,' which the force of the genitive case
does not admit; nor sufferings which Christ endures in his
own members; but such sufferings as Christ suffered, and
which his people are called upon to endure in virtue of
their union. with him and in order to be like him. Our Lord
said to his disciples, "Ye shall indeed drink of my cup, and
be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized with,"
Matt. 20, 23. Paul speaks of his fellotwship, or participation
in the sufferings of Christ, Phil. 3, 10; and the apostle Peter
calls upon believers to rejoice, inasmuch as they are "partakers of Christ's sufferings," 1 Peter 4, 24. Comp. Rom. 8,
17. Col. 1, 24. Gal. 6, 17. In many other passages it is taught
that believers must share in the sufferings, if they are to be
partakers of the glory of Christ. So, i. e. in equal measure,
our consolation aboundeth through Christ. As union with
Christ was the source of the afflictions which Paul endured,
so it was the source of the abundant consolation which he enjoyed. This makes the great difference between the sorrows




II. CORINTHIANS  1, 6.7.                   7
of believers and those of unbelievers. Alienation from Christ
does not secure freedom from suffering, but it cuts us off
from the only source of consolation. Therefore the sorrow
of the world worketh death.
6, 7. And whether we be afflicted, (it is) for your
consolation and salvation, which is effectual to the en-l
during of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or
whether we be comforted, (it is) for your consolation
and salvation.   And our hope of you (is) stedfast,
knowing that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so
(shall ye be) also of the consolation.
Although the ancient manuscripts differ very much in the
order in which the several clauses of these verses are arranged, yet the sense expressed in all is substantially the
same. The text adopted by Beza, Griesbach, Knapp, Meyer,
&c., on the authority of the manuscripts A, C, and several of
the ancient versions, reads thus, "'Whether we be afflicted,
(it is) for your consolation and salvation; whether we are
comforted, (it is) for your consolation, which is effectual in
enduring the same sufferings which we also suffer; and our
hope of you is stedfast, knowing that as ye are partakers of
the suffering, so also (shall ye be) of the consolation." The
reading adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Riickert and others, differs from the common text in placing the clause our
hope of you is stedfast, immediately after the first member
of the sentence, and before the words, whether we are comforted. For this arrangement are the MSS. B, D, E, F, G, I.
The reading of Beza gives the text in its simplest and most
perspicuous form. In either way the main idea is,' Whether
we be afflicted, it is for your good; or whether we be comforted, it is for your good.' All the rest is subordinate. The
relation in which the apostle stood to the Corinthians was
such that he felt assured that they would share both in his
sufferings and in his consolation, and therefore experience
the benefit of bath. It was not that Paul's constancy in suff'ering set them a good example; nor simply that Paul suffired in behalf of the Gospel, and therefore for the benefit of
others; nor does he mean merely that the experience of the
Cor'inthians would cor'eISplond to his, if they were similarly




&           II. CORINTHIANS  1, 6. 7.
afflicted, they would be similarly comforted; but the main
idea is that such was the intimate bond between them and
him that he had a firm hope they would be partakers both of
his affliction and of his consolation. Though this appears to
be the primary idea of the passage, the others are not to be
excluded. Paul no doubt felt, and intended to intimate, that
his diversified experience would redound to their advantage
by qualifying him -more abundantly for his work, and especially for the office of consoling them in the afflictions which they,
as well as he, would be called to endure.  Whether we be afflicted (it is) for your consolation and salvation; i. e. my
afflictions will contribute to your consolation and salvation.
To the former, because those whom God afflicts, or, who suffer for Christ's sake and with Christ's people, God never fails
to console; to the latter, because suffering and salvation are
so intimately connected. " If we suffer with him we shall also
be glorified together," Rom. 8, 17. It is not of suffering as
suffering that the apostle here speaks. There is no tendency
in pain to produce holiness. It is only of Christian suffering
and of the sufferings of Christians, that is, of suffering endured
for Christ and in a Christian manner, that the apostle says it
is connected with salvation, or that it tends to work out for
those who suffer an eternal weight of glory.  Or whether we
be comforted it is for your consolation. That is, our consolation is also yours. If we are consoled, so are you. If we suffer together, we rejoice together. Or, if you suffer as I do,
you will enjoy similar consolation. My being consoled enables me to console you. According to the common text the
reading here is, "your consolation and salvation."  But the
repetition of the words and salvation is not sustained by some
of the oldest manuscripts, and they do not cohere so well with
the following clause; as it can hardly be said that "salvation is effectual in enduring affliction." On these grounds, as
before remarked, Beza and many other editors omit the words
in question.  Which is ejfectual; that is, which consolation
is operative or efficacious, not to the enduring, as in our version, but in the enduring (Ev V7roE0ov.j).  This consolation
shows its efficacy in the patient endurance of suffering. According to another interpretation EvEpyov1WEV?)s is taken passively, which is wrought out. The sense would then be good,'This consolation is wrought out or experienced in patient
endurance.' But as Paul always uses this word actively, the
rendering adopted in our version is generally and properly




II. CORINTHIANS  1, 8.                    9
preferred.  The same sufferings which I also sufer.  The
sufferings of the Corinthians were the same with those cf the
apostle, because they sympathized in his afflictions, because
they in a measure suffered as he did, and because their sufferings were "the sufferings of Christ," in the same sense that
his were. They were not only such sufferings as Christ endured, but they were incurred because those who suffered
were Christians. And our hope of you is stedfast. That is,'we have a stedfast hope that you will be partakers of our
consolation.' Knowing, i. e. because we know, that as ye are
partakers of the suferings, so also of the consolation. The
two go together. Those who share in our sorrows, share in
our joys. There are two ideas apparently united here as in
the preceding context. The one is that the sufferings of the
apostle were also the sufferings of the Corinthians because of
the union between them. The other is, that his readers were
in their measure exposed to the same kind of sufferings. In
this twofold sense they were the KOLVwo4O, the communicants
or joint-partakers of his joys and sorrows.
8. For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant
of our trouble, which came to us in Asia, that we were
pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that
we despaired even of life.
The apostle confirms from the facts of his recent history,
what he had said of his afflictions. Asia is probably to be
understood here in reference to proconsular Asia, which comprehended the western provinces of Asia Minor, viz., Mysia,
Lydia, Caria, and part of Phrygia. What afflictions and dangers the apostle here refers to is uncertain. It is generally
assumed that he alludes to the uproar in Ephesus, of which
mention is made in Acts 19, 23-41. But to this it is objected
that Paul does not appear to have been in personal danger
during that tumult; that instead of saying in Asia he would
probably have said in Ephesus, had he referred to that special
event; and that the language used seems obviously to imply
a succession and continuance of severe trials. Others think
that the reference is to some severe illness. But there is
nothing in the context to indicate that particular form of af.
fliction. Neither could illness naturally be included under
the " afflictions of Christ," under which head the apostle corn




10          II. CORINTHIANS 1, 9.
prehends all the afflictions to which in this connection he re.
fers. The probability is that he alludes to trials of different
kinds, and especially to plots and attempts against his life.
Hie was surrounded by enemies, Jews and heathen, who thirsted for his blood. And we know, as remarked above, that the
Acts of the Apostles contains the record of only a small portion of his afflictions.  That we were pressed, i3apr7r-Ev, we
were burdened. The allusion is to a wearied animal that sinks
in despair under a burden beyond its strength. Out of measure, above strength; if thus separated, the former of these
phrases refers to the character of his afflictions in themselves,' they were excessive;' and the latter, expresses their relation
to his ability to bear them. Absolutely, they were too great,
relatively, they were above his strength. Many commentators make the former qualify the latter, " We were burdened
far beyond our strength" (KaS' ZrmEpfloXJv V7r~p 8vvab/v). Insomuch that we despaired even of life. The expression is intensive, k$abrop-rqivat, to be utterly at a loss, or, absolutely
without a way (ro'pos) of escape. It seemed impossible to the
apostle that he could escape from the enemies who beset him
on every side. These enemies were not only men, but perils
and trials of all kinds.
9. But we had the sentence of death in ourselves,
that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who
raiseth the dead.
So far fromn expecting to live, the apostle says, on the contrary (aXXa) he had in himself the sentence of death. This
may mean that he was as one who was actually condemned to
die. God appeared to have passed upon him the sentence of
death, from which there could be no reprieve. This supposes
a7roKp'LLa to have the sense of KaTaKptIua. This meaning of the
word is very doubtful. It properly signifies response, answer.' We had in ourselves the answer of death.' That is, when he
put to himself the question, whether life or death was to be
the issue of his conflicts, the answer whs, Death! In other
words, he did not expect to escape with his life. God brought
him into these straits in order that he might not trust in himself; but in God who raiseth the dead. These two things are
so connected that the fbrmler is the necessary condition of the
latter. There is no stch thing as implicit confidence or reli



II. CORINTHIANS  1, 10.11.               II
ance on God, until we renounce all confidence in ourself.
When Paul was convinced that no wisdom nor efforts of his
own could deliver him. from death, then he was forced to rely
on the power of God. God is here described as he who raiseth the dead, because the apostle's deliverance was a deliverance from death. It was only that Being who could call
the dead to life who could rescue him from the imminent peril
in which he was placed. So when Abraham's faith was put
to the severe trial of believing what was apparently impossible, it is said, "He believed God who quickeneth the dead,
and calleth those things which be not as though they were,"
Rom. 4, 17. Comp. Heb. 11, 19. No man until he is tried
knows how essential the omnipotence of God is as a ground
of confidence to his people. They are often placed in circumnstances where nothing short of an almighty helper can give
them peace.
10. Who delivered us from so great a death, and
doth deliver: in whom we trust that he will yet deliver (us).
Paul's trust in God was not disappointed. He did deliver
him from such a death, i. e. one so fearful and apparently so
inevitable. It is evident from the whole context that the
apostle had not only been in imminent peril, but exposed to a
more than ordinarily painful death. Whether this was from
disease or from enemies is a matter of conjecture. The latter
is the more probable. Though he had been delivered from
the instant and fearful death with which he was threatened,
the danger was not over. The machinations of his enemies
followed him wherever he went. He therefore says that God
had not only delivered, but that he continued to deliver him.
He was still beset with danger. He was however confident
for the future. For he adds, in whom we trust, cts gv AX7TL'KapLEV,
on whom we have placed our hope that he will also henceforth
deliver. He did, he does, he will, deliver, ppvco-aro, pvEraL,
pvaEraL. The experience of past deliverances and mercies is
the ground of present peace and of confidence for the future.
These words of Paul sound continually in the ears of the people of God in all times of emergency.
11. Ye also helping together by prayer for us, that




12          II. CORINTHIANS  1 11.
for the gift (bestowed) upon us by the means of many
persons, thanks may be given by many on our behalf.
Intercessory prayer has great power, otherwise Paul
would not so often solicit it on his own behalf, and enjoin the
duty on his readers. His confidence in his safety for the future was not founded simply on the experience of God's past
mercy, but also on the prayers of Christians in his behalf.
God will yet deliver me, he says, you also helping together by
prayer. That is, provided you join your prayers with those
of others for my safety. Helping together probably refers to
their co-operation in the work of intercession with other
churches, rather than with the apostle himself. The design
of God in thus uniting his people in praying for each other
when in affliction or danger, is that the deliverance may bB
matter of common gratulation and praise. Thus all hearts
are drawn out to God and Christian fellowship is promoted.
This is expressed in the latter part of this verse; that, i. e. in
order that the gift being bestowed on us by means of many
(W8L 7roXX&v) thanks may be rendered by many ((K 7roXXiWv).
In the Greek it is CK 7roXXkwv rpoo-'rwv, which most commentators render as our translators do, by many persons. The
word rrpcionwrov, however, always elsewhere in the New Testament means face or presence, which sense many retain here.'That thanks may be rendered from many (upturned) faces.'
According to the interpretation given above, the words &ta
7roXXkv are connected with To Xaptcrixa, "the favour to us by
means of many;" and {K 7roX&WvV TrpoVcruwrwv with EvXapeo.9l,'thanks may be rendered by many persons (or faces).' This
gives a good sense, and is perhaps better suited to the force
of the prepositions'K and 8ta. It is more correct to say that
the' favour was (8Ld) by means of many,' i. e. by means of
their prayer, than that it'was (&K) out of, or by,' as expressing the efficient cause. The order of the clauses, however,
favours the connection adopted by our translators,'The favour was by many persons, and the thanks to be rendered by
means of many.' This construction of the sentence is also
sanctioned by the majority of commentators.
The apostle's defence against the charge of inconstancy
Vs. 12-24.
Paul had informed the Corinthians that it was his purpose




II. CORINTHIANS  1, 12.                  13
to go direct from Ephesus to Corinth, thence into Macedonia,
and back again to Corinth, v. 16. This plan he had been induced to modify before the former epistle was sent, as in
1 Cor. 16, 5 he tells them he would not visit them  until he
had passed through Macedonia. On this slight ground his
enemies in Corinth represented him as saying one thing and
meaning another. They seem also to have made this an occasion for charging him with like inconsistency in doctrine.
If his word could not be depended on in small matters, what
dependence could be placed on his preaching?  Paul shows
there was no levity or insincerity involved in this change of
his plans, and no inconsistency in his preaching; but that to
spare them he had deferred his visit to Corinth, vs. 12-24.
12. For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our
conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not
in fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have
had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.
The connection between this verse and what precedes, as
indicated by the particle for, is,'I look for your sympathy in
my afflictions, and for your prayers in my behalf, for my conscience bears testimony to the simplicity and sincerity of my
conversation among you.' Unless we are conscious of integrity towards others, we cannot be assured of their confidence in
us. Our rejoicing, says Paul, is this, the testimony of our
conscience. This may mean that the testimony of conscience
was the ground of his rejoicing. This assumes a metonymical
sense of the KaVXrcqLs,  a meaning which is often attributed to
the word. But as the word may express the inward feeling
of exultation as well as the outward expression of it, which
latter is its proper sense, the meaning may be (without assuming any metonomy),'My joyful confidence consists in the
consciousness of sincerity.' The testimony of the conscience
is consciousness; and that of which Paul was conscious was
integrity. And that consciousness sustained and elevated
him. It was in its nature a joy. What follows is explanatory. His conscience testified that in simplicity and godly sincerity, &c. The word ~arXo'Tr  means singleness of mind, the
opposite of duplicity. The ancient manuscripts A, B, C, read




14          II. CORINTHIANS  1, 12.
aytOTvs, purity or sanctity, which the recent editors generally
adopt. The former word is much more common in Paul's
writings, and is better suited to the following term, EXlKptveta,
which means translucence, clearness, sincerity of mind. It is
called the sincerity of God, which our translators explain as
meaning godly sincerity, either in the sense of religious, as
distinguished from mere natural sincerity as a moral virtue;
or in the sense of divine, what comes from God. The latter
is the true explanation. It is the sincerity which God gives.
The Bible often uses such expressions as "the peace of God,"
"joy of the Spirit," &c., meaning the peace or Jy of which
God or the Spirit is the author. There is a specific difference
between moral virtues and spiritual graces, although they are
called by the same names. Simplicity, sincerity, meekness,
long-suffering, when the fruits of the Spirit differ from the
moral virtues designated by those terms, as many external
things, though similar in appearance, often differ in their inward nature. A religious man and a moral man may be very
much alike in the eyes of men, though the inward life of the
latter is human, and that of the former is divine. What Paul
means here to say is, that the virtues which distinguished his
deportment in Corinth were not merely forms of his own excellence, but forms of the divine life; modes in which the
Spirit of God which dwelt in him manifested itself. This is
expressed more clearly in what follows. NVot in fleshly wisdom, that is, not in that wisdom which has its origin in our
own nature. The familiar meaning of the word flesh in the
New Testament, especially in the writings of St. Paul, is human nature as it now is, as distinguished from the Spirit of
God. " Ye are not in the flesh," says this apostle, " but in
the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you," Rom.
8, 9. As our nature is corrupt, natural or fleshly necessarily
involves more or less the idea of corruption. The natural
man, carnal mind, fleshly wsdom, all imply that idea more or
less, according to the context. Fleshly wisdom, therefore, is
that kind of wisdom which unrenewed men are wont to exhibit, wisdom guided by principles of self-interest or expedi.
ency. It stands opposed to the grace of God. Paul was not
guided by the former, but by the latter. The grace of God
controlled his conduct; and by grace is here meant, as so
often elsewhere, the gracious influences of the Spirit.  IVe
have had our conversation;  a'vEcrTpad/Erv, we moved about, we
-onducted ourselves. The expression includes all the mani



II. CORINTHIANS  1, 13. 14.              15
festations of his inward life. In the world, i. e. among men
generally; and more especially to you-ward. That is, the
evidence of my sincerity is much more abundant to you than
to others. The Corinthians had enjoyed more opportunities
of learning the character of the apostle, and of seeing his sim-plicity and integrity, than the world, or men outside of the
church, had possessed. He could therefore the more confidently assume that they confided in him.
13. 14. For we write none other things unto you,
than what ye read or acknowledge, and I trust ye shall
acknowledge even to the end; as also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing,
even as ye also (are) ours in the day of the Lord
Jesus.
The same sincerity and honesty marked his correspondence that characterized his life. He never wrote one thinog
and meant another. The connection with the preceding verse
is,' We are perfectly honest, for we write none other things
than what ye read.'.The simple, obvious meaning of my letter, is the true meaning. I write, i. e. I mean none other
things than what you understand me to intend when you
read my letters, or know from other sources. The word
VrTLLVO-cKETE may be rendered as in our version, ye acknowledge. The sense would then be,'I mean nothing else but
what you read or acknowledge to be my meaning.' But this
is not so clear. The design of the apostle is to show that his
purposes really were what his letters indicated, or what the
Corinthians, by other means, had been led to understand them
to be. The words are, "Ye read, or also (a) Kat) know," and.[ trust ye shall acknowledge to the encld. This clause may be
connected with what precedes.'I mean what you know, and
I trust shall continue to acknowledge, to be my meaning.'
That is,'I have confidence that you will not misunderstand
or misinterpret my intentions until we all come to the end;'
o'Ws E'Xovs, to the end, either of life, or of the world. A much
better sense is obtained by connecting this clause with what
follows, so that the clause ('Tt KaVXcl'a, Vplv  ECrv), that we are
your rejoicing, is the object of the verb (iErLyvcWrG-c3E) ye shall




16        II. CORINTHIANS  1, 15.16.
acknowledge.'I trust ye shall acknowledge unto tLe end
(as ye have acknowledged us in part), that we are your rejoicing.' The verb &L7TVEGLKELV combines the ideas of recognition and of complete knowledge. The words in part are
most naturally referred to the Corinthians, ye in part, i. e. a
part of you. Paul knew that there were some in Corinth
who did not rejoice in him.  Others understand them to
qualify the verb. It was only a partial recognition of him
that the Corinthians had as yet manifested. Compare 1 Cor.
13, 12, "I know in part." This, however, would give a tone
of reproach to the language which is foreign to the character of the passage.  We are your rejoicing, i. e. the ground
of your exultation and delight. As ye also ours, in the day
of the -Lord Jesus. Paul believed that in the day of the Lord
Jesus the Corinthians would rejoice over him as he would rejoice over them. In that day they would appreciate the
blessedness of having had him for their teacher, as he would
rejoice in having had them for his converts. The joy, however, which he anticipated in its fulness when Christ should
come, was in a measure already theirs.' We are, and shall
be, your rejoicing, as ye are and shall be ours, in the day of
the Lord Jesus.' Instead of rendering ort in the above clause
that many commentators render it because. This gives a different sense to the whole passage.'We hope you will acknowledge-because we are your rejoicing, as ye are ours.'
This, however, leaves the verb acknowledge without an object.
What were they to acknowledge? We may indeed supply
from the context the words our sincerity, but it is more natural
so to construe the passage as to avoid the necessity of supplying any thing. The sense also is better according to the common interpretation. Paul does not design to prove that the
Corinthians confided in him because he was their rejoicing,
which would be to prove a thing by itself.
15. 16. And in this confidence I was minded to
come to you before that ye might have a second benefit; to pass by you into Macedonia, and to come again
out of Macedonia unto you, and of you to be brought
on my way to Judea.
And in this confidence, that is, in the confidence that we




II. CORINTHIANS  1, 17.                 17
are your rejoicing, Paul was not afraid to go to Corinth.
He did not doubt that the great majority of the church would
receive him with confidence and affection. The change in the
plan of his journey arose, as he afterwards states, from very
different motives. Paul says he was minded, i. e. intended to
come to them before, i. e. before going to Macedonia; that ye
might have a second benefit, i. e. the benefit of seeing me
twice, once before going to Macedonia, and again after my
return. The other explanation of this passage is, that second
here refers to his first visit to Corinth. The first benefit was
their conversion, the second would be the good effects to be
anticipated from another visit. But it appears from 12, 14
and other passages that Paul had already been twice in
Corinth, and therefore he could not speak of his intended
visit as the second; and the word second here evidently
refers to the word before. He was to see them before and
after going to Macedonia.  Benefit, Xaplv, grace, a term
generally in the New Testament used of religious blessings.
The word sometimes signifies joy, so the sense here may
be,'That ye might have the pleasure of seeing me twice.'
The former explanation is not only better suited to the common use of the word, but also gives a higher sense. And
of you to be brought on my way to Judea.  llpovrepr1vat,
to be brought on my way, i. e. to be aided in my journey.
The word often, and perhaps most frequently, means to escort
on a journey, or to furnish with the means of travelling.
Acts 15, 3. 20, 38. &c. In ancient times when there were no
established modes of travelling, it was customary for the
friends of the traveller in one city to send him forward to the
next, or at least to escort him on his way. This office of
friendship Paul was willing and desirous to receive at the
hands of the Corinthians. He was not alienated from them.
And his purpose to seek this kindness from them was a proof
of his confidence in their affection for him.
17. When therefore I was thus minded did I use
lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose
according to the flesh, that.with me there should be
yea, yea, and nay, nay?
Paul did not execute the plan of his journey above indicated. His having changed his purpose was made the ground




318         II. CORINTHIANS  1, 17.
of a twofold charge against him; first, of levity, and secondly,
of inconsistency; saying one thing, and doing another; or
saying one thing at one time, and the opposite at another, so
that he was utterly untrustworthy either as a man or as a
teacher. This was indeed a slight foundation on which to
rest such a charge. It is no wonder therefore that it excited
the apostle's indignation. The first charge is that he used
lightness, i. e. that in purposing to visit Corinth and in announcing his-purpose he had no serious intention of doing
what he promised. It was a careless, inconsiderate avowal
such as none but a man of levity would make. In the Greek
the article is used (T, kXaafp(?) the lightness, which may mean,
the lightness with which they charged him; or that which
belongs to our nature; or it may have no more force than
when used in other cases before abstract nouns. Or the things
that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh?  The
first charge related to the past, did I use lightness? This
relates to his general character.'Am I habitually governed
in my plans by the flesh,' i. e. am I influenced and controlled
by those considerations which govern ordinary men, who have
nothing to guide them but their own corrupt nature? The
word flesh here, as in v. 12, stands for our whole nature, considered as distinguished from the Spirit of God. All who are
not spiritual (governed by the Spirit) are, according to the
Scripture, carnal (governed by the flesh). What Paul therefore intends to deny in these two questions, is that his original
purpose of visiting Corinth was formed in levity, and secondly, that his plans in general were controlled by worldly or
selfish considerations.  That with me there should be yea, yea,
and nay, nay.  ThMat (Zva) here expresses the result, not the
design.'Do I so act after the flesh that the consequence
is,' &c. The repetition of the particles yea, yea, and nay, nay,
is simply intensive, as in Matthew 5, 37, "' Let your communication be yea, yea, and nay, nay."  The meaning, therefore,
is,'Do I affirm and deny the same thing?  Do I say both
yes and no at the same time and in reference to the same
subject? Is no dependence to be placed on my word?' This
is the common interpretation and the one demanded by the
context. Many commentators from Chrysostom downwards
give a very different view of the passage. They understand
the apostle to defend himself for his change of plan by saying
that he was not like men of the world who obstinately adhered to their purposes, without regard to the manifested will




II. CORINTHIANS  1, 18.                  19
of God, so that with him a yea should be yea, and a nay, nay,
let what would be the consequence. But in the 18th v. this
interpretation is impossible, because it is there simply "yea
and nay." That verse therefore determines the meaning of
this. Besides, what he goes on to defend himself against is
not a charge of obstinacy, but of saying first one thing and
then another. Luther's translation assumes still another interpretation. "Are my purposes carnal? Not so, but my
yea is yea, and my nay is nay." But this arbitrarily introduces into the text what is not expressed, and thus changes
the whole sense.
18. But as God is true, our word towards you was
not yea and nay.
That is,'My preaching, or the doctrine which I preached,
was not inconsistent and contradictory. I did not preach first
one thing and then another.' This sudden transition from the
question as to his veracity as a man to his consistency as a
preacher, shows two things; first, that his enemies had
brought both charges against him, founding the latter on the
former; and secondly, that Paul was much more concerned
for the gospel than for his own reputation. They might accuse him, if they pleased, of breaking his word; but when
they charged him with denying Christ, that was a very different affair. He therefore drops the first charge and turns abruptly to the second.' Whatever you may think of my veracity as a man, as God is true, my preaching was not yea and
nay,' i. e. unworthy of confidence. As God is true. The
words are, God is faithful, that, &c. Comp. 1 Cor. 1, 9. 10,
13. 1 Thess. 5, 24. They may be understood as an appeal to
the fidelity of God as the ground and evidence of the truth
and reliableness of his preaching.'God is faithful, that our
preaching is not yea and nay.' That is, his fidelity secures
the trustworthiness of the gospel. It is his word and therefore is unchangeably true. It abideth forever.' If,' says the
apostle,' there is no dependence to be placed on my word,
God is trustworthy. My preaching, which is his word, is to
be relied upon. That is not yea and nay, but firm and true.'
It must be admitted, however, that this interpretation is constrained; it is not the simple meaning of the words. The
passage must be paraphrased to get this sense out of it. It is




20          II. CORINTHIANS  1, 18.
perhaps better with our translators, after Calvin, Beza, and
many other commentators, ancient and modern, to take the
words as an asseveration. So true as God is faithful, so true
is it, that, &c. Comp. 11, 10,  TLav   cLX3ELta XpLo-To  v  /ot',
OTt. Rom. 14, 11,    E7Y —;OtL, as   live —every knee shall bow
to me. Judith 12, 4, t- v fvXyr oov —oit. It is therefore according to the usage of the language to understand rt-T~o~s 
EdOs —5oL as an oath, and the sense given is much more natural. An oath is an act of worship. To predict that men shall
everywhere swear by the name of Jehovah, Is. 65, 16, is to
predict that Jehovah shall everywhere be worshipped. Men
may, therefore, appeal to God for the truth of what they say
on any solemn occasion, if they do it devoutly as an act of
worship. It is a formal recognition of his being, of his omniscience, of his holiness and power, and of his moral government. Our Lord himself did not refuse to answer when put
upon his oath, Matt. 27, 63; and the apostles often call on
God to witness the truth of their declarations. When, therefore, our Saviour commands us, " Swear not at all," he must
be understood to forbid profane swearing, that is, calling on
God in an irreverent manner and on trivial occasions. That
our word towards you was not yea and nay; b Xd'yos r'jxWv.
This may mean our preaching, I Cor. 1, 17. 2, 1. 4, and often;
or, our word generally, i. e. what I said. The apostle may be
understood to assert the truth and consistency of his instructions as a teacher, or the trustworthiness of his declarations
and promises as a man. The decision depends on the context.
In favour of the latter it is urged that the charge against him,
as intimated in v. 17, was that of breaking his promise, and
therefore to make this verse refer to his preaching is to make
him evade the point entirely. But the following verses, which
are intimately connected with the one before us, clearly refer
to matters of doctrine, and therefore this verse must have the
same reference. The sudden transition from the charge of
levity in v. 17, to that of false doctrine in v. 18, as before remarked, is sufficiently accounted for from the association of
the two charges in the minds of his enemies. They said he
was not to be depended upon as a preacher, because he had
shown himself to be untrustworthy as a man. " As God is
true, my preaching is true." The one is as true as the other.
Hence in Gal. 1, 8 he pronounces an angel accursed should he
preach another gospel. Paul's confidence in the truth of the
gospel as he preached it was one and the same with his confi



II. CORINTHIANS  1, 19.                 21
dence in God. To tell him that his preaching was not to be
depended upon, was in his mind the same as to say that God
was not to be believed; for he knew that he was the infallible
organ of God in all his teaching. 1 John 5, 10.
19. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was
preached among you by us, (even) by me and Silvanus
and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.
My preaching is true, for Christ is true. There is no contradiction, no yea and nay, in him, therefore there is no contradiction in my doctrine. There was no room in Paul's mind
for doubt as to his preaching being a trustworthy exhibition
of the person and work of Christ, and therefore if Christ be
one and the same, i. e. self-consistent truth, so was his doctrine or teaching. With such self-evidencing light and irresistible conviction does the Spirit attend his communications
to the human mind. Even in ordinary religious experience,
the testimony of the Spirit becomes the testimony of consciousness. Much more was this the case when plenary inspiration
was combined with the sanctifying power of the truth. The
Son of God, Jesus Christ; that is, Christ, who is the Son of
God, the same in nature with the eternal Father, and because
he is the Son, and, therefore, eternally and immutably true,
was not yea and nay. There was nothing in him contradictory or untrustworthy. This Christ was preached in Corinth
by Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus. These persons are mentioned because the apostle probably refers to his first visit to
Corinth when they were his companions. Acts 18, 5. His
appeal is to the experience of his readers. They had found
Christ to be the way, the truth and the life. He had been
made unto them wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. 1 Cor. 1, 32. By Christ here the apostle does
not mean the doctrine of Christ. He does not intend to assert simply that there was perfect consistency in his own
preaching, and that it agreed with the preaching of his associates. The truth asserted is that Christ, the Son of God, had
not been manifested among them, or experienced by them to
be unsatisfying or uncertain, but in him was yea. That is,
he was simple truth. In himna, i. e. in Christ, was truth. He
proved himself to be all that was affirmed of him. He was
and continued to be (yEyovEv) all that they had been led to




22          II. CORINTHIANS  1, 20.
expect. Let, therefore, what will become of me and of my
reputation for veracity, Christ is the same yesterday, to-day,
and forever.
20. For all the promises of God in him are yea,
and in him amen, unto the glory of God by us.
This verse is the confirmation of what precedes. Christ
was, and is, not yea and nay, not uncertain and inconsistent,
for in him all the promises of God were fulfilled. All that
God had promised relative to the salvation of man met its full
accomplishment in him. Instead of, all the promises, the
Greek is, as many promises. That is, as many promises as
had from the beginning been made as to what the Messiah
was to be and to do. In him -were the yea. That is, in him
they found their affirmation or accomplishment. The article
(TO vat), the yea, has reference to the promises. Christ, as regards the promises of God, was the yea, i. e. their affirmation
and accomplishment. And in him  the Amen. This is saying in Hebrew what had just been said in Greek; Amen being equivalent to yea. It is not unusual with the sacred
writers to give solemn or impressive formulas in both languages. The promises of God are amen in Christ, because he
is the sum and substance of them. I-He says in a sense which
includes the idea here expressed, "I am the truth," John 14,
6; and in Rev. 3, 7 he is designated as "He that is true;"
and in Rev. 3, 14 he is called, "The Amen, the faithful and
true witness." The common text, which is expressed in our
version, has the support of the manuscripts D, E, I, K, which
read Kal iv avTi, and in him. A, B, C, F, G have 8to Kal' 8
avTOV, wherefore also through him the Amen. This reading,
which most recent editions adopt, was preferred by Calvin,
who renders the passage, quare et per ipsum sit Amen. The
Vulgate has the same reading, ideo et per ipsum Amen. The
sense thus expressed is certainly better and fuller. The verse
then teaches not only that the promises of God receive their
confirmation in Christ, but also that we experience and assent
to their truth. We say Amen, it is even so, to all God had
promised, when we come to know Christ. To the glory of
God by us. As these words are commonly pointed the natural interpretation is, that by us, i. e. by the preaching of the
apostles, men are brought thus to say Ameii to the divine
promises, to the glory of God. God is glorified by the faith




II. CORINTHIANS  1, 21. 22.               23
in his promises thus expressed. The words, however, admit
of a different construction.  By us may be connected with
the first part of the clause.'The Amen is said by us to the
glory of God.' This may mean,' We Christians render a glad
assent to the promises thus ratified in Christ.' But us in the
immediate context refers to the apostles, and therefore cannot
be naturally here made to refer to Christians generally. Or,
the meaning may be,' By us apostles testimony is given to the
truth of the promises, to the glory of God.' This last-mentioned interpretation, however, is inconsistent with the scriptural use of the expression "to say Amen," which means simply to assent to, or to sanction. 1 Cor. 14, 16. The apostles
did not say Amen to the promises by preaching the gospel;
but through their preaching men were brought to say Amen;
that is, they were led to the joyful experience and avowal of
faith in what God had promised. In Christ, therefore, the
promises were fulfilled; and in him also men were brought,
through the apostles, joyfully to assent to them. Bengel's
pithy comment on this verse is: NTae respectn Dei promittentis, amen respectu credentium. "He that hath received his
testimony, hath set to his seal that God is true."  John 3, 33.
1 John 5, 9. 10. To receive God's testimony concerning his
Son, to say Amen, and to believe, all mean the same thing.
21. 22. Now he which stablisheth us with you in
Christ, and hath anointed us, (is) God; who hath also
sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our
hearts.
In the preceding verse the apostle had spoken of Christ as
the truth and substance of all the divine promises, and of the
cordial assent which believers gave to those promises; he here
brings into view God as the author and preserver of their
faith, who would assuredly grant them the salvation of which
he had already given them the foretaste and the pledge. Now
ne; or, but he who stablisheth us with you in Christ. The
word is 5o fPEfaLwv, who renders firm  or stedfast; i. e. who
causes us with you to stand firm, Eis XpL-oT4V, in reference to
Christ, so that we adhere to him with unshaken constancy.
As by the pronouns we and us, in what precedes, the apostle
had meant himself and Silas and Timothy, here where he has




24        II. CORINTIIIANS  1, 21. 22.
reference to all believers he unites them with himself, us with
you. The constancy in faith which God gave was not a gift
peculiar to teachers, but common to all true Christians. And
hath anointed us. Kings, prophets, and priests were anointed
When inaugurated in their several offices; to anoint may therefore mean to qualify by divine influence, and thereby to authorize any one to discharge the duties of any office. In
Luke 4, 18 our Lord applies to himself the language of Isaiah
61, 1, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath
anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor."  Acts 4, 27.
10, 38. "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy
Ghost."  In like manner Christians are spoken of as anointed,
because by the Spirit they are consecrated to God and qualified for his service.  1 John 2, 20. 27. When Paul says here,
hath anointed us, he means by us all Christians, and of course
the anointing to which he refers is that which is common to
all believers. This is plain, 1. Because the object of the two
participles, 8fE/3atLv and XpL'oa, here used, must be the same;'who establisheth ts, and hath anointed us.' But with the
former Paul expressly associates the Corinthians. He says,
us with you. They as well as he were the subjects of the
confirmation, and therefore also of the anointing. 2. What
follows of sealing and receiving the earnest of the Spirit, cannot with any propriety be restricted to ministers. 3. In the
New Testament official anointing is spoken of only in relation
to Christ, never of apostles or preachers; whereas believers
are said to receive the unction of the Holy Spirit. The design of the apostle is not, as some of the later commentators
say, to assert that God had given to him the assurance of the
Spirit as to his fidelity in preaching the gospel; but to show
that believers were indebted to God for their faith, and that he
would certainly cause them to persevere. Is G(od; God it is
who confirms and anoints his people. Comp. a, 5 for a similarly constructed passage. This is the common and natural
explanation. Billroth and Olshausen render it thus:'God,
who establishes and anointed us, also sealed us.' But this
makes the first part of the verse too subordinate; the sealing
is not the dominant idea. It is only one of the several benefits specified, It is God who establishes, anoints, seals and
gives the earnest of the Spirit.  T/ho also hath sealed us. A
seal is used, 1. To indicate proprietorship. 2. To authenticate or prove to be genuine. 3. To preserve safe or inviolate,




II. CORINTHIANS  1, 22.                   25
The Holy Spirit, which in one view is an unction, in another
view is a seal. He marks those in whom he dwells as belonging to God. They bear the seal of God upon them. Rev. 7,
2. 2 Tim. 2, 19. Act. Thom. ~ 26, o 3Eos 8ta'L -s airoD crcpayLoE7ry iLVtcTKEL eT 7-a  7a 7rpolaTa, God knows by his seal his own
sheep. He also bears witness in the hearts of believers that
they are the children of God. He authenticates them to
themselves and others as genuine believers. And he effectually secures them from apostasy and perdition. Eph. 1, 3. 4,
30. This last idea is amplified in the next clause; and hath
given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. The Holy
Spirit is itself the earnest, i. e. at once the foretaste and pledge
of redemption. The word lpdpa/3cv, pledge, is a Hebrew word,
which passed as a mercantile term, probably from the Phenician, into the Greek and Latin. It is properly that part of
the purchase money paid in advance, as a security for the remainder. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of
his people, is that part of the blessings of redemption, which
God gives them as a pledge of their full and final salvation.
So certain, therefore, as the Spirit dwells in us, so certain is
our final salvation. " If any man have not the Spirit of Christ,
he is none of his... But if the Spirit of him that raised up
Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ
from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his
Spirit that dwelleth in you," Rom. 8, 9-11. The indwelling
of the Spirit is therefore called the first-fruits of redemption.
Rom. 8, 23. Comp. Eph. 1, 14. 2 Cor. 5, 5. There is but one
thing stated in these verses, and that is that God establishes
or renders his people firm and secure in their union with
Christ, and in their participation of the benefits of redemption.
How he does this, and the evidence that he does it, is expressed or presented by saying he hath anointed, sealed, and
given us the earnest of the Spirit. The indwelling of the
Spirit, therefore, renders the believer secure and steadfast; it
is his anointing; it is the seal of God impressed upon the soul,
and therefore the pledge of redemption. The fiuits of the
Spirit are the only evidence of his presence; so that while
those who experience and manifest those fruits may rejoice in
the certainty of salvation, those who are destitute of them
have no right to appropriate to themselves the consolation of
this and similar declarations of the word of God. The perse.
verance of the saints is a perseverance in holiness.




26        II. CORINTHIANS  1, 23. 24.
23. Moreover, I call God for a record upon my
soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth.
Paul here returns to the original charge. The complaint
against him for not having executed his purpose of going at
once from Ephesus to Corinth, he had left on one side to meet
the more serious charge of inconsistency in his teaching.
Having answered that accusation, he here says, But I sparing
you, i. e. for the sake of avoiding giving you pain, came not
again to Corinth. The obvious implication is, that such was
the state of things in Corinth that had he gone there immediately on leaving Ephesus, as he had originally intended, he
would have been obliged to appear among them with a rod.
1 Cor. 4, 21. It was to avoid that necessity, and to give them
the opportunity to correct abuses before he came, that he had
deferred his visit. As there was no available testimony by
which the apostle could prove that such was his motive, he
confirms it by an oath. I invoke God as a witness, i. e. I
call upon the omniscient God, who is the avenger of all perjury, to bear testimony to the truth of what I say. "An oath
for confirmation is the end of all strife," Heb. 6, 16. All the
bonds of society are loosened, and all security of life and property is lost, if men are not to be believed upon their oaths.
This shows that human society depends on the sanctity of
an oath; and as the oath derives all its sacredness from faith
in God, as the providential and moral governor of the world,
it is obvious that society cannot exist without religion. Su.
perstition and false religion, although great evils, are far bet.
ter than atheism. The words Ei7rj T.v silv fvX'v, rendered on
my soul, may mean against my soul; or, I summon God to
me as a witness. The latter idea includes the former, for, as
Calvin says, "He who uses God as a witness, cites the punish.
er of falsehood."'
24. Not for that we have dominion over your faith,
but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.
This is intended to moderate and explain what precedes.'When I speak of sparing you, I do not wish to intimate that I
consider myself the lord over your faith.' Not for that, ovX OTtL
equivalent to, I do not say that we have dominion over your
faith. Some say faith is here used for believers, (the abstract
for the concrete,) we have not dominion over believers; or, as




II. CORINTHIANS  1, 24.                   27
St. Peter says, are not lords over God's heritage. 1 Pet. 5, 3.
Others say faith here means faith-life; we have not dominion
over your Christian life. Both of these interpretations are
unnatural and unnecessary. The word is to be taken in its
ordinary sense. Paul disclaims all authority over their faith,
either as a man or as an apostle. It was not for him, and if
not for him, surely for no other man or set of men, to determine what they should believe. He called upon the Galatians
to denounce him, or even an angel from heaven, as accursed,
~fhe preached another gospel. Gal. 1, 8. Faith rests not on
the testimony of man, but on the testimony of God. When
we believe the Scriptures, it is not man, but God whom we
believe. Therefore faith is subject not to man but to God
alone. This is perfectly consistent with the plenary inspiration of the apostles, and with our confidence in them  as the
infallible witnesses of the truth. When a man speaks through
a trumpet, it is the man and not the trumpet that we believe.
Or when we read a printed page, we have confidence in the
trustworthiness of the words as symbols of thought, but it is
the mind expressed by those symbols with which we are in
communion. So the apostles were but the organs of the Holy
Ghost; what they spoke as such, they could not recall or
modify. What they should communicate was not under their
control; they were not the lords, so to speak, of the gospel,
so that they could make it what they pleased. Not at all;
they were as much subject to the communication which they
received, and as much bound to believe what they were made
the instruments of teaching, as other men. Paul therefore
places himself alongside of his brethren, not over them as a
lord, but as a joint-believer with them in the gospel which he
preached, and a helper of their joy. That is, his office was to
co-operate with them in the promotion of their spiritual welfare, It was not the end of the apostleship to give pain or to
inflict punishment, but to promote the real happiness of the
people. For by faith ye stand. The meaning of this clause
is doubtful. Taken by themselves the words may mean,' Ye
stand firm or independently as to faith.' This would suit the
connection as indicated by for.' We are not lords over your
faith, but merely helpers, for you stand independently as to
faith.' Or the meaning may be what is expressed in our version,' Ye stand by faith.' Then the connection, as explained
by Calvin, is,'Since it is the effect and nature of faith to sustain or cause you to stand, it is absurd that it should be sub.




28         II. CORINTHIANS  1, 24.
ject to man, or that we should have dominion over your
faith.' This, however, is rather an obscure argument. According to Meyer the connection is with the immediately preceding words,' We are helpers of your joy, because ye are
steadfast as to faith.' That is, steadfastness in faith is necessary to joy. The most natural interpretation probably is that
given by Erasmus: fidei nomine nullum habemus in vos dominium, in qua perseveratis; sed est in vita quod in vobis correctum volebam.' Over vour faith I have no dominion, for in
that ye stand; but, when I speak of not sparing, I had reference to your conduct.' He had authority in matters of discipline, but not in matters of faith. As to the latter, he and
they were equally under subjection to the revelation of God.
He indeed, as the organ of the Spirit, could declare infallibly
what that revelation was, but he could not go counter to it,
and was to be judged by it. If the inspired apostles recognised not only their subjection to the word of God, but also
the iight of the people to judge whether their teachings were
in accordance with the supreme standard, it is most evident
that no church authority can make any thing contrary to
Scripture obligatory on believers, and that the ultimate right
to decide whether ecclesiastical decisions are in accordance
with the word of God, rests with the people. In other words,
Paul recognises, even in reference to himself, the right of private judgment.  He allowed any man to pronounce him
anathema, if he did not preach the gospel as it had been revealed and authenticated to the church. Quum eorum fidei
dominari se. negat, significat injustam hanc esse et minime
tolerandam  potestatem, imo tyrannidem in ecclesia. Fides
enim prorsus ab hominum jugo soluta, liberrimaque esse debet.
Notandum autem, quis loquatur: nam siquis omnino sit mortalium qui jus habeat tale dominiunm sibi vindicandi, Paulus
certe dignus hac prerogativa fuit, fatetur autem sibi non
competere. Itaque colligimus, fidem non aliam subjectionein
agnoscere, quam verbi D)ei: hominum imperio minime esse
oblloxiam. CALVIN.
~ —-- 0   — 00 --




II. CORINTHIANS  2, 1.                      29
CHAPTER  II.
The first paragraph, vs. 1-4, relates to the change of his plan of going immediately to Corinth. In vs. 5-11 he refers to the case of discipline
mentioned in his former letter. In vs. 12-14 he states why he did not
remain in Troas. And in vs. 14-17 he pours out his heart inll gratitude
to God for the continued triumph of the gospel.
Tihe true reason why the pijostle did not go inmmediately to
Corinth, and his views in rejfrence to the offender whose
excommunication] he had insisted upon in his former letter.
THERE is no change of subject in this chapter.  The apostle
after defending himself fiom the charge of levity in conduct
and inconsistency in doctrine, had said, in v. 23 of the preceding chapter, that he did not go to Corinth before giving
the church time to comply with the injunctions contained in
his former letter, because he did not wish to appear among
them as a judge. IIe here says, in amplification, that he had
determined not acain to visit Corinth under circumstances
which could only give lpain to the Corinthians and to himself.
lce knew that he could not give them  sorrow without being
himself grieved, and he was assured that if he was happy they
would share in his joy, vs. 1-4. The sorrow occasioned by
the insestuous person was not confined to the apostle, but
shared by the church.  He was satisfied with the course
which the church had pursued in reference to that case, and
was willing the offender should be restored to their fellowship
if they were, vs. 5-11. His anxiety about them was so great
that not finding Titus, from whom he expected to receive
intelligence, he was unable to remain at Troas, but passed
over into MIacedonia to meet him on his way, vs. 12. 13. The
intelligence which he received from Titus being favourable,
the apostle expresses in strong terms his gratitude to God
who always caused him to triumph, vs. 15-17.
1. But I determined this with myself, that I would
not come again to you in heaviness.
The connection is with what immediately precedes.'I
deferred my visit inl order to spare you, not that I assume to
be a lord over your faith, but a helper of your joy.  But the
true reason for my not coining w.as that I did not wish to




30           II. CORINTHIANS  2, 2.
come with heaviness.' The words'Kptva ~/Lav-r, rendered I
determined with myself, may mean simply I determine as to
myself. I had made up my mind; or,'I determined for mysely;' i. e. for my own sake. This perhaps is to be preferred.
The apostle thus delicately intimates that it was not merely to
spare them, but also himself, that he put off his visit. The
word this refers to the purpose which the apostle had formed,
and which is explained by the following infinitive, jq'eASEv,
not to come. Two explanations are given of the following
clause. According to the one, the meaning is,'I determined
that my second visit should not be with sorrow;' according
to the other,'I determined not a second time to visit you in
sorrow.' In the one case the implication is that Paul had, at
this time, been only once in Corinth; in the other, the passage
implies that he had already (i. e. after his first visit) been to
Corinth under circumstances painful to himself and to the
church. There are two reasons for preferring this latter view.
The first is, that according to the position of the words, as
given in all the older manuscripts, (/pu 7r Xtv Ev Xr  7rps 6rap
EX,3Ev,) the raXLtv, again, belongs to the whole clause and not
exclusively to EXMgev. The sense, therefore, is that he determined not a second time to come with sorrow, (he had done
that once.) The other reason is, that there is evidence from
other passages that Paul had been twice to Corinth before
this letter was written. See 12, 14. 21. 13, 1. That ttiere is
no mention in the Acts of this intermediate journey, is no sufficient reason for denying it, as the passages referred to are so
explicit. To make the second visit one by letter, as Calvin
(venerat enim semel per epistolam) and others have done, is
evidently unnatural. Having gone once to correct abuses and
to exercise severity, he was anxious not to have a second painful interview of the same kind, and therefore, instead of going
to them, as he had intended, directly from Corinth, he waited
to learn through Titus what had been the effect of his letter.
With heaviness, Ev XvTrq, with sorrow, i. e. causing sorrow to
you. This explanation is' required by the following verse,
otherwise the meaning would more naturally be in sorrow,
i. e. in a sorrowful state of mind, as the word Xv'rrq everywhere
else with Paul means a state of grief.
2. For if I make you sorry, who is he that maketh
tme glad, but the same that is made sorry by me?




II. CORINTHIANS  2, 3.                    31
This is the reason why he did not wish to come bringing
sorrow with him;' For if,' says he,' I make you sorry, who is
there to make me glad?  How can I be happy, if you are
afflicted? Unless my visit cause you joy, it can bring no joy
to me.' As inspiration leaves full play to all the characteristic
peculiarities of its subject, in reading the writings of inspired
men we learn not only the mind of the Spirit, but also the
personal character of the writers. The urbanity of the apostle
Paul, his refinement and courtesy, are just as plainly revealed
in his epistles as his intellectual power and moral courage.
The passage before us is one of many illustrations of the truth
of this remark, furnished by this epistle.  Who is he that
makceth me gladc, but the same that is macle sorry by me. The
singular is used, not because a particular individual, much less
because the incestuous person, is specially referred to, but because the case is stated in the form of a general proposition.'I cannot expect joy from one to whom I bring sorrow.'
Such was the apostle's love for the Corinthians that unless
they were happy he could not be happy. This is the natural
and commonly received interpretation of the passage. Chrysostom, and many of the ancient commentators, and some also
of the moderns, give a different view of its meaning.'Who
gives me joy, but he who allows himself (Xv7rov/JEvos as middle
and not passive) to be grieved by me.' That is, no one causes
m.e so much joy as he who is brought to repentance by me.
But this is obviously inconsistent with the context.  The
verse, as thus explained, gives no reason why Paul did not
wish to go to Corinth bringing sorrow. On the contrary, the
more of that kind of sorrow he brought with him, or was occasioned by his visit, the better. This interpretation would
make the apostle say, cI will not come with sorrow, for nothing gives me so much pleasure as to cause (godly) sorrow.'
To avoid this incongruity Olshausen says the connection is to
be thus understood: Paul determined that he would not come
with sorrow, because he feared that few of the Corinthians
would give him the happiness of seeing that they had been
made sorry by his former reproofs. But this makes the passage itself a reproof, an insinuation that they had not profited
by his first letter. This is contrary to the whole spirit of the
passage, which is overflowing with confidence and affection.
3. And I wrote this same unto you, lest, when I
2*




32          II. CORINTHIANS  2, 3.
came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I
ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all that my
joy is (the joy) of you all.
Having said that his motive for not coming at once to Corinth was to avoid giving them sorrow, he here adds,'And I
wrote what I did in my former letter that, when I came, I
might not have sorrow.' Instead of going in person to correct the evils which existed in the church of Corinth, he wrote
to them that those evils might be corrected before he came,
and thus his coming would be a source of joy to both parties.
It is evident from the preceding context, and from vs. 4 and
9, that Eypaca here refers not to this epistle, but to the former
one. This same, rTOTO arVTO, that very thing, that is, the very
thing which I did write respecting the incestuous person.
The expression seems to have special reference to that case,
because that is evidently the case to which the following
verses relate. It appears that the point about which the
apostle was most anxious was, how the Corinthians would act
in regard to his command, 1 Cor. 5, 13, to put away fiom
among them " that wicked person." Ile seems to have feared
that his enemies might have had influence enough with the
church, to prevent their executing his command. He therefore waited in painful suspense to learn the issue. And when
Titus, on his return from Corinth, informed him that they had
not only promptly obeyed his directions, but that the offender
himself' and the whole church had been brought to deep and
genuine repentance, his heart was filled with gratitude to God,
and with love to the people who had manifested such a Christian spirit. All this is plain from what is said in ch. 7. Erasmus and several other commentators render TroTo avro hac
eadema de causa, for this very reason. The sense would then
be,'I determined I would not come to you with sorrow, and
for that very reason I wrote to you that I might not.'
This, although it suits the preceding context, is not so consistent with what follows as the common interpretation; for
in the following verses the apostle states the reasons for his
writing as he had done in his former letter.
Lest when I came I should have sorrow from  them of
whom I ought to rejoice. That is,' I wrote what I did that I
might not have sorrow from those, who should be to me a
source of joy.' He wished all painful questions settled before
he came. licav:ng coifidence in you all that my joy is the joy




[I. CORINTHIANS  2, 4.                    33
of you all. Paul in saying that he wished all causes of painful
collision might be removed out of the way before he went to
Corinth, did not isolate himself from the people, as though
concerned only fbr his own peace of mind, but was satisfied
that what made him happy would make them happy. My joy
will be the joy of you all. This does not mean merely that it
would give them pleasure to see him happy, but also that obedience on their part, and the consequent purity and prosperity
of the church, were as necessary to their happiness as to his.
Paul says he had this confidence in them all, although it is
abundantly evident that there were men among them who
were his bitter opponents. These latter he here leaves out of
view, and speaks of the majority, probably the great body, of
the church as though it were the whole.
4. For out of much affliction anid anguish of heart
I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ve should
be grieved, but that ye may know the love which I
have the more abundantly towards you.
The connection is either with the immediately preceding
clause,' I have confidence in you, for otherwise it would not
have given me so much pain to write as I did;' or, what is
more natural because more direct, the reference is to the motives which dictated his letter.'I was influenced by the desire of promoting your happiness, for to me it was a most
painful duty.' O(ut of (iK) indicates the source. His- letter
flowed fromn a broken heart. Aflliction and anguish refer to
his inward feelings, not to his outward circumstances, for both
are qualified by the word heart. It was out of an afflicted, an
oppressed heart, that he wrote.  Tith nmany tears, (Ldt,)
through many tears. The union of fidelity and love which
renders parental discipline peculiarly effective, gives also peculiar power to ecclesiastical censures. When the offender is
made to feel that, while his sill is punished, he himself is loved;
and that the end ailned at is not his suffering but his good,
he is the more likely to be brought to repentance. Every
pastor must see in the apostle's love for the Corinthians, and
in the extreme sorrow with which he exercised discipline in
the case of offenders, an instructive example for his imitation.
Not that ye should be grieved, my object in, writing was not
to cause you sorrow, bat that ye may know the love that I




34          II. CORINTHIANS  2, 5.
have the more a.bundantly towards you. The ends which the
apostle desired to accomplish by his former letter were numerous, and he therefore sometimes specifies one, and sometimes
another. Here, he says, it was to manifest his love; in v. 9
he says it was to test their obedience; in ch. 7 he says it was
to bring them to repentance. These are not incompatible ends,
and therefore there is no inconsistency between these several
statements.  The love which I have the more abundantly
towards you. This naturally means the special love which I
have for you. Ihis love for them  was more abundant, or
greater, than that which he had for any other church. This
view is borne out by numerous other passages in these two
epistles, which go to show that Paul's love for the Corinthian
church was, for some reason, peculiarly strong. As vs. 5-11
have direct reference to the case of the incestuous person, it is
the more probable that all that he says in the preceding verses
as to his reasons for not coming sooner to Corinth, and as to
the sorrow and anxiety which he felt about the state of the
church there, had special reference to that case.
5. But if any have caused grief, lie hath not grieved
me, but in part, that I may not overcharge you all.
The connection between this paragraph, vs. 5-11, and
what precedes is natural and obvious. Paul had been speaking of his motives for writing his former letter. It was not
intended to give them sorrow. If sorrow had been occasioned,
it had not come from him. This led him to speak more par.
ticularly of the case which had occasioned so much distress.
The proper interpretation of this particular verse is, however,
a matter of great doubt. The translation is of necessity, in
this case, an exposition, and therefore the grounds of doubt
do not appear to the English reader. Our translators, after
Luther, assume that aro'  povs, in part, are to be connected
with the preceding clause, and 7ravTwas's, you all, with Er7L/3apJ, overcharge.  Thus construed the sense can only be,' If any one has caused grief, he has not grieved me, but in
part, that is, I am not the only person aggrieved. I say this,
lest I should bear hard upon you all. It would be a severe
reflection on you to say that you did not feel any sorrow for
the offence in question.' According to this view, the design
of the passage is to guard against the impression that he




II. CORINTHIANS  2, 6.                    35
meant to charge them with indifference. But to this it is objected that to express this sense El FOy, and not aXXa, would be
required. "He hath not grieved me except in part."  And
secondly, that the idea thus expressed is not suited to the
context. The main idea evidently is,'He hath not grieved
me but you.' The subordinate words and clauses therefore
must be accommodated to that idea. Hence aXX' MrM /dEpovs
must be connected with what follows, and r7vraa  Fa.s with
XEX'crqKEV. Then the sense will be,'He hath not grieved me,
but in part, or, to a certain extent, (lest I should bear too
hard on him,) you all.' The design of the passage, according
to this view, is to soften the charge against the penitent oftender of having been the cause of sorrow. This the apostle
does, first, by saying, "he did not grieve me," i. e. it was no
personal offence against me that he committed; and second,
that all the Corinthians were not afflicted, it was not a universal sorrow that he caused. This substantially is the interpretation given by Calvin after Chrysostom, and is the one
adopted by the great majority of modern commentators. It
has the advantage of being not only suited to the meaning of
the words, but to the whole tone of the following context,
which is eminently mild and conciliatory. The apostle's heart
was overflowing with the tenderest feelings towards his Corinthian brethren, and he was evidently solicitous to heal the
salutary wounds inflicted by his former letter. There is still
another view of the passage which should be mentioned. It
may be pointed so as to read thus:' He hath not grieved me,
but in part (that I may not overcharge all) you.' This, however, unnaturally separates the words rraTas vjpFa, you all.
6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment,
which (was inflicted) of many.
I do not wish to be severe towards him, for the punishment which he has received is sufficient. The word -j E7rtrLtCla,
rendered punishment, occurs only in Wisdom 3, 10 in this
sense, and therefore many assume that it here does not mean
punishment, but reproof. The word rendered sufficient, [Kavo'v,
is used substantively. "This punishment is a sufficiency, or a
satisfaction." Comp. MIatt. 6, 34 for a similar construction.
Paul says the punishment or reproof was administered v7r5 nrt
r1tXEoLvwv, by the majority, intimating that all did not concur in




36          II. CORINTHIANS 2, 6.
it. This, however, is not a necessary inference, because ot
7rXELtoyE may mean the many, the whole body considered as
many, because composed of many members. There are three
views taken of this verse in connection with what follows. In
his former letter the apostle had not only commanded the
church to excommunicate the person here referred to, but declared his own determination to deliver him to Satan for the
destruction of the flesh. 1 Cor. 5, 5. Grotius supposes that
in consequence of that judgment he was seized with some
bodily malady, for delivery from which Paul, in this connection, declares his willingness that the Corinthians should pray.
Of this, however, the passage gives no intimation. A second
view is that the sentence of excommunication had not been
carried into effect, but as the reproof administered by many
had had the effect of leading the offender to repentance, the
apostle here intimates his satisfaction with what the church
had done, although his injunctions had not been fully complied
with. This is the view of Calvin, Beza, and of many others. In
favour of this explanation it is urged that the expression " this
punishment" naturally refers to that punishment or reproof
which the Corinthians had administered as distinguished from
that which he had enjoined; and his saying "this punishnlent," of which he had heard, was enough, implies that he
did not wish them to proceed any further, but rather that
they should console the penitent by the assurance of their
love. On the other hand, however, v. 9 (as well as ch. 7)
clearly intimates that the church had rendered a prompt obedience to the apostle's directions. The great majority of
commentators,. therefore, understand the passage to mean that
Paul did not wish the excommunication to be continued any
longer. As it had produced its desired effect, he was willing
that the offender should be restored to the communion of the
church. The whole passage indicates that Paul was more
lenient than the church, for he exhorts his readers not to be
too severe in their treatment of their offending brother. A
passage, says Calvin, himself a severe disciplinarian, well to be
observed, as it teaches with what equity and clemency the discipline of the church is to be attempered; qua cequitate et
clementia temperanda sit disciplina ecclesice. Paul, he adds,
was satisfied with the repentance of the offender; whereas the
ancient bishops gave forth their canons requiring a penance
of three, or seven years, or even for a life-time, without regard
to the contrition of the unhappy victims of their severity.




II. CORINTHIANS  2, 7.8.                   37
7. So that contrariwise ye (ought) rather to forgive
(him) and comfort (him), lest perhaps such a one should
be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.
The consequence of what is expressed in v. 8 is indicated
by the words so that.'The punishment being sufficient, the
consequence is that, instead of its being increased or continued,
you should forgive and comfort the offender.' As the apostle
seems to indicate what ought to be done, most commentators
supply before the infinitives xap(ra-crSat Kal 7rapaKaXe-at the
word 8EL or s8Ev,'it is necessary to forgive and comfort.' The
infinitive itself, however, often expresses, after verbs of saying,
and the like, not what is, but what should be, e. g. XEyOVTES
7rEpLT4Lveo'S-aL, saying you ought to be circumcised. Acts 15,
24. 21, 4. 21.  Winer, p. 371, says that neither of these
modes of explanation is necessary, as the infinitives may be
connected immediately with LKavov,' Tle reproof is sufficient
-in order to your pardoning and comforting him.' The delicacy of the apostle towards this offender is indicated by his
abstaining either fiom naming him, or designating him as he
had before done, 1 Cor. 5, 13, as that wickedperson. He refers to him  simply as such an onze, without any appellation
which could wound his feelings. The apostle combined, therefore, the strictest fidelity with the greatest tenderness. As
long as the offender was impenitent and persisted in his of
fence, Paul insisted upon the severest punishment. As soon
as he acknowledged and forsook his sin, he became his earnest
advocate.  Lest he should be swallowed up with overmuch
sorrow, that is, lest he should be driven to despair and thus
destroyed. Undue severity is as much to be avoided as undue
leniency. The character which Paul here exhibits reflects the
image of our heavenly Father. His word is filled with denunciations against impenitent sinners, and at the same time
with assurances of unbounded pity and tenderness towards
the penitent. He never breaks the bruised reed or quenches
the smoking flax.
8. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm
(your) love towards him.
The connection is either with v. 6,'I His punishment is slf:
ficient-woherefyre confirm your love towards him;' or with
what immediately precedes.'There is danger of his being




39          II. CORINTHIANS  2, 9.
swallowed up with overmuch sorrow unless you forgive him,
wherefore confirm your love to him.' The latter method is
to be preferred, though the sense is substantially the same.
I beseech you, rrapaKaXj, the same word which in the preceding verse is used in the sense of consoling. Paul not unfrequently uses the same word in the immediate connection in
different senses.  I Cor. 3, 17. 11, 23.  That ye would confirm, literally, to con.firm, KvpfYo)at. The word properly means
to ratify with authority by some public or formal act. Gal.
3, 15. And this sense is generally adopted here. The apostle
is understood to call upon them by a formal act to reinstate
the offender in the communion of the church, to assure him
of their love, so that he might not have to infer it merely
from their treatment of him. The word, however, may mean
nothing more than is expressed in our version.' I exhort you
to make your love towards him a matter of certainty.' But
as the implication is that they had already begun to manifest
their brotherly affection for him, the probability is that the
apostle wished them to give their love a formal ratification.
9. For to this end also did I write, that I might
know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all
things.
Verses 9 and 10 are sometimes regarded as a parenthesis,
so as to connect the 11th verse with the 8th.'Confirm. your
love towards him, lest Satan get an advantage over us.' But
a parenthesis is never to be assumed where the grammatical
construction continues unbroken, and the logical connection is
uninterrupted. The 11th verse is naturally connected with
the 10th, and the 9th with the 8th.'Confirmn your love to
him, for the object of my writing to you to exclude him from
your fellowship, has been accomplished.' To this end means
the end specified in the latter part of the verse. I wrote,'typa/a, a form of the verb which is often in the epistolary style
used of the letter in the process of being written. Rom. 15,
15. 1 Cor. 9, 15. 1 Pet. 5, 12, &c. The whole context, however, shows that Paul refers to his former letter. See vs. 3. 4.
He did not write this letter to test their obedience, though
that was one of the objects of his former epistle. Paul says,'I also wrote.' This also may indicate that it was the object
of his former letter as well as of the exhortation which he had
just given them, to test their obedience. But such was not




II. CORINTHIANS 2, 10.                       39
the object of that exhortation. It is better therefore to un.
derstand the (Ka') also, as simply intended to give prominence
to the words I wrote, as something additional to other things
which he had done with the same general object.'To this
end I also wrote, as well as did many other things,' &c. The
end (although not the only one), which the apostle had in view
in enjoining on the church the excommunication of the person
here referred to, was, as he says, that I might know the proof
of you.  The word used is 3OKt1?', which means trial, 8, 2,
" trial of affliction;" or, proof, test, 13, 3, " As ye seek a proof
of Christ speaking in me;" or, the result of trial, what is approved, integrity that has been tested.  Phil. 2, 22, "Ye know
his tried integrity."  The last meaning is the best suited to
this place.'That I might know your integrity, i. e. your true
Christian temper.' This is explained by saying he wished to
see whether they would be obedient in all things, edt 7ravTa7
in reference to all things.  These latter words stand first,'Whether as to all things ye are obedient,' which is more emphatic.  Obedience to legitimate authority is one of the fruits
and evidences of Christian sincerity. A rebellious, self-willed,
disobedient spirit is a strong indication of an unsanctified
heart. As the Corinthians had proved themselves obedient
to the apostle's directions, and as the offender was truly penitent, the object of his letter, both as it related to them and to
him, had been attained, and therefore there was no reason for
the continuance of the punishment.
10. To whom ye forgive any thing, I (forgive) also:
for if I forgave any thing, to whom  I forgave (it),  for
your sakes (forgave I it) in the person of Christ.
The apostle having exhorted the Corinthians to forgive
their repentant brother, says he was ready to join in that for.
giveness.  To whom ye forgive any thing, I also. Although
this is stated generally, as though he meant to say that he
would forgive any one whom they were ready to forgive, yet
it is obvious from the context that he intended to be under* The received text here reads ical yap Eiy&1 ew'I KEXa'pLrIuaL, Ct KEXCLap.oLacl
for also I if I have forgiven any thing, to whoim,, I forgave. Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Riickert, Meyer, and others, after the majority of ancient
MSS. read, Kal yap 7yY& ~5 EcEcplw.ual, e TL KceXaPLsLual, for also 1 what I hav.
forgiven, if I have forgiven asny thing.




40          II. CORINTHIANS  2, 10.
stood as referring to that particular case. He was satisfied
with their course, and also with the evidence of the repentance
of the offender, and therefore he was ready to sanction his
restoration to their communion. His reason for this is stated
in what fobllows, he did it for their sake. His forgiving, however, was suspended upon theirs. He would not interfere to
restore the person in question unless they were satisfied to receive him. He therefore says, If I have forgiven any thing,
that is, if the forgiveness expressed in the foregoing clause is
to take effect and to be considered as already done, I have
done it for your sake. He was influenced by no personal consideration either in the censure originally pronounced, or in
his present course, but solely by a desire to promote their
best interests. In the person of Christ, or, in the presence of
Christ. This latter interpretation is the more consistent with
usage, and is generally adopted. The meaning is that he acted in this matter as in the presence of Christ, i. e. as though
Christ were lookingY on. The other explanation, which is preferred by Luther and many others, is consistent with the
meaning of the words, and gives a good sense. lie acted in
the person of Christ, i. e. as his representative and by his authority. This idea, however, is commonly expressed by the
phrase in the name of Christ.  1 Cor. 5, 4. Calvin prefers
the former view, and adds, Christ is to be placed before us, or
we " are to act as in his presence, for nothing is better adapted to incline us to mercy."  No man can be severe in his
judgment who feels that the mild eyes of Christ are fixed
upon him.
The word xapt'~ouaL, rendered to Jfrgive in this verse, is a
deponent verb, but is, in several of its forms, used in a passive
sense. It is so taken here by Rtickert and Meyer, who give
an entirely different explanation of the passage. They adopt
the reading of (Griesbach, given in the margin, and render it
thus:'I forgive-for what I have been forgiven, if I have
been forgiven anything, it is for your sake.' That is, if God
has really pardoned my great sin in persecuting Christ, it was
for your sake. Comp. 1 Tim. 1, 16. But this interpretation
is inconsistent with the common use of the word, with the
whole context, and with Paul's manner of speaking. His humility manifested itself in deep remorse and repentance for his
past conduct, but not in doubting whether he had been forgiven. Besides, this interpretation would require a very unnatural explanation of the following clause.'If I have been




II. CORINTHIANS  2, 11-13.                41
forgiven for your sake in the presence of Christ,' that is,
Christ is the witness of my being forgiven. This is contrary
to all scriptural representations. God is said to forgive for
Christ's sake; and Christ is said to forgive, but he is never
represented as the mere witness or spectator of our forgiveness.
11. Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for
we are not ignorant of his devices.
This verse, as above remarked, is by some made to depend
on v. 8, the vs. 9 and 10 being parenthetical.'Confirm your
love towards him-lest Satan should get an advantage of us.'
Others make it depend on the preceding words,' We should
act (or, I was pardoned) in the presence of Christ, lest,' &c.
The most natural connection is with the first clause of v. 10,
which contains the main idea of the context.' I will join you
in pardoning the offender lest Satan get an advantage of us,'
i. e. make a gain of us. The expression is u 7rXcEOVEK TrvlE V
r5 0-o o-aCravar, lest we should be made,gain of, or defrauded, by
Satan. It was a gain to Satan if either an individual soul
could be driven to despair, or the peace of the church could
be disturbed. Both of these evils were to be apprehended if
discipline were carried too far. This dread of Satan was not
chimerical or unreasonable, for he really does seek to turn
every thing to the disadvantage of Christ and his kingdom.
We are not ignorant, says the apostle, of his devices. This
and similar passages of the Word of God teach that Satan is
a personal being; that he exerts great influence over the
minds of men; that although finite, and, therefore, not ubiquitous, he is nevertheless represented as operating on the minds
of men generally, and not merely on those in any one place.
His powers of intelligence and agency therefore must be great
beyond our conceptions. No individual and no community
can ever be sure that he is not plotting their destruction.
Paul might have said to the Romans or the Ephesians, as he
did to the Corinthians, that they must take heed lest Satan
make a gain of them, and in some way secure them as his own.
12. 13. Furthermore, when I came to Troas to
(preach) Christ's gospel, and a door was opened to me
of the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit because I found




42         II. CORINTHIANS  2, 12.13.
not Titus my brother; but taking my leave of them, 1
went from thence into Macedonia.
Furthermore, when I came; literally, -But having conme.
The particle 8E (but) serves to resume the connection brokeqn
by the digression, vs. 5-11. In v. 4 he said he had written
his former letter in great anguish and distress of heart, to
manifest his love for them. And as a still further proof of
the deep interest which he took in their welfare, he refers to
the incident mentioned in these verses. In execution of his
plan of going firom Ephesus through Macedonia to Corinth, 1
Cor, 16, 5, Paul came to Troas, literally, to the Troadc (Eds -rlv
Tpoao8a), a name given to the whole district around the site of
ancient Troy. The city itself was on the coast of MIysia opposite to the island of T'enedos. It had been made a Roman
colony by Augustus, and was a place of considerable importance, in constant commercial intercourse with the cities of
Macedonia and Greece. Paul did not intend to make a rapid
journey to Corinth, but a regular missionary tour; he therefore says he came to Trsas to preach Christ's gospel, i. e. the
gospel of which Christ is the author. It is also called the
gospel of God, and Paul speaks of it as his gospel, i. e. the
gospel which he preached. When spoken of as the gospel
of the kingdom of God, Matt. 4, 23, the gospel of salvation,
Eph. 1, 13, of peace, Eph. 6, 15, the genitive expresses either
the subject of which the gospel treats or the effects which it
produces. And a door was opened to me, i. e. a way of access, an opening to labour with effect.  Of the Lord, according to this interpretation the words, Ev Kvpl), are to be connected with the immediately preceding participle, " door opened
by the Lord." See I Cor. 15, 58. Gal. 5, 10. Eph. 2, 21. It
is, however, more in accordance with Paul's style, who so
frequently uses these words in such expressions as'work in
the Lord,''temple in the Lord,''fellow-labourer in the Lord,'
to refer them to the whole clause. " There was an open door
in the Lord."  The kind of door is thus indicated, or the
sphere of labour pointed out. It was an opportunity for labouring successfully in the Lord's service. Though the prospects were so favourable, Paul says, I had no rest in my
spirit;  5 7vEVa7rv Tc 1oi, for my spirit. The word spirit is
here used because it is the highest term to designate the soul.
Roin. 8, 16, and the anxiety or distress which the apostle experienoed concerned the highest feelings of his nature. Be



II. CORINTHIANS  2, 14.                   43
cause Ifound not Titus my brother. He calls Titus his brother, both because of his relation to him as a fellow-Christian,
and because he was a joint labourer with him in the gospel.
lie expected to meet Titus at Troas, and to learn from him the
state of things in Corinth, and especially the effect produced
by his former letter. It seems that he regarded this as a
turning point in the history of that church. If they submitted
to his authority and corrected the abuses which he had pointed out, and especially if they excommunicated the member
guilty of the unheard-of offence so often referred to in this
chapter, then he had hopes of their stability in faith and progress in holiness. But if they refused to regard his injunctions,
and persisted in the course on which they had entered, then he
foresaw their speedy destruction. So much was at stake that
he could not endure the state of suspense which he was in;
and therefore, taking leave of them, that is, of the brethren in
Troas, he passed over into Macedonia. On his first visit to this
city, Paul was prevented from remaining by a vision, from which
he gathered that the Lord called him to preach the gospel in
Macedonia. Acts 16, 8. And on his return from his present
journey, it is said, he sailed from Philippi and came in five days
to Troas, and abode there seven days. Acts 20, 6. From the
circumstances connected with this last visit it is evident that
there was anl established church at that time in Troas. The
word aro7a-o(rojucat, to take leave of, means to separate oneself
from, to bid farewell to. Luke 16, 61. Acts 18, 18. 21. 1
went fromn> thence into M[acedonia; E6XJov, I went forth.
He crossed over the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean
sea to one of the ports of Macedonia; the same voyage which
lie made on his return, which then required five days. As
Titus was to return fiom Corinth through MIacedonia to Troas,
Paul thus went to meet him on his journey.
14. Now thanks (be) unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the
savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
Agreeably to the impulsive character of this epistle, instead of stating what was the intelligence which he received
from Titus, the apostle breaks out into a thanksgiving to God,
which assumes a form whicL might be taken for self-commendation, which he, however, disclaims, and humbly acknowledges that all his qualifications for his work, and all his success




44           II. CORINTHIANS  2, 14.
in it, are to be attributed to God. This leads him to speak
of the ministry of the gospel, which he contrasts with that of
the law, and himself with Moses, so that it is not until the
seventh chapter that he pauses, as it were, to take breath, and
resumes the narrative here broken off. The thing for which
the apostle gives thanks is his success; which includes both
his triumph over obstacles and enemies, and his efficiency in
spreading abroad the knowledge of the truth. The word
3ptLaF3evELV, rendered here to cause to triumph, means to triumph over, to lead in triumph.  This is its uniform sense in
the classics, and it is so used by Paul in Col. 2, 5. Meyer
and others so render the word here.'Thanks be to God who
triumphs over us,' i. e. who disappoints our fears and puts our
anxieties to shame. But this is evidently incongruous. Paul
does not represent himself as humbled and conquered, but just
the reverse.  Calvin and others retain the literal meaning of
the word, and say the sense is,'Thanks be to God who leads
us in triumph, not as captives, but as sharers of his victory.'
This gives a suitable meaning, but is not so consistent with
the use of the word, which means to triumph over, not, to
make one a sharer in our triumph. The great majority of
commentators therefore modify the sense of the word as is
done by our translators. This they justify by referring to the
fact that many verbs which in ordinary Greek are neuter, in
the Hellenistic dialect are used in a causative sense ( Winer,
p. 304), as jta3S1-E1ELtV, to be a disciple, in Matt. 28, 19 and elsewhere, means to make disciples; /3ao(LXE'ELV, to reign, in 1 Sam.
8, 22, and often in the Septuagint, means to cause to reign;
and thuss SptaW/LeOvELV, to triumph, may in obedience to the context be fairly rendered, to cause to triumph. In Clhrist, in virtue
of union with Christ, or, as united to him. These words determine the nature of the triumph of which the apostle speaks.
It was the triumph of a Christian minister in the service of
Christ.
And maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge, i. e.
diffuses or spreads abroad his knowledge, which is compared
to the savour of a sacrifice (Gen. 8, 21. Eph. 5, 2. Phil. 4, 18),
or to incense. Hfis knowledge; the pronoun his is commonly
referred to God, but as this clause is explanatory of the fornler, or an amplification of the idea therein expressed, it is
perhaps better to refer it to Christ.' He causes us to triumph
in Christ, and to spread abroad the savour of his knowledge,'
i. e. the knowledge of Christ. That Christ should be known




lI. CORINTHIIANS  2, 15.                 45
was the great end of Paul's mission, and is of all things the
most acceptable to God. Knowledge here, as so often elsewhere in Scripture, means not merely intellectual cognition,
but spiritual apprehension and recognition. That men should
know the Lord Jesus Christ in the sense of recognizing, loving
and worshipping him as God manifest in the flesh, is the con.
summation of redemption; the sum of all blessedness and excellence. In every place. Wherever Paul went, there the
knowledge of Christ was spread abroad. Comp. Rom. 15, 19.
Can this be said of us?
15. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ,
in them that are saved, and in them that perish.
We as ministers, and our work of preaching Christ, are acceptable to God, whatever may be the result of our labours.
This idea is connected with the preceding as an amplification
and confirmation.'God by us diffuses the knowledge of
Christ everywhere as a savour; for (OrTt, because) it is well
pleasing to God whatever be the effect which it produces.'
There is, as is so common in Paul's epistles, a slight change in
the figure. In v. 14 the knowledge of Christ is declared to
be a savour as of incense, here the apostle is the sweet savour.
But it is the apostle not as a man, not the purity or devotion
of his life; but the apostle as a preacher of the gospel, and
therefore the gospel which he preached; so that the thought
remains the same. In both verses the diffusion of the knowledge of Christ is said to be well pleasing to God. Savour of
Christ, does not mean a savour of which Christ is the author.
The idea is not that Christ rendered Paul or his life acceptable to God. That indeed is true, but it is not what is intended. WYhen we speak of the perfume of the rose, or of the violet, we mean that perfume which the rose or the violet emits
and which is characteristic of it. When Paul says, " We are
a sweet smelling savour of Christ," he means we are the means
of diffusing the knowle dge of Christ. When a man's garments
are perfumed with myrrh or fiankincense, he fills with the fragrance every place he enters. So Paul, wherever he went,
diffused abroad the fragrance of the name of Christ, and that
was acceptable to God. Ins them, i. e. among them, that are
saved; and in (among) them that perish. This does not mean
among them predestined to be saved, and those predestined
to perish. The idea of predestination is not included. Thq




46          II. CORINTHIANS  2, 16.
two classes are designated ab eventu. The gospel and those
who preach it are well pleasing to God, whether men receive
it and are saved, or reject it and are lost. The light is inestinably precious, whether the eye rejoices in it, or through disease is destroyed by it. Comp. 1 Cor. 1, 18. 2 Thess. 2, 10.
16. To the one (we are) the savour of death unto
death; to the other the savour of life unto life. And
who is sufficient for these things?
The words twe are are not in the text, but are necessarily
implied. The apostle and all faithful ministers are to God an
oEvwta, a sweet savour, to men an 0&pj, a savour, salutary or
destructive according to circumstances. TYe are, i. e. we as
preachers. The idea is the same whether we say that preachers of the gospel, or the gospel itself, or Christ, are the cause
of life to some, and of death to others. As Christ is to some
a tried corner stone, elect and precious, the rock of their salvation, to others he is a stone of offence. 1 Pet. 2, 7. 8. So
the gospel and its ministers are the cause of life to some, and
of death to others, and to all they are either the one or the
other. The word of God is quick and powerful either to save
or to destroy. It cannot be neutral. If it does not save, it
destroys. "This is the condemnation, that light is come into
the world, and men loved darkness rather than light," John
3, 19. "If I had not come and spoken unto them they had
not had sin," John 15, 22. If a man rejects the gospel, it had
been far better for him never to have heard it. It will be
more tolerable for Sodomn and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for him. This, which is the doctrine of the Bible,
is plainly the doctrine of this passage. The gospel and those
who preach it, are either a savour of life or a savour of death.
If not the one, they must be the other. In the phrase "a
savour of death unto death," of death expresses the quality,
unto death, the effect. It is a deadly savour, and it produces
death. And so of the corresponding clause, " a savour of life
unto life," is a salutary savour producing life. The Rabbins
often use a similar expression in reference to the Law, which
they say is either an odour of life or of death.
On the authority of two of the older MSS. (A and C), and
several of the more modern ones, Lachmann, Tischendorf and
Meyer read EK SavaTrov and (K ~oWj  instead of the simple gen.




II. CORINTHIANS  2, 17.                   47
tive. It is then not a savour of death or of life, but a savour
arising from death, and a savour arising from life. To the
one class Christ is dead and yields only a savour of death; to
the other, he is alive, and yields a savour of life. According
to either reading the main idea is the same. Christ and his
gospel, and therefore his ministers, are to believers the source
of life, and to unbelievers the source of death. See Matt. 21,
44. Luke 2, 34. John 9, 39. The common text has more external authority, and certainly gives a simpler sense, and is
therefore preferred by the majority of editors.
And who is sufficient for these things? Kat (and) before
a question often indicates a consequence of what precedes.
It is frequently in our version in such cases rendered then.
" Wbho then can be saved? " Mark 10, 26. " How is he then
David's son? " Luke 20, 44. So here, Who then is sufficient
for these things? If the work is so great, if eternal life or
eternal death must follow the preaching of the gospel, who
then is sufficient (tKavo') for so responsible a calling?  The
most natural answer to this question would seem to be,' No
one in himself.' The following verse, however, which begins
with (yap) for, and is designed to confirm the implied answer,
requires that answer to be, "I am."'I am sufficient for this
work, for I do not handle the word of God deceitfully.'
" Iy sufficiency," however, the apostle immediately adds, 3,
5, " is of God."  Of himself he was not fit or able to do any
thinlg. There is, as Calvin remarks, an implied antithesis.'The object of preaching is the diffusion of the knowledge of
Christ; the effect of that diffusion is life to some and death to
others. Who then is competent to this work?  Not your
flse teachers who corrupt the word of God, but I and others
who preach the pure gospel fiom pure motives.' This view is
sustained by what follows, for the apostle immediately proceeds to vindicate his claim to this sufficiency or fitness, which
lhe denies to the false teachers.
17. For we are not as many, which corrupt the
word of God; but as of sincerity; but as of God, as in
the sight of God, speak we in Christ.
The connection indicated by for is obvious.'We are
competent to this work, for we are not like the false teachers,
but are sincere.' We are not as mancy, ol 7-oNXoL the nany.




48          II. CORINTHIANS  2, 17.
This some understand to mean the mass or majority of those
who preach the gospel. The apostle would thus be made to
condemn, as corrupters of the faith, the great body of the ministers of the apostolic church. This, however, is unnecessary.
The many, means the definite many known to the Corinthians
as false teachers, to whom in the course of this epistle the
apostle so often refers.  Which corrupt the word of God.
The word used is Ka7rqXEv'w, to be a huckster, and then to act
as one. Paul says, We do not act as hucksters in reference
to the word of God. The word is frequently used in the
Greek writers in a figurative sense, to express the ideas of adulterating, and of making merchandise of any thing for the sake of
gain. Both ideas may be united, for both are included in the
disclaimer of the apostle. He neither adulterated the word
of God, by mixing it with Judaism or false philosophy (i. e.
with his own speculations), nor did he use it for any selfish or
mercenary purpose. But as of sincerity. The (us) as, is not
redundant. The meaning is,'IWe speak as those who are
sincere,' i. e. those whose characteristic is JXtKpt'eLa, transparent purity, or integrity; who can bear being looked through
and through; all whose motives will sustain inspection. As
of God, not merely sent of God, but godly, influenced by
God, and belonging to God, ana therefore like him. Our
Lord said to the Jews, "He which is of God, heareth God's
words: ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of
God," John 8, 47. As in the sight of God, i. e. as in his
presence and conscious of his inspection. We speak in Christ;
not of Christ, nor, according to Christ, but in communion with'him, as a member of his body and actuated by his Spirit. We
have here then Paul's description of a faithful minister, of one
who is (tKavo') sufficient, or qualified for the fearful responsibility of being a savour of life or of death. He does not corrupt the word of God by any foreign admixtures, nor use it as
a means of his own advancement by dispensing it so as to please
men; but he is governed by pure motives, is of God, and
speaks as in the presence of God, and as a true Christian
man.




II. CORINTHIANS  3, 1.                     49
CHAPTER III.
The apostle shows that he does not need to commend himself or to be commended by the Corinthians; that God had qualified him for the work of
a minister of the new, and not of the old covenant, vs. 1-11. He exercised his ministry in accordance with the peculiar character of the new
dispensation, vs. 12-18.
Proof of the Apostle's fitness for his work, and its nature.
Vs. 1-11.
ALTHOUGH the concluding paragraph of the preceding chapter contained a strong assertion of the integrity and fidelity
of the apostle, he says, it was not written for the purpose of
self-commendation. He needed no commendation from any
source, v. 1. The Corinthians themselves were his commendation. Their conversion was an epistle of Christ authenticating his mission and his fidelity, which all men could read,
vs. 2. 3. His fitness or sufficiency for his work was due in no
measure to himself; but to God, who had endowed him with
the qualifications of a minister of the new covenant, vs. 4-6.
This covenant and its ministry are far superior to the old
covenant and the ministry of MIoses, because the one was a
ministry of death, the other of life; the one was of condemnation, the other of righteousness; the glory of the one was
transient, the glory of the other is abiding, vs. 7-11.
1. Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or
need we, as some (others), epistles of commendation to
you, or (letters) of commendation from you?
Many of the peculiarities of this epistle are due to the fact
that at the time of writing it the apostle's mind was filled
with conflicting feelings. On the one hand, he was filled with
gratitude to God and love to the Corinthians on account of
their repentance and ready obedience; anXd on the other, with
feelings of indignation at the perverse and wicked course
adopted by the false teachers in Corinth. Hence even in the
expression of the former class of feelings, he is interrupted or
turned aside by the thought that his opponents were on the
watch to turn every thing to his disadvantage. Thus although
there was nothing of a spirit of self commendation in his thank



50          II. CORINTHIANS  3, 2.
ing God for causing him to triumph, or in the assertion of his
sincerity, in 1, 15-17, yet he knew that his enemies would put
that construction on what he had said. He seems to hear
them say,' He is commending himself again.' It is plain from
the use of the word again in this connection, that the charge
of praising himself had before been made against the apostle,
whether founded on his former epistle or what he said on
other occasions, is uncertain and unimportant.
The authorities are divided as to whether v jp or Elt jAu is
the true reading in the following clause. If the former, the
sense is, "Or do we need," &c.; if the latter, "Unless we
need," &c. The latter gives an ironical turn to the passage.
The apostle sets it forth as certain that his apostolic mission
and authority were so authenticated, that he did not need, as
certain people did, letters of commendation either to them or
from them. These false teachers had no doubt gained access
to Corinth on the strength of certain letters of recommendation. They were so little known and had so little character)
that when they went elsewhere, they would need to be commended by the Corinthians. With Paul the case was ditf
ferent.
2. Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known
and read of all men.
Ye are our epistle, &c., or, The epistle which we have ye
are. You as Christians, your conversion is, as it were, a letter
fiom Christ himself authenticating our mission and fidelity.
Written in our hearts. The plural form, our hearts, may be
explained either on the assumption that the apostle is speaking of Timothy as well as of himself; or on the ground that
he says hearts instead of heart for the same reason that he
says We instead of I; or that the word is used figuratively
for the affections. It is not Paul's manner to make his associates the joint authors of his letters, and in no one of his
epistles does he speak more out of the fulness of his personal
feelings than he does in this. It was not Timothy who was
accused of self-commendation, who needed no letters of commendation, and it was not of Timothy's mission that the con.
version of the Corinthians was the authentication, and there.
fore it was not in Timothy's heai't that the epistle referred to
was written. Paul is speaking of himself. A thing is said to
be written in the heart when it is a matter of consciousness;




II. CORINTHIANS  3, 3.                   51
when it is a matter of subjective, as distinguished from objective knowledge. Thus the law of God is said to be written
on the heart when the knowledge of it is inward and not
merely outward. Jer. 31, 33. HIeb. 8, 10. Rom. 2, 15. Any
thing of which a man is certain, or of which he has a conviction founded upon his inward experience, may be said to be
written on his heart. That the Corinthians were his epistle
was to the apostle a matter of consciousness. It was a letter
written on his heart which he could neither misunderstand
nor be ignorant of. Comp. Rom. 10, 8. Any thing also that
is very dear to us is said to be written on the heart, or to be
in the heart. So Paul says to the Corinthians, " Ye are in our
hearts," 7, 3. The apostle therefore may be understood to
mean either that he was perfectly certain that the conversion
of the Corinthians was for him a letter of commendation; or
that it was most dear to him. A letter cherished in his heart.
The context is in favour of ilaking the former idea the promninent one. This letter, however, was not only well known to
the apostle, it was known and read of all men. It was a palpable evidence of his divine mission, which no one could be
ignorant of, and which no one could gainsay. MIen could not
doubt its genuineness, nor could they question its import.
He expresses the same idea when he says, " The seal of my
apostleship are ye in the Lord," 1 Cor. 9, 2.
3. (Forasmuch as ye are) manifestly declared to be
the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with
ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart.
The' fact that the Corinthians were to Paul an epistle of
commendation, is here confirmed;  xEZvs —s avEpoi4/EvotL Orn Crr,
ye are conspicuous or publicly known as the epistle of Christ.
That is, an epistle of which Christ is the author. Ministered
by us. The conversion of the Corinthians was the work of
Christ, effected by the ministry of Paul. Considered as a letter, they were a letter of Christ written by the hand of Paul
as Christ's instrument. The importance or superior worth of
this epistle is set forth in what follows by a twofold contrast
or comparison. First, it was not a letter written with ink,
but by the Spirit of the living God. Any man could write
with ink; Christ alone can write with the Spirit of God.




62           II. CORINTHIANS 3, 4.
This is a figurative way of expressing the idea that the conversion of the Corinthians was a divine, supernatural work,
and therefore an irrefragable proof that Paul, by whose instrumentality the work was effected, was the minister of
Christ. This was a letter, therefore, infinitely above any ordinary letter written with ink. Secondly, it was not an outward, but an inward, spiritual work. The decalogue, written
on tables of stone by the finger of God, was indeed a divine
work, and proved the divine mission of Moses; but what
was that to writing the law upon the fleshly tables of the
heart! The work of regeneration and sanctification is always
represented in the Scripture as a much higher manifestation
of divine power and grace than any mere external miracle.
In predicting the new dispensation in contrast with the old,
God says, "Behold the days come when I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel-not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers,-but I will put my law
in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts," Jeremiah
31, 31-33. To this the apostle evidently refers to show that
the evidence of his mission was of a higher character than
that of Moses, and that his ministry was far more exalted and
glorious.
Instead of the genitive, Kap&tas, the great body of ancient
MSS. have the dative, Kap8tlat; on tables which are hearts of
flesh, instead of fleshly tables of the heart. The majority of
editors adhere to the common text on the authority of the
Greek fathers. The sense is the same.
4. And such trust have we through Christ to
God-ward.
This confidence in the divinity and glory of his mission,
and in his sufficiency for the apostleship he had from  Christ
and in the presence of God. It was a confidence so strong
(and yet so humble) that it did not quail even under the eye
of God; much less therefore under the scrutiny of the bleared
eyes of his opponents.  Such confidence, not merely confidence in the fact that the Corinthians were to him a letter of
commendation, but the confidence expressed in the whole
context, and especially in 2, 15-17. This confidence he had
through Christ. It was not self-confidence. It was not the
consciousness of superior excellence; but a conviction of the
truth of the gospel and of the reality of that vocation which




II. CORINTHIANS 3, 5.                      53
he had received from Christ. This confidence of the apostle
that he was what God had called him to be, an able or fit
minister of the gospel, was not a trait of natural character;
it was not a conclusion from his inward and outward experience; it was one of the forms in which the Spirit of God
which was in him manifested itself; just as that Spirit manifested itself in his humility, faith, courage, or constancy. It
is easy to determine whether such confidence is self-inflation,
or the strength of God in the soul. If the former, it has its
natural concomitants of pride, arrogance, indifference, contempt of others. If the latter, it is attended by self-abhorrence, meekness, long-suffering, a willingness to be the least
and lowest, and by all other graces of the Spirit.  To God,
ward, 7rpos'ov OEo'v. This may mean in reference to God, i. e.
a confidence exercised toward God as its object. Or, ~rpos
may be used here as in Rom. 4, 2. Abraham, it is there said,
had no KavX-qla, ground of boasting, rps ~E6v, before God;
that is, none that could stand his inspection. Paul says he
had a confidence before God; that is, one which could endure
in his sight.
5. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think
any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency (is) of
God.
The apostle had strongly asserted his sufficiency or fitness
for his work. He here tells us what was not, and then what
was, the source of his sufficiency. Not that, i. e. I do not say,
or, I do not mean, that we are sufficient of ourselves. In most
of the older MSS. the words a+' &avrtv, of ourselves, stand
after Xoy;acat3atA TL, "C sufficient to think any thing of ourselves,"
instead of, as in the common text,'sufficient of ourselves to
think any thing.) The former order of the words has greater
authority, and gives perhaps the better sense. There is a difference in the prepositions in Greek which is not expressed in
the English. Paul says his sufficiency or ability to think any
thing was not a+' &avTrv U S  & aVTrv, not from  himself as out
of himself. He was not the source of this sufficiency either
remotely or immediately.  We should express much the same
idea by saying,'Our sufficiency is not in or of ourselves.'
Comp. Gal. 1, 1. What he disclaims is sufficiency or ability
to think any thing; the implication is any thing right or




54          II. CORINTHIANS  3, 6.
good. He had no power of himself to accomplish any thing.
His fitness for his work, whether consisting in knowledge, or
grace, or fidelity, or efficiency, did not arise out of any thing
he was in or of himself. The word Xoyt9ao'-3Sat does not here
mean to judge, or to think out or determine. The idea is not
that Paul was of himself unable to judge what was best and
right, i. e. to think out the means of rendering his ministry
successful. The word is to be taken in its simplest sense, to
think. Thought is the lowest form of our efficiency, in so far
as it is much easier to think good, than either to will or to do
it. Paul means to say that so far as the subject in hand is
concerned, he could do nothing, not even think. He was in
himself absolutely empty and powerless. Our sufficiency is
of God. All our fitness for our iwork-all our knowledge,
holiness and power are of God. They are neither self-acquired
nor self-sustained. I am nothing, the apostle would say; God
in mie is every thing. The same truth and feeling are expressed in 1 Cor. 15, 10.
6. Who also hath imade us able ministers of the
new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit:
for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
This verse is a confirmation of the preceding. The relative
0& is here used as in Luke 8, 13, and elsewhere, as implying
the cause or reason. Our sufficiency is of God, who; equivalent to for he hath made us able ministers. The same radical
word is retained, tKavFWrE, hath rendered us WKavotv, suffc-ient,
able, well qualified, ministers of the new testament, KatLv/s
8taJKW), of the new covenant, as the word 86La&OK- always
means in the New Testament, unless Heb 9, 16 be an exception. The covenant formed between God and the Hebrews
at MIount Sinai is called the Old Covenant; the gospel dispensation as distinguished from the Mosaic is called the New
Covenant. Matt. 26, 28. 1 Cor. 11, 25. Heb. 8, 8. 9, 15. &c.
As, however, the promises of the gospel, and especially the
great promise of redemption by the blood of Christ, underlay
both the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, the plan of
salvation or the covenant of grace, is also called the New
Covenant, although older than the Mosaic covenant, to distinguish it from the covenant of works formed with Adam.
This gives rise to no little obscurity. It is not always easy to




II. CORINTHIANS  3, 6.                   55
determine whether the words "new covenant" refer to the
gospel dispensation introduced by Christ, or to the covenant
of grace inaugurated in the first promise made to our fallen
parents. And in like manner it is not easy always to decide
whether the words the "old covenant" designate the Mosaic
covenant or the covenant of works. The context must in
every case be our guide in deciding these questions. In the
present case it is plain that by the New Covenant the apostle
means the gospel as distinguished from the Law,-the Christian as distinguished from the Mosaic dispensation. It was of
that he was made a minister, and it is that which he contrasts
with the Old Testament economy. Nbot of the letter, but of
the spirit. These words admit of two constructions. They
may depend on the word covenant.'Covenant not of the
letter, but of the spirit.' They thus determine the nature of
the New Covenant as being not of the letter but of the spirit.
This is the construction adopted by perhaps the majority of
modern commentators. The older interpreters, followed by
our translators, make the words in question depend on minzisters. "MIinisters not of the letter, but of the spirit."  This
latter is not only more familiar to the readers of the English
version, but is favoured by the whole context. Paul contrasts
two dispensations; one he calls the letter, the other the spirit.
He says he is minister of the one, not of the other, and afterwards, vs. 7. 8, he speaks of the ministry of death'and ministry of the spirit; the ministry of condemnation and the
ministry of righteousness. That the words letter and spirit as
here used mean the law and the gospel is plain, first, because
it is the law and the gospel which he proceeds to compare in
the following verses; and secondly, because these are terms
which he elsewhere uses in the same sense. Thus in Rom. 7,
6 he speaks of the oldness of the letter and newness of the
spirit. In Rom. 2, 27 he characterizes the Jew as being of
the letter, i. e. as having the law. Comp. also Gal. 3, 3. If
it be asked what is the ground of these designations, why the
law is called letter, and the gospel spirit, it may be answered
in the first place, that the law is called ypcala, letter, for the
same reason that it is called /yped/b, scripture. It was something written. Not only was the decalogue, the kernel of the
Mosaic economy, originally written on stones, but the whole
law was a volume known as the writings. And in the second
place, the law as written was something external and objective. It w1as addressed to the eye, to the ear, to the uldero*




56           II. CORINTHIANS 3, 6.
standing. It was not an inward principle or power. It held
up the rule of duty to which men were to be conformed, but
it could not impart the disposition or ability to obey. It was,
as it were, a mere writing or book. On the other hand, the
gospel is spiritual, as distinguished from what was external
and ritual. It is the power of God, Rom. 1, 6; the organ
through which the Spirit works in giving life to the soul.
These words therefore express concisely the characteristic difference between the law and the gospel. The one was external, the other spiritual; the one was an outward precept, the
other an inward power. In the one case the law was written
on stone, in the other on the heart. The one therefore was
letter, the other spirit.
For the letter (i. e. the law) killeth, but the spirit (i. e. the
gospel) giveth life. This is the reason why God hath made
Paul the minister of the spirit.' God had made us able ministers not of the law but of the gospel, for the law kills, but
the gospel gives life.' This passage and the following context
present two important questions. First, in what sense does
the law kill? And second, How is it that the apostle attributes to the AMosaic system this purely legal character, when
he elsewhere so plainly teaches that the gospel was witnessed
or taught both in the law and the prophets? As to the foriner of these questions, the answer furnished by the Scriptures
is plain.'The law demands perfect obedience. It says, "Do
this and live," Rom. 10, 5. Gal. 3, 12, and " Cursed is every
one who continueth not in all things written in the book of
the law to do them," Gal. 3, 10.  As no man renders this
perfect obedience, the law condemns him. It pronounces on
him the sentence of death. This is one way in which it kills.
In the second place, it produces the knowledge or consciousness of sill, and of course of guilt, that is, of just exposure to
the wrath of God. Thus again it slays. And thirdly, by presenting the perfect standard of duty, which cannot be seen
without awakening the sense of obligation to be conformed to
it, while it imparts no disposition or power to obey, it exasper.
ates the soul and thus again it brings forth fruit unto death.
All these effects of the law are systematically presented by
the apostle in the 6th and 7th chapters of his epistle to the
Romans, and in the 3d chapter of the epistle to the Galatians.
The second question is more difficult. Every reader of
the New Testament must be struck with the fict that the
apostle often speaks of the Mosaic law as he does of the moral'




II. CORINTHIANS  3, 6.                  57
law considered as a covenant of works; that is, presenting the
promise of life on the condition of perfect obedience. He
represents it as saying, Do this and live; as requiring works,
and not faith, as the condition of acceptance. Rom. 10, 5-10.
Gal. 3, 10-12. He calls it a ministration of death and condemnation. He denies that it can give life. Gal. 3, 21. He
tells those who are of the law (that is, Judaizers) that they
had fallen from grace; that is, had renounced the gratuitous
method of salvation, and that Christ should profit them nothing. Gal. 5, 2. 4. In short, when he uses the word law, and
says that by the law is the knowledge of sin, that it can only
condemn, that by its works no flesh can be justified, he includes the Mosaic law; and in the epistle to the Galatians all
these things are said with special reference to the law of Moses. On the other hand, however, he teaches that the plan
of salvation has been the same from the beginning; that
Christ was the propitiation for the sins committed under the
old covenant; that men were saved then as now by faith in
Christ; that this mode of salvation was revealed to Abraham
and understood by him, and taught by Moses and the prophets.
This view is presented repeatedly in Paul's epistles, and is argued out in due form in Rom. 3, 21-31. Rom. 4, and Gal. 3.
To reconcile these apparently conflicting representations it
must be remembered that the Mosaic economy was designed
to accomplish different objects, and is therefore presented in
Scripture under different aspects. What, therefore, is true of
it under one aspect, is not true under another. 1. The law
of Moses was, in the first place, a re-enactment of the covenant
of works. A covenant is simply a promise suspended upon a
condition. The covenant of works, therefore, is nothing more
than the promise of life suspended on the condition of perfect
obedience. The phrase is used as a concise and convenient
expression of the eternal principles of justice on which God
deals with rational creatures, and which underlie all dispensa.
tions, the Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Christian. Our
Lord said to the lawyer who asked what he should do to inherit eternal life, " What is written in the law? How readest
thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself: And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right, this
do and thou shalt live," Luke 10, 26-28. This is the covenant
of works. It is an immutable principle that where there is no




58           II. CORINTHIANS  3, 6.
sin there is no condemnation, and where there is sin there is
death. This is all that those who reject the gospel have to
fall back upon.  It is this principle which is rendered so
prominent in the Mosaic economy as to give it its character
of law. Viewed under this aspect it is the ministration of
condemnation and death. 2. The Mosaic economy was also a
national covenant; that is, it presented national promises on
the condition of national obedience. Under this aspect also it
was purely legal. But 3, as the gospel contains a renewed
revelation of the law, so the law of Moses contained a revelation of the gospel. It presented in its priesthood and sacrifices, as types of the office and work of Christ, the gratuitous
method of salvation through a Redeemer. This necessarily
supposes that faith and not works was the condition of salvation. It was those who trusted, not those free from sin, who
were saved. Thus MIoses wrote of Christ, John 5, 46; and
thus the law and the prophets witnessed of a righteousness of
faith, Rom. 3, 21. When therefore the apostle spoke of the
old covenant under its legal aspect, and especially when speaking to those who rejected the gospel and clung to the law of
Moses as law, then he says, it kills, or is the ministration of
condemnation. But when viewing it, and especially when
speaking of those who viewed it as setting forth. the great
doctrine of redemption through the blood of Christ, he represented it as teaching his own doctrine. The law, in every
form, moral or Mosaic, natural or revealed, kills. In demanding works as the condition of salvation, it must condemn all
sinners. But the gospel, whether as revealed in the promise
to Adam after his fall, or in the promise to Abraham, or in
the writings of Moses, or in its full clearness in the New Testament, gives life. As the old covenant revealed both the law
and the gospel, it either killed or gave life, according to the
light in which it was viewed. And therefore Paul sometimes
says it does the one, and sometimes the other. But the spirit
giveth life. The spirit, or the gospel, gives life in a sense correlative to that in which the letter (i. e. the law) kills. 1. By
revealing a righteousness adequate to our justification, and
thus delivering us fiom the sentence of death. 2. By pro.
ducing the assurance of God's love and the hope of his glory
in the place of a dread of his wrath. 3. By becoming, through
the agency of the Holy Spirit, an inward principle or power
transforming us into the image of God; instead of a mere outward command.




II. CORINTHIANS  3, 7.8.                   59
7. 8. But if the ministration of death, written (and)
engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children
of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses
for the glory of his countenance; which (glory) was to
be done away: how shall not the ministration of the
Spirit be rather glorious?
It was the design and effect of the law to kill. This is
true, so far as the work of salvation is concerned, of the law
in all its forms, whether the moral law as revealed in the
Scriptures, or as written in the heart, or as the Mosaic law.
In all these forms it was designed to bring men to the knowledge of sin and helplessness; to produce a sense of guilt and
misery, and a longing for redemption, and thus be a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ. Gal. 3, 24. This was a necessary office, and therefore glorious. But how can it compare
with the gospel? How can that which only makes us know
that we are sinful and condemned, be compared with that
which delivers us from sin and condemnation? This is the
idea which the apostle expands, and, as it were with exultation, turns over as though he could not let it go, in vs. 7-11.
But if the ministration of death, written (and) graven in
stones. The Greek is, eL 6E?1 &GaKovL'a TOy avaToV Ev vpa!aoratv
EVTEfTV)wrEVE Xv XAL3oLS) but if the ministration of death in letters
engraven in stones.  The simplest interpretation of these
words is that the ministration of death was in letters, i. e. by
means of letters, engraven on stone; which is the sense expressed by the free translation given in our common version.
According to this view Ev 7ypalacroLv are connected with what
follows. But more commonly they are connected with what
precedes; the ministration of death in letters, which Luther
makes to mean, "the ministration which by means of letters
(i. e. the written law) produces death." This certainly gives
a good sense and consistent with the context; but it is not so
simple or natural as the one first mentioned. It will be observed that Paul says that the ministration was engraven on
stone. It was, however, of course not the ministration (the
office of a minister) but the law itself that was thus engraven.
There are two things here stated. First, that Moses was the
minister of a covenant that produced death; and secondly,
that that covenant was an external economy or system.
These two ideas are combined at the expense of mere verbal




60         II. CORINTHIANS  3, 7.8.
accuracy in a single clause. The word 3&aKovta, ministration,
means either the service, i. e. the act of ministering, or the
office of a 8taKovos or minister. Commonly the former. In
what sense the ministry of the law was a ministry of death,
and the reason why the law is described as engraven on stone,
have already been stated. The law is thus exhibited as external, as opposed to what is spiritual.
WTas glorious, 7EIv/i3 ry av U, existed in glory; was slirrounded, as it were, by a halo. The reference here is only
indirectly to the brightness of Moses's face, which was but a
symbol of the glory of his ministration. The glory which pertained to the old dispensation was not the illumination of the
countenance of Moses, which was merely an incident. It was
of the same kind, though less in degree, as the glory of the
gospel. The one dispensation was indeed glorious, but the
other was more so. So that the children of Israel could not
steadfastly behold the face of Moses. The whole service was
so glorious that even the face of Moses was so bright that the
people could not look upon it. This brightness of the face of
Moses was in two respects a symbol of the glory of the old
dispensation. In the first place, it was an outward brightness.
So too the glory of the Mosaic dispensation was derived in
large measure fiom its pompous ritual, its temple, its priesthood, its sacrifice, and, above all, its Shekinah, or visible symbol of the divine presence. But what was all this to the glory
of the gospel? What was a bright cloud overhanging the
cherubim, to the light of God's presence filling the soul?
And secondly, the brightness of the face of Moses was transient. The participle KaTapyov/O'Vqv  may be taken as imperfect
-They could not behold it as it was vanishing away; or as
present, which is evanescent, or perishable. It was in its own
nature a mere transient brightness, analogous to the temporary splendour of the service committed to him. How shall not
the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious?  If the one
was glorious, how much more the other! The future shall is
not to be understood in reference to the future world. The
idea is not that hereafter, when Christ's kingdom is consummated, the ministration of the gospel shall be found more glorious than that of the law. The future expresses the certain
sequence. If the ministration of death was glorious, the ministration of the Spirit shall assuredly, if rightly considered, be
regarded as glorious. This is plain from the fact that the
things compared are the ministration committed to Moses and




II. CORINTHIANS  3, 9.                    61
the ministration committed to Paul; and also from the reason
assigned for the superiority of the latter, which is not what is
to be realized in the future, but what is experienced in the
present. It was because it is the ministration of the spirit
that it is more glorious than the ministration of death. The
ideas of life and life-giving are inseparable from that of spirit.
Hence the Holy Ghost in the ancient creeds of the church is
designated as To 7rvEvLa To ayLov, Tr KVptOV, TO\- t0OTOlV. And
hence the gospel as the source of life is called spirit. It is
doubtful, however, whether the word spirit here refers to the
Holy Spirit, or to the gospel. Luther renders the phrase Y
&LaKovla Tov 7TVEVbaTOs, daas Amnt, das den Geist giebt, i. e. the office which gives the Spirit; because it is by the ministration
of the gospel the Holy Spirit is imparted to men. This view
is perhaps commonly adopted. But as in v. 6, spirit, as opposed to letter, evidently means the gospel as opposed to the
law, and as the things compared are the law and gospel, or
the ministry of the one and the ministry of the other, the probability is that Paul intended the word to be so understood
here. The gospel is spirit because it is the source of life.
Instead of being something external and powerless, it is inward and saving; and this is the ground of its superiority to
the law.
9. For if the ministration of condemnation (be)
glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
This verse is a confirmation of the preceding. The gospel
is more glorious than the law, for the ministration of righteousness is more glorious than the ministration of condemnation.
The ministration of condemnation is that ministration which
brings men into a state of conscious condemnation; that is,
which makes them know and feel that they are condemned.
The ministration of righteousness is that ministration which
reveals a righteousness by which men are justified, and thus
freed from the condemnation pronounced upon them by the
law. As much better therefore as justification is than condemnation to eternal death, so much better is the gospel than
the law. Although the words KaTaKpLUTS, condemnation, and
8tKaLO(rvV, righteousness, are here in antithesis, it does not follow that the latter means justification, which is a sense it




62           II. CORINTHIANS 3, 10.
never has in the New Testament. It retains its proper mean.
ing, righteousness, i. e. that which the law demands. It is
not justification, but the ground of it; that on account of
which a man is justified or pronounced righteous. The gospel, being the ministration of the spirit, is the ministration of
righteousness, because as what is spirit is life-giving, the gospel must reveal a righteousness which satisfies the demands
of the law, and thus free us fiom judicial death, or it could
not be the source of life. It is true that the life of which the
gospel is the source is more than mere justification; but as
justification is the necessary condition of spiritual life, Paul
here exalts the gospel by making it the means of securing
that righteousness which is necessary to sanctification and inseparable from it. The use of the present tense, V7repTcrIEVEL,
doth abound, in this verse, serves to confirm the explanation
given of v. 8. Paul in both instances is speaking of the glory
which now belongs to the ministry of the gospel, not of what
is to be hereafter.
10. For even that which was made glorious hath
no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that
excelleth.
For even, Kat yap, for moreover. Too little was said in
simply asserting that the gospel excelled the law. The law,
though glorious in itself, ceased to be glorious in the presence
of the gospel, as the moon loses its brightness in the presence
of the sun.  That which was made glorious, TO &E8ooao,-evov,
that which was and is glorious, viz. the ministry of Moses, and,
by implication, the law or dispensation of which he was the
minister. Hath no glory, ov &8ooaG(Tat, is not glorious, iv
TOVT O  E'LpEL,% in this particular.  This is explained by what
follows. Because of the glory that excelleth. The ministry
of the gospel so much excels the ministry of the law, that the
latter ceases in the comparison to be glorious at all. This is
the common and natural interpretation of the text. Two other
explanations have been proposed. First, the words iv To0vi
T' /CEpEL are connected with 8E8oaor-/LEVov, that which was glorious (viz. the ministry of Moses), in this particular, viz. that the
tace of Moses was rendered luminous.  This gives a very insignificant sense. The shinining of the fice of Moses was not
the glory of his ministry or of the old economy. It was but




II. CORINTHIANS  3, 11.                    63
a symbol of it. Second, MAeyer and others, retaining the ordi.
nary construction of the passage, make the apostle say, that
the general truth that the lesser glory is eclipsed by the
greater, was illustrated in this case, i. e. in the case of Moses
and his ministry. This brings out the same sense as that
given by the ordinary interpretation, but in a less natural
way.  7'hat which was made glorious, To 8E8ooaer,&vov, naturally refers to the definite subject of which the context treats,
which is the ministry of Moses.
11. For if that which was done away (was) glorious,
much more that which remaineth (is) glorious.
A new ground of superiority. The old dispensation and
its ministry were temporary, the new is permanent. There is
nothing to intervene, no new revelation, no new economy, between the gospel and its ministry, and the final consummation.
Whoever are to be converted, whatever nations are to be
brought in, it must be by the preaching of the gospel, which
remainzeth, or is to continue, according to Christ's promise,
until the end of the world. In the former clause the apostle
says the law was &ta' 8de-, with glory, in the latter, that the
gospel was iv 3ot., in glory. This is a mere variation of expression without any difference of meaning. Comp. Rom. 3,
30. 5, 10. That the binding authority of the law ceased on
the introduction of the gospel, is a doctrine which the apostle
had to sustain against the Judaizing tendency of the early
Christians, on many occasions. To this point the epistles to
the Galatians and to the Hebrews are principally directed.
As Paul's opponents in Corinth were of this class, there is
little doubt that what he here says of the inferiority and temnporary character of the old economy had a special reference
to them; while his strong assertion of his divine mission, of
the dignity and superiority of the ministry which he had received, was intended to counteract the influence of their invidious attacks upon his authority. No less clear is the inculcation of the other great truth here presented. The gospel
did away the law, but is itself never to be superseded.  These
are "the last times," the last dispensation, which is to con.
tinue until the consummation of all things.




64          II. CORINTHIANS 3, 12.
The clearness and freedom of the Gospel as contrasted with
the obscurity of the Law. Vs. 12-18.
The apostle having referred to the transient brightness of
Moses's face, as a symbol of the passing glory of his ministry,
here employs the fact that Moses veiled his face as a twofold
illustration. In the first place, it is symbolical of the obscurity of the revelation made under the old dispensation. As the
brightness of Moses's face was covered, so spiritual or evangelical truth was of old covered under the types and shadows
of the Mosaic economy. In the second place, it is symbolical
of the blindness which rested on the minds of the Jews, which
prevented their seeing the true import of their own institutions, vs. 12-15.  Nevertheless, as Moses removed the veil
from his face when he turned to the Lord, so both the obscurity which rests on the law, and the blindness which rests
upon the mind of the Jew, are dispelled when he turns
towards Christ. The vision of his glory transforms the soul
into his likeness, vs. 16-18.
12. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use
great plainness of speech.
Seeing then that we have such hope, literally, Having then
such hope, i. e. because we have it. The hope to which he refers
must be that mentioned in the context, v. 14, that the gospel
and its ministry were, and would prove themselves to be, far
superior to the law and to the ministry of Moses. What in
v. 4 he calls 7rE7rot3q.-ts, confidence, he here calls EXTrts, hope,
because the confidence which he felt had reference not only to
the present, but also to the future.  We use great plainness
of speech, i. e. -rapprl-rta, outspokenness.  This stands opposed
to all concealment, whether fiom timidity or from a desire to
deceive; and also to all fear of consequences. It is a frank,
open, courageous manner of speech. Paul therefore says that
in his case it was the result of his firm conviction of his divine
mission and of the truth and glory of the gospel which he
preached, that he proclaimed it fully, intelligibly, and without regard to consequences. Its being to the Greeks foolishness, and to the Jews a stumblingblock, did not prevent his
declaring the whole counsel of God. The same cause will
ever produce the same effect. If Paul's experience of the
truth and excellence of the gospel led him to declare it with



II. CORINTHIANS  3, 13.                   65
out reserve, a similar experience will produce a similar openness and boldness in other ministers of the gospel. This indeed is one of the glories of Christianity. It is characteristic
of error to practise reserve and to seek concealment. In all
the religions of antiquity there was an esoteric and exoteric
doctrine; one for the people and the other of the initiated.
They all had mysteries carefully concealed from the public
eye. So in the Romish church, just in proportion as it is infected with the spirit of heathenism the doctrine of reserve is
avowed and practised. The gospel is not preached with
openness, so that all may understand it. The people are kept
in ignorance. They are told they need not know; that faith
without knowledge, a blind confidence in rites which they do
not understand, is all-sufficient. But ifa man in a church has
the conviction that the gospel is of God, that it is unspeakably
glorious, adapted to all and needed by all in order to salvation, then-the word will be preached openly and without
reserve.
13. And not as Moses, (which) put a veil over his
face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly
look to the end of that which is abolished.
And not as lMoses, that is, we do not do what Moses did.
Paul had just said that he used great plainness of' speech, that
he practised no concealment or reserve. Of course he means
that Moses did the reverse. He did use concealment and
practise reserve. This is no impeachment of the character
of Moses. Paul is not speaking of his personal character, but
of the nature of his office. The truth concerning man's redemption was not "in other ages made known unto the sons
of men as it is now revealed unto the holy apostles and
prophets by the Spirit," Eph. 3, 5. It was not consistent
with the nature of the ministry of Moses to use the 7rapprg5a,
the openness, in communicating the doctrines of redemption,
which it is the glory of the Christian ministry to be permitted
to employ. He was sent to speak in parables and in types, to
set forth truth in the form of significant rites and ceremonies.
He put a veil over the glory, not to hide it entirely fiom
view, but to obscure its brightness. The people saw the
light, but only occasionally and imperfectly. Paul had already spoken of the brightness of' Moses's face as a symbol of his




66          II. CORINTHIANS  3, 13.
ministry, and therefore he represents him as veiling himself,
to express the idea that he communicated the truth obscurely.
Paul was sent to let the truth shine forth clearly; he did not
put a veil over it as Moses did, and was commanded to do.
T/hat the children of Israel coul-l not steadfastly look to the end
of that which is abolished. That is, to prevent their seeing the
end or fading away of the brightness of his face. The word
Ka-apyov/'eEvo0 (that which is abolished) is used, v. 7, in reference to the glory of the face of Moses, and v. 11 in reference
to his ministry and the dispensation to which it belonged.
Here the reference is to the former, because his face is spoken
of, and its brightness was veiled, and therefore, it was the
brightness the end of which the Israelites were prevented
from seeing. If this be so, then rdiXos, the end, must mean the
termination, and not the design or scope. In Rom. 10, 4,
Christ is said to be the end of the law, not only as abrogating
it, but as being the object towards which it tended. He was
that which it was intended to reveal. Those commentators
who make KaTapyo'4Evov (that which is abolished) refer to the
old law and its ministry, give rcEXos the sense of end or object.
They understand the apostle to say that Moses put a veil over
his face to prevent the children of Israel seeing Christ, who was
the end of the law. But this gives a most incongruous meaning. How could 3Moses's veiling his face prevent the Israelites seeing Christ?  The first part of the verse cannot be
taken literally, and the latter part figuratively. If the veiling
was a literal covering of the face, that which the veil hid must
be something which a literal veil could cover. The majority
of commentators, therefore, understand the words, that which
is abolished, to refer to the visible brightness of the face of
Moses, and the end to mean the termination of that brightness.
The whole clause therefore means that Moses veiled his face
in order to prevent the Israelites seeing how soon its brightness faded. But what has this to do with the point in hand?
In answering this question it must be remembered that the
apostle had referred to the brightness of the face of Moses as
a fit symbol of his ministry, inasmuch as it was external and
transient. To say, therefore, that MIoses veiled his face that
the people might not see the end of its brightness, is a figurative way of saying that Moses hid the light, or taught obscurely, that the people might not understand the true nature
and intent of his ministry. But how is it consistent with the
character of God that he should commission Moses to teach




II. CORINTHIANS.3, 13.                 67
obscurely in order that he might not be understood? Some
endeavour to obviate this difficulty by saying that 7rpTo rI uqO
aTEv/rtaL expresses the result and not the design.'He put a
veil over his face, so. that (not, in order that) the children of
Israel did not see the end of that which is abolished.' Or, to
drop the figure,' He taught obscurely, so that the people did
not understand him.' This explanation, however, is forbidden
by the force of the preposition -rpo', which in such connections
properly expresses the design or intention. There is no special difficulty in the matter. Whatever is, God intended
should be. If Moses taught obscurely or in types, God intended that he should do so. If, in point of fact, the Jews
misunderstood the nature of their own economy, regarding as
ultimate and permanent what was in fact preparatory and
temporary, this was included in the divine purpose. It was
evidently the plan of God to make the revelation of the
scheme of redemption gradually. The whole was by slow
degrees evolved from the original promise made to our first
parents. Perhaps the object of their faith was the simple
promise of redemption. To Abraham it was revealed that
the Redeemer was to be one of his descendants. To Moses it
was made known that he was to be a prophet like himself; and
the nature of his work was obscurely set forth in the priesthood and sacrifices which he ordained. This was enough for
salvation, so long as nothing more had been revealed. It was
ill accordance with this plan that Moses spoke in such a way
that the people did not understand the full import of his
teaching, God having purposed "that they without us should
not be made perfect," Heb. 11, 40. The passage before us is
parallel, in a measure, to Mark 4, 11, where our Lord says,
"Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom
of God; but unto them that are without all these things are
done in parables; that seeing they may see, and not perceive." There is, therefore, as just remarked, no special difficulty in this passage, even if it is understood to teach that
Moses was commissioned so to veil his teachings that they
should not be clearly understood. There is another difficulty
connected with this verse. It does not seem to agree with
Exodus 34, 30. There it is said that the people were afraid
to approach Moses on account of the brightness of his face,
and the implication (according to the English version, at least)
is, that it was to calm their fears he put on a veil. Whereas
here it is said that he put a veil over his face that the people




68          II. CORINTHIANS  3, 14.
might not see the transient nature of that brightness. There
is no inconsistency between the two accounts. The veiling
had both effects; it calmed the fears of the people, and it prevented their seeing how fleeting the brightness was. As both
effects followed, both were intended. Paul in this epistle assigns in different places three or four reasons why he commanded the Corinthians to excommunicate the incestuous
member of their church. That it was meant as a test of their
obedience, 2, 9, is not incompatible with its being a proof of
his care for them, 7, 12. There is, however, not even the appearance of discrepancy between what the apostle here says
and Exodus 34, 30-33, as it is rendered both in the Septuagint
and Vulgate. The English version of that passage is, " And
when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold,
the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh
him. And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the
rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses
talked with them.... And till Moses had done speaking
with them, he put a veil on his face." According to this
Moses put a veil over his face when he spoke to the people,
and the implication is that he did it because they were afraid
on account of the brightness of his countenance. But the
Hlebrew, in v. 33, is simply, "Moses ceased to speak with
them, and put a veil over his face." The natural meaning of
which is that he did not veil his face until he had ceased
speaking.  The Septuagint therefore renders the passage,
"And when he ceased speaking with them, he put a veil over
his face." And the Vulgate, impletisque sermonibus, posuit
velamen super facierrn suam. It appears from the following
verses that when Moses went in before the Lord, he removed
the veil; and when he came out his face shone, and he spake
to the people, and again resumed the veil. According to this
interpretation of the original, the object of putting on the veil
was not to calm the fear of the people, but, as Paul says, to
prevent their seeing how the brightness of his face vanished.
14. But their minds were blinded; for until this
day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; which (veil) is done away
in Christ.
In the preceding verse Paul was speaking of his ministry;




II. C O R I N T   T IIANS 3, 14.          69
the same subject is resumned in the following chapter. Verses
14-18 are therefore a digression, although intimately connected with what precedes and follows. The particle aXXa
either introduces something just the reverse of what precedes, and means on the contrary, or simply something
different, and is to be rendered but.  This verse admits
of two modes of connection with what precedes.'The Jews
did not understand the ministry of Moses, on the contrary,
their minds were blinded.' Or, the connection may be with
the main idea of the preceding context.' We use great plainness of speech, but their minds are blinded.' That is, notwithstanding the clearness with which the gospel is presented
as the substance and true meaning of the old economy, still
the Jews were so blinded they did not perceive it. In either
way the sense is good. But as it is so much the habit of the
apostle to connect what follows with what immediately precedes, and as the figure of the veil, which is not mentioned in
v. 12, is continued in v. 14, it is most natural to make the connection with v. 13, where that figure is introduced, especially
as Paul's immediate object in v. 12 is not to exhibit his plainness of speech in opposition to the hebetude of the Jews. It
is the general fact that under the new dispensation the truth
is exhibited plainly which he asserts. The blindness of the
Jews is only incidentally introduced.  Their minds, voY/lara,
thoughts, affections.  It means the whole inner man.  Were
blinded, Eirop$rq, properly were rendered hard or callous. The
word is used both of the understanding and of the feelings.
It expresses ap inaptitude both of seeing and feeling. They
neither understood nor felt the power of the truth. For until this day remaineth untaken away the same veil. This is a
confirmation derived fiom experience of the fact previously
stated. That the minds of the Israelites were thus blinded
and hardened, is proved fiom the fact that until this day they
do not understand the law. The same veil, i. e. the same obscurity. A veil was thrown over the truth as first revealed
by Moses, and that same veil is there still. The Israelites of
Paul's day understood their Scriptures as little as their fathers
did. They remained satisfied with the external, ritual and
ceremonial, without penetrating to what was beneath, or asking the real import of the types and shadows of the old economy. In the reading of the Old Testament, that is, when the
Old Testament (covenant) is read. This metonymical use of
tile word covenant fbr the books in which that covenant is




70          II. CORINTHIANS  3, 14.
contained, is perfectly familiar to our ears, as we are accustomed to call the two great divisions of the Scriptures the Old
and New Testaments or covenants; but this is the only instance of this use of the word in the New Testament. The
English version does not in this passage follow the order of
the Greek, which reads, " For until this day the same veil in
the reading of the old covenant remains." IIere the sense is
complete.  The following clause, du  arvaKaXvTrToLEvov    OT i(V
XPLtOT  KaTapyELcTat admits of three interpretations.  1. The
first is that adopted by our translators; j/u~ avaKaXv7rT(otEvov is
referred to the preceding clause (remains untaken away),
and &TL (because, or that) is read as two words, o rt, which, i. e.
which veil is done away in Christ. So Luther, in his free
translation: Denn bis auf den heutigen Tag bleibet dieselbige
Decke unaufgedeckt uber das Alten Testament wenn sie es
lesen, welche in Christo aufh6ret.  The great majority of
editors, however, read O'Tt. 2. The word tavaKaXV7rTrOLEVOV, untaken away, is, as before, referred to KaXv(uLa, veil, and O'TL is
rendered because.'The veil remains untaken away, because
it is removed (only) in Christ.' 3. avaKaXv7rrTouEvov is taken
absolutely, and O'Tt is rendered that.' The veil remains, it being unrevealed that it (viz. the old covenant) is done away
in Christ.' In favour of this last-mentioned interpretation it is
urged, that the old covenant was in fact done away in Christ,
and that ignorance of that fact prevented the Jews understanding their own Scriptures. The sense therefore is good.
Besides, the word KaTapyETatrL, is done away, is the proper term
to express the abrogation of the law, but not,so suitable to
express the idea of the removal of a veil, for which, in v. 16,
Paul uses the word 7rrptatpETaL, is removed. The word KarapyVw is used in verses 7. 11 and 13, to express the passing away
of the brightness of the face of Moses, and of his ministry and
dispensation, of which that brightness was the symbol, and
therefore it is the more probable that it has the same reference here. On the other hand, however, it must be admitted
that aVVaKaXV7rTOSLeVOV naturally agrees with KaXvtqlaJ, the veil remains untaken away, and that avaKaXuwTrw, to uncover or unveil, is not the common word to express the idea of making
known or revealing.  See v. 18, avaKaXv7roFevW wrpoc7owp,  with
unveiled face.  The second interpretation, therefore, above
mentioned, is on the whole to be preferred.'The veil which
hid the meaning of the Old Testament remained unremoved,
because it is done away in Christ, whom the Jews rejected,'




II. CORINTHIANS  3, 15.16.                 71
The Old Testament Scriptures are intelligible only when understood as predicting and prefiguring Christ. The present
KavLapyEr'at (is done away) is used as expressing the certain
consequence. The knowledge of Christ, as a matter of fact
and as a matter of course, removes the veil from the Old
Testament.
15. But even unto this day, when Moses is read,
the veil is upon their heart.
But, JXX a, on the contrary, i. e. so far from being taken
away, the veil remains until this day.  When Moses is read.
The word -vtlKa, when, is used in the New Testament only
here and in v. 16. As it occurs often in the Septuagint, and
is used in Exodus 34, 34, it is the more probable that the language of that version was before the apostle's mind, and determined the mode in which he presents the incident of Moses
veiling his face, which, as shown above, accords better with
the view which the Septuagint gives of the original than with
that presented in the English version. In Acts 15, 21, Moses,
it is said, was read every sabbath day in the synagogues.
The veil, or, as the article is wanting, a veil, was, however,
over his face. The apostle presents the idea that the Jews
did not understand their Scriptures in two forms. He says,
in v. 14, that a veil rests on the Old Testament, and here that
a veil was over the hearts of the Jews. The true source of
the want of knowledge was subjective. The revelation of
Christ, even in the writings of the Old Testament, though obscure when'compared with that contained in the writings of
the apostles, was sufficiently clear to be understood if the
Jews had only been in a right state of mind. Hence our Lord
upbraided his disciples, saying, " O fools and slow of heart to
believe all that the prophets have spoken," Luke 24, 25. Compare Acts 13, 27-29. The darkness was not so much in the
Scriptures, as in their minds.
16. Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord,
the veil shall be taken away.
According to the narrative in Ex. 34, 29-35, as understood
by the Septuagint, and as expounded by the apostle, the face
of Moses was made to shine by speaking with the Lord; when
among the people (except when delivering his message) he




72          II. CORINTHIANS  3, 17.
wore a veil; when he turned to the Lord he removed the
veil. To this allusion seems to be here made. So long as the
people were turned from the Lord, the veil was on their heart;
they could not understand the Scriptures; as soon as they
turn to the Lord, the veil is removed, and all is bright and
intelligible.  When it shall turn to the Lord;  Lvtr'Ka 8' av wrtcrTpE'i/, when it has turned, i. e. when that conversion is accomplished, and as often as it occurs. The most natural subject
of the verb ErL-r(T7rPEf' (turned) is Kap&a (heart). A veil is on
the heart, but when it turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.
As, however, the apostle is speaking of the heart of the Jews,
and as the turning of their heart is their turning, so the sense
is the same if the word Israel be supplied. The veil is on the
heart of the people, but when the people turn to the Lord the
veil is taken away. Calvin and others supply Moses as the
nominative.  By Moses, however, Calvin understands the
Law.' When Moses is read, a veil is oin the heart of the
Jews; but when he, i. e. the law, is directed to Christ, who is
the end of the law, then the veil is removed.' That is, as
soon as the Jews see that their law relates to Christ, then
they understand it. This, however, is obviously an unnatural
interpretation, as -L —rptE   expresses the turning of the heart
or of the people to God, and not giving the law a particular
interpretation. Stanley, who also says that Moses must be
the nominative of the verb, makes him, however, the representative, not of the law, but of the people.' When Mloses
turns to the Lord he strips off the veil.' The word rreptatpErlaL
lie gives an active sense, according to its common use in the
Septuagint. This too is less simple and natural than the common interpretation given above. The veil was on the heart
of the people, and when it, i. e. their heart, turns to the Lord,
it is stripped off; 7repatLpETaL is the word used in Ex. 34, 34.
By Lord here, as the context shows, we are to understand
Christ. He is the Lord whom AMoses saw face to face on
Mount Sinai, and to whom the Jews and all others must turn
if they would enjoy the light of salvation.
17. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the
Spirit of the Lord (is), there (is) liberty.
The first point to be determined with regard to this difficult passage, is the relation in which it stands to what precedes. It may be either an explanation or an inference. If




II. CORINTHIANS 3, 17.                      73
the former, then it is designed to show why turning to the
Lord secures the removal of the veil from the heart. It is
because the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit is, there
is liberty, freedom from the law, from its bondage and obscurities. If the latter, then the idea is, that since the veil is
removed by turning to the Lord, it follows as a further consequence that by thus turning we have liberty. The force of
the particle 8E, which so often introduces an explanation,'and
the whole structure of the passage is in favour of the first interpretation.  2. It is plain that the Lord here means Christ.
This is clear not only because the word Lord, as a general
rule, in the New Testament, refers to Christ, but also because
the context in this case demands that reference. In v. 14 it
is said that the veil is done away in Christ, and in v. 16 that it
is removed when the heart turns to the Lord, and here that
the Lord is the Spirit. The main idea of the whole context
is, that the recognition of Jesus Christ as Lord, or Jehovah, is
the key to the Old Testament. It opens all its mysteries, or,
to use the figure of the apostle, it removes the veil which hid
from the Jews the true meaning of their own Scriptures. As
soon as they turn to the Lord, i. e. as soon as they recognize Jesus Christ as their Jehovah, then every thing becomes
bright and clear. It is plain, therefore, that the Lord spoken
of is Christ. This also determines another point, viz. that
Lord is here the subject, and Spirit the predicate. Paul says
that "The Lord is the Spirit," and not "The Spirit is the
Lord."  The latter view of the passage is taken by many of
the Fathers, who regard it as a direct assertion of the divinity
of the Holy Ghost. Although the words would admit of this
interpretation, it is evidently inconsistent with the context
It also follows from the fact that "Lord A" here means Christ,
that it must designate his person and not his doctrine. The
apostle does not mean to say that the doctrine of Christ, or
the gospel, or new covenant, is the Spirit. It is true that in
v. 6, when contrasting the law and the gospel, he calls the one
the letter and the other the spirit; but this does not authorize
us to make -Lord mean the gospel because the Lord is said to
be the Spitit. As in the preceding verses Christ and Lord
refer to Christ as a person; the word Lord must have the
same reference here. 3. When Paul says "The Lord is the
Spirit," he does not mean to say that'the Lord is a spirit,'
agreeably to the analogy of John 4, 24, where it is said " God
is a spirit."  This is not only opposed to the force of the alti



7'4          II. CORINTHIANS  3, 17.
cle To before 7rvfESa, the Spirit, but also to the connection, as
Paul is speaking of Christ's office rather than of his nature. It is not his object to say that Christ is a spiritual being. Neither is the idea that he is replenished with the Holy
Spirit, so as to be in that sense and on that account called the
Spirit. This is not the meaning of the words, nor is the idea
demanded by the context. The two interpretations which
the words admit are either, first, that which our translators
probably intended to indicate when they rendered  oo irvv/pLa
that Spirit.  "The Lord is that Spirit," that is, the spirit
spoken of in v. 6; the spirit which stands opposed to the letter, that which gives life and righteousness; the inner sense
of the law, the saving truth and power hidden under the types
and forms of the Mosaic.economy. Christ, says Calvin, is the
life of the law. Accedat anima ad corpus: et fit vivus homo,
proeditus intelligentia et sensu, ad vitales actiones idoneus:
tollatur anima a corpore, et restabit inutile cadaver, omnique
sensu vacuum. Thus if Christ is present in the Mosaic law,
it is living and life-giving; if he is absent from it, it is dead and
death-dispensing. Christ is therefore that spirit which animates the law or institutions of Moses, and when this is recognized, the veil which hides their meaning is removed. True
as all this is, it can hardly be expressed by the simple words
0 KVpLO" TO 7TVE"vI coTLt, the Lord is the Spirit. The words To
7-rveia, " the Spirit," have in the New Testament a fixed and
definite meaning, which is not to be departed fiom unless the
context renders such departure necessary. Besides, this interpretation requires that " the Spirit " should mean one thing,
and "the Spirit of the Lord" another, in the same verse.
This, however, can hardly be admitted. If " the Spirit of the
Lord," in the last clause, means the Holy Spirit, which will
not be questioned, " the Spirit," in the first clause, must have
the same meaning. The other interpretation, therefore, must
be adopted. "The Lord is the Spirit," that is, Christ is the
Holy Spirit; they are one and the same. Not one and the
same person, but one and the same Being, in the same sense
in which our Lord says, "I and the Father are one."  It is an
identity of essence and of power. Christ is the Holy Spirit,
because, being the same in substance, where Christ is, there
the Spirit is, and where the Spirit is, there is Christ. Therefore this same apostle interchanges the three forms of expression as synonymous, "the Spirit of Christ," "Christ," and
"the Spirit." Rom, 8, 9. 10. The HIoly Ghost is everywhere




II. CORINTHIANS  3, 17.                   75
in the Bible recognized as the source of all life, truth, power,
holiness, blessedness and glory. The apostle, however, had
in the context spoken of Christ as the source of life, as delivering from the death and bondage of the law. He is and does
this because he and the Spirit are one; and therefore wherever Christ is, or in other words, wherever the Spirit of Christ
is, or in other words still, wherever the Spirit is, there is liberty. By turning unto Christ we become partakers of the Holy
Spirit, the living and life-giving, because he and the Spirit are
one, and Christ dwells in his people, redeeming them from the
law and making them the children of God, by his Spirit. The
Spirit of the Lord, as a designation of the Holy Ghost, shows
that the Spirit stands in the same relation to the Son that he
does to the Father. Therefore he is called the "Spirit of
Christ," Rom. 8, 10, and " Spirit of His Son," Gal. 4, 6. And,
therefore, also the Son is said to send and give the Spirit.
John 16, 7. All this of course supposes the supreme divinity
of our Lord.  The liberty of which the apostle here speaks,
must be that liberty which is consequent on the indwelling of
the Holy Spirit, that is, which flows from the application to us
of the redemption purchased by Christ. We have not received, says the apostle, the Spirit of bondage again to fear,
but the Spirit of adoption. Rom. 8, 15. The liberty here intended is the glorious liberty of the children of God. Rom.
8, 21. It is the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free.
Gal. 5, 1. This includes, 1. Freedom from the law in all its
forms, Mosaic and moral, lom. 6, 14. 7, 4, i. e. fieedom from
the obligation to fulfil the law as the condition of our justification before God; which involves fieedom from condemnation
and friom a legal, slavish spirit. 2. Freedom from the dominion
of sin, Rom. 7, 6, and from the power of Satan. Heb. 2, 14. 15.
3. Freedom from the bondage of corruption, not only as to
the soul, but as to the body. Rom. 8, 21-23. This liberty,
therefore, includes all that is involved in being the sons of
God. Incidental to this liberty is freedom from all ignorance
and error, and all subjection to the authority of men, except
so far as it represents the authority of Christ, and therefore
liberty of conscience or freedom from all authority in matters
of religion other than that of the Spirit of God. There is not
only no reason for restricting the idea of the liberty of which
the apostle speaks to any one of these forms, but the context
requires that it should include all that liberty of which the
presence of the Spirit is the source and the assurance. As no




76           II. CORINTHIANS 3, 18.
man in this life is perfectly and at all times filled with the
Spirit of Christ, he is never in this life a partaker of the full
liberty of which Christ is the author.
18. But we all, with open face beholding as in a
glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same
image from glory to glory, (even) as by the Spirit of
the Lord.
This verse is connected with the preceding by the simple
particle of transition &8, but. The natural consequence of the
liberty mentioned in v. 17 is what is here stated. }Fe all, i. e.
all whom the indwelling of the Spirit of the Lord has made
free. They are delivered from  the bondage of the law, the
veil has been removed from their face, and being turned to
the Lord, they behold his glory with open face, avaKEKaXvIEt/y
1rpoo-7rr, i. e. with a face which has been, and which remains
unveiled. The darkness arising from  alienation, ignorance,
misconception and prejudice has been dissipated, so that we
can see clearly. _Beholding as in a glass or mirror.  This is
probably the proper interpretation of the word here used.
KaTro7rTp[(W, in the active voice, means to show in a mirror,
and in the middle, (the form here used,) it generally means,
to see one's self in a mirror. This is its constant use in the
classics. But in Philo it is used to express the idea of seeing
by means of a mirror. As this sense is perfectly suited to this
passage it is generally adopted by commentators, because the
other explanations given to the word are either contrary to
usage or to the context.  Some render it simply beholding.
But to this it is objected that it overlooks the special etymological signification of the word, and that arEV;to, which occurs
twice in this chapter5 vs. 7 and 13, is the proper term for that
idea. Besides, this interpretation loses sight of the figure involved in the passage. It is an image we see, and therefore
we see, as it were, by reflection, or as in a glass. Luther,
after Chrysostom, renders the word, reflecting as in a mirror.
This explanation is adopted by Bengel, Billroth, Olshausen
and others. They understand the apostle to say that Christians reflect, with an unveiled face, the glory of the Lord.
They suppose that allusion is had to the glory of God as reflected from the face of Moses, which was transient and veiled;
mhereas, in the case of Christians, the glory of the Lord is




II. CORINTIIIAN S  3, 18.                  77
constantly and clearly manifested in them  and by them.
They reflect his image wherever they go. But, in the first
place, this explanation is inconsistent with the signification of
the word, which never means to reflect; secondly, it is contrary to the context. The contrast is not between Moses and
Christians, but between the Jews, or the unconverted, and
Christians. Tile fbrmer were blinded by a veil, the latter see
with anl unveiled face. The one see and the others do not.
This is obviously the antithesis implied, and not that the one
class do, and the other do not reflect the glory of the Lord.
In the third place, the relation in which this verse stands to
the preceding forbids this interpretation. We have here the
effect of turning to the Lord. We are delivered from the
law, we are made free, we are introduced into the presence of
the Lord, and enabled to behold his glory. And, finally, this
interpretation overlooks the causal relation between the two
clauses of this verse. We are transformed into the image of
the Lord by beholding it, not by reflecting it. The common
interpretation is therefore to be preferred; beholcting as in a
mnirror. Though in comparison with the unconverted those
who are turned to the Lord see clearly, or with an unveiled
face, still it is only as in a mirror. 1 Cor. 13, 12. It is not
the immediate, beatific vision of the glory of the Lord, which
is only enjoyed in heaven, but it is that manifestation of his
glory which is made in his word and by his Spirit, whose office
it is to glorify Christ by revealing him to us. John 16, 14.
The object which we behold is the glory of the -Lord, i. e.
as the context evidently demands, of Christ. The glory of
Christ is his divine excellence. The believer is enabled to see
that Jesus is the Son of God, or God manifested in the flesh.
This is conversion. Whoever shall confess that Jesus is the
Son of' God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 1 John 4, 15.
The turning unto the Lord mentioned in the preceding verse
is recognizing Christ as Jehovah. This is not only conversion,
it is religion. It is the highest state of the human soul. It is
eternal life. John 17, 3. Hence our Lord prays that his disciples may behold his glory, as the consummation of their
blessedness. John 17, 24. And the apostle John says of all
who received Christ, that they beheld "his glory as of the
only begotten of the Father," John 1, 14. The idea here presented is more fully unfolded in the beginning of the following chapter.
Beholding his glory we are chacngel into the same image;




78          II. CORINTHIANS  3, 18.,iv a.V..v EtKova LETaLkopfov'e9a, we are transformed into the
same image. The verb is commonly construed with Edr,
into, or Kard, after, but sometimes, as here, with the simple
accusative. The same image, that is, the same which we are
by the Spirit enabled to behold.'Beholding we are transformed;' there is a causal relation between the one and the
other. This is a truth everywhere recognized in the word
of God. While, on the one hand, it is taught that the natu.
ral man cannot see the things of the Spirit, because they are
spiritually discerned, 1 Cor. 2, 14, and that this blindness is
the cause of alienation and pollution, Eph. 4, 18; on the other
hand, it is no less clearly taught that knowledge is the
source of holiness, Eph. 5, 9; that spiritual discernment
implies and produces congeniality. We shall be like Christ,
because we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3, 2. The conformity to the image of Christ, as it arises from beholding his glory,
must of course begin here. It is the vision of that glory, although only.as in a glass, which has this transforming power.
As the vision is imperfect, so the transformation is imperfect;
when the vision is perfect, the conformity will be perfect.
Rom. 8, 29. 1 John 3, 2. Only they are Christians, who are
like Christ. The conformity of which the apostle speaks, although it is spiritual, as here presented, is not confined to the
soul. Of the body it is said, since we have borne the image
of the earthy, we shall bear the image of the heavenly. I Cor.
15, 49. Phil. 3, 21. Frown glory to glory. This may mean
that the transformation proceeds from  glory (i. e. from the
glory of Christ as apprehended by us), and results in glory.
This explanation is adopted by the Greek fathers. Or the expression indicates progression from  one stage of glory to
another.  Comp. Ps. 84, 7, " They go fiom  strength to
strength." This is the common and most natural interpretation. The transformation is carried forward without intermission, from the first scarce discernible resemblance, to full
conformity to the image of Christ, both as to soul and body.
As by the Sp2irit of the Lord. As, i. e. as might be expected
from such an agent.  It is a work which corresponds to the
nature of its author.  By; the preposition is i7ro, front, as
indicating the source whence this glorious effect flows. The
Spirit of the Lord. The Greek is KVplov TrvEVarTO, which the
Vulgate renders.Domini Spiritu, an explanation which i;
adopted by Augustin, Calvin and many others, as well as by
our translators. But this inverts the order of the words, and




II. CORINTHIANS 3, 18.                       79
is the more unnatural here because in the immediately preceding verse the apostle had said To 7rVcEva Kvpiov, Spirit of the
Lord; he would therefore hardly express the same idea in the
same connection by KVpLOV 7trvEvcTaro. Others render the words
the Lord Spirit, i. e. the Spirit who is Lord. We have in the
Old Testament and in the apocalypse the familiar phrase, "the
Lord God;" but this is only the translation of      rl: m r, Jehovah Elohim, Jehovah who is God, which the Septufagint render KVPLO O' CO%, the Vulgate Dominus Deus, and the English,
"Lord God." More analogous to the passage in the text is the
Hebrew, i.v,  which the Septuagint render KVpLoS KvPLo%
the Vulgate Donlinus Dens, and the English Lord God. In
Joshua 22, 22, we have the unusual combination, tahr:,.i. ~s;
Septuagint, o 3E5o  Ec0 Kv'pto' OTLt; and inniediateiy after o
2E5s &Oos; Vulgate, Fortissimus Dens Dominus; the English,
"The LORD God of gods."  As then in Hebrew,n: i:., inl
Greek KV'pLo KVp[OS (or KVpLOS O 3&o'), in Latin, Dominuss Deus,
and in English, Lord God, all meaning God who is Lord, so
KVpLOS 7rrVeVja may mean the Spirit who is Lord, i. e. the divine
Spirit. This is the explanation adopted by Chrysostom, Theodoret and some of the moderns, in accordance with the interpretation which they give of the first clause of v. 17, which,
as stated above, they understand to mean, the Spirit is Lord,
7rp r1 fVEZa'rta-p'(/ov, 7rp', Kv'ptov'7r~c-Tp'0E4~L Vpt3 )cp
7rpOS TO El(Vl  E7t~p9V  0r    E~LO   ETCp9L  KVpCO3 yap To
IIVEI.a, KaL O1LkOJpOVOV, O~07rpOOKVVqTOV KaO O/OOVotOV llaTpL KaL Vtw.
But as in v. 17 Paul does not say the Spirit is the Lord, but
on the contrary that the Lord is the Spirit, so it would be
unnatural to make him here say we are transformed by the
Spirit who is the Lord. If Lord is the subject in the one
case, it must be in the other. According to others, the phrase
in question should be rendered Lord of the Spirit, i. e. Christ,
who may be said to be Lord of the Spirit, in a sense analogous
to that in which God is said to be the God of Christ. That
is, as God sent Christ, and was revealed by him, so Christ
sends the Spirit and is revealed by him. This is the interpretation of Billroth, Olshausen, M/eyer and others. But the
"Lord of the Spirit" is an expression without any scriptural
authority or analogy. It is only of the incarnate Son of God
that the Father is said to be his God. There is no grammatical necessity for this interpretation, and it does not accord
with v. 17. Luther, Beza and others render the phrase ahro
KVpLOV 7VEVtLaTOs, the Lord who is the Spirit. In favour of this
interpretation is, first, the analogy of such expressions as aro
4*




80             II. CORINTHIANS 4.
lgOV 7raTpo's, from  God who is Father, Gal. 1, 3; and secondly,
the authority of v. 17. There the apostle had said,'The Lord
is the Spirit,' and here he says, the transforming power by
which we are made like Christ flows from'the Lord who is
the Spirit.' The former passage determines the meaning of
the latter.  The Lord who is the Spirit means, the Lord who
is one with the Spirit, the same in substance, equal in power
and glory; who is where the Spirit is, and does what the
Spirit does.
CHAPTER IV.
In vs. 1-6 the apostle resumes the theme of 3, 12, viz. the open and faithful
manner in which he preached the gospel. In vs. 7-15 he shows that his
own personal insufficiency and suffering served to manifest more clearly
the power of God, who rendered such a feeble instrument the means of
producing so great effects. Therefore, vs. 16-18, he was not discouraged or faint-hearted, but exultingly looked above the things seen to
those unseen.
As Paul had been made a minister of the new covenant, intrusted with the ministration of righteousness and life, he
acted as became his high commission. He was neither timid
nor deceitful. He doubted not the truth, the power, or the
success of the gospel which he preached; nor did he in any
way corrupt or conceal the truth, but by its open proclamation commended himself to every man's conscience, vs. 1. 2.
If, notwithstanding this clear exhibition of the truth, the gospel still remained hid, that could only be accounted for by
the god of this world blinding the eyes of men. Nothing
short of this can account for the fact; fbr, says the apostle, we
preach Christ and not ourselves, and Christ is the image of
God. In him there is a revelation of the glory of God to
which there is nothing analogous but the original creation of
light out of darkness, vs. 3-6. This treasure, however, is in
earthen vessels. The gospel is the revelation of God. It is
to do for the world what the creation of light did for the chaotic earth.  But we ministers are to have none of the glory
of the work. We are nothing.  The whole power is of God;




II. CORINTHIANS  4, 1.                    81
who so orders events as to make his power apparent. I am
so perplexed, persecuted, down-trodden and exposed to death,
as to render it evident that a divine power is exercised in my
preservation and continued efficiency. My continuing to live
and labour with success is a proof that Jesus lives. This he
tells the Corinthians is for their benefit. vs. 7-12. Having the
same faith that David had, he spoke with equal confidence,
assured that God, who raised up Christ, would not only preserve him while in this world, but also raise him hereafter
fiom the dead. As all Paul endured and did was for the
benefit of the Church, thanks would be rendered by the people of God for his preservation and success, vs. 13-15. Therefore, adds this great apostle, I do not faint; although my outward man perishes, my inward man is renewed day by day;
for I know that my present afflictions are not only temporary,
but that they are to be succeeded by an eternal weight of
glory, vs. 16-18.
1. Therefore, seeing we have this ministry, as we
have received mercy, we faint not.
Thzerefore, i. e. on this account. This is explained by what
follows; seeing we have this ministry, that is, because we
have it. In the former chapter he had proclaimed himself a
minister of the new covenant, not of the letter, but of the
spirit, 3, 6; a ministry far more glorious than that of the law,
inasmnuch as the law could only condemn, whereas the gospel
conveys righteousness and liti. The possession of such an oflice he assigns as the reason why he does not faint; OVK EKKaKOVLEV, we do not turn out bad, or prove recreant. That is,
we do not fail in the discharge of duty, either through weariness or cowardice. As twe have received mercy. The position
of these words in the text admits of their being connected
either with what precedes or with what follows. In the former case, the sense is, having through the mercy of God obtained this ministry; in the latter, the meaning would be, as
we have obtained mercy we faint not. The former is almost
universally preferred, both because his not fainting is referred
to his having so glorious an office, and because he so often refers to his call to the apostleship as a signal manifestation of
the mercy and grace of God. Rom. 15, 15. 16. 1 Cor. 15,
9. 10. Eph. 3, 8.'Having through the mercy of God obtained such a ministry, we faint not.'




82          II. CORINTHIANS  4, 2.
2. But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the
word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the
truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience
in the sight of God.
But, aXXa, on the contrary, i. e. so far from proving recreant to his duty as a minister of the new covenant he acted in
the manner set forth in this verse. The apostle in the description which he here gives of his official conduct, evidently
intends to describe the false teachers in Corinth. What he denies of himself he impliedly affirms of them. First, Paul says,
we have renounced, declared off from, the hidden things of dishonesty, Tr KpV7rTar r  a'crXvvrvs. The word aicrXvvrv (from atoXpo's,
ugly), means either shame as a feeling, or the cause of shame,
any thing disgraceful or scandalous. The above phrase therefore may mean either those things which men conceal, or do in
secret, because they are ashamed of them, or, secret scandals or
crimes. It may be taken in a general sense, as including any
course of conauct which men conceal from fear of being disgraced; or in a specific sense for secret immoralities, or for
secret machinations and manceuvres. The last is probably the
true view, because the emphasis is rather on secret than shame.
It was secrecy or concealment, the opposite of openness and
honest frankness, that the apostle charges on his opponents.
In the preceding context he had spoken of his openness of
speech and conduct, and in the latter part of this verse he
speaks of the manifestation of the truth, i. e. of its open proclamation. What therefore he says he renounced, that which
he represents as characteristic of false teachers, is the want of
openness, adopting secret methods of accomplishing their
ends, which they would be ashamed to avow openly; pudendas latebras, as Beza says, minime convenientes iis, qui tantae
dignitatis ministerium tractant. Not walking in craftiness,
this is an amplification of what precedes. A ravoropyos is a
man who can do every thing, and is willing to do any thing to
accomplish his ends; and hence 7ravovpyta includes the ideas
of shrewdness or acuteness in seeing how things can be done,
and unscrupulousness as to the character of the means to be
employed. It is the quality manifested by Satan when he beguiled Eve, 2 Cor. 11, 3; which the Jews exhibited when
they endeavoured to entrap our Lord, Luke 20, 23; and




II. CORINTHIANS  4, 3.                  83
which false teachers are wont to exercise when they would
seduce the unwary into heresy. Eph. 4, 14. All such cunning,
all such sly and secret ways of accomplishing his purposes Paul
renounced. Nor handling the word of God deceitfully. The
word SoXwo means not only to deceive, but also to falsify. The
latter is its meaning here. Not falsifying or corrupting the
word of God, i. e. not adulterating it with the doctrines or
traditions of men. Comp. 2, 17. The gospel which Paul
preached was the word of God; something divinely revealed,
having therefore a divine, and not merely human authority.
The apostles always thus speak with the consciousness of being the mouth of God or organs of the Spirit, so that we cannot deny their inspiration without denying not only their authority but their integrity. But by the manifestation of the
truth. This stands opposed to the preceding clauses. Instead of availing ourselves of secret and cunning arts, and
corrupting the word of God, we declared it openly and purely. The truth, therefore, here is not moral truth or integrity,
nor truth in general, but revealed truth, i. e. the word of God.
Commending ourselves to every man's conscience. Paul's opponents endeavoured to recommend themselves and to secure
the confidence of others by cunning, and by corrupting the
gospel; but he relied simply on the manifestation of the truth.
He knew that the truth had such a self-evidencing power that
even where it was rejected and hated it commended itself to
the conscience as true. And those ministers who are humble
and sincere, who are not wise in their own conceit, but simply
declare the truth as God has revealed it, commend themselves
to the consciences of men. That is, they secure the testimony
of the conscience even of wicked men in their favour. In the
sight of God, that is, he acted thus in the sight of God.
This is an assertion of the purity of the motives which governed his official conduct. He acted as in the sight of that
God before whose eye nothing unholy or selfish could stand.
The assertion of conscious integrity is not self-praise.
3. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that
are lost.
Although the gospel is thus glorious in itself, and although
it was clearly set forth, yet to some it remained hid. That is,
its true character and excellence as a revelation from God and
of God was not apprehended or recognized. The reason ox




84          II. CORINTHIANS 4, 4.
cause of this fact was not to be sought either in the nature of
the gospel, or in the mode of its exhibition, but in the state
and character of those who rejected it. The sun does not
cease to be the sun although the blind do not see it. And if
any man cannot see the sun on a clear day at noon, he must
be blind. So Paul does not hesitate to say that if any man
does not receive the gospel when clearly presented, he is lost.
If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, Iv Trot
aroXXvlvoLt, among, or before them who are lost. See I Cor.
1, 18, where it is said that the gospel is foolishness to them
that perish. T/he lost are those who are in a state of perdition
and who are certain (if they continue to reject the gospel) to
perish forever. Nothing can be plainer than the doctrine of
this passage. A man's faith is not a matter of indifference.
He cannot be an atheist and yet be saved. He cannot reject
the gospel and yet go to heaven when he dies. This is not an
arbitrary decision. There is and must be an adequate ground
for it. Atheism implies spiritual death, the absence of all that
constitutes the true life of the soul, of all its highest and best
aspirations, instincts and feelings. The rejection of the gospel
is as clear a proof of moral depravity, as inability to see the
light of the sun at noon is a proof of blindness. Such is the
teaching of the Bible, and such has ever been the faith of the
church. MIen of the world cry out against this doctrine.
They insist that a man is not accountable for his opinions.
He is, however, accountable for the character by which those
opinions are determined. If he has such a character, such an
inward moral state, as permits and decides him to believe that
there is no God, that murder, adultery, theft and violence are
right and good, then that inward state which constitutes his
character, and for which he is responsible, (according to the
intuitive perception and universal judgment of men,) is reprobate. A good infidel is, according to the Bible, as much a
contradiction as good wickedness or sweet bitterness. It is
not for nothing that infinite truth and love, in the person of
our Lord, said, "He that believeth not shall be damned."
4. In whom the god of this world hath blinded the
minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the,
glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God,
should shine unto them.




II. CORINTHIANS  4, 4.                    85
In this verse the apostle assigns the reason why those who
are lost do not see the truth and excellence of the gospel. It
is that the god of this world hath blinded their minds. Irn
whom (Ev ois). The relative is used here as implying a cause
or reason.'Our gospel is hid to them who are lost, because
in them,' &c. See 3, 6.  The god of this worlcd, i. e. Satan,
who is called the god of this world because of the power
which he exercises over the men of the world, and because of
the servile obedience which they render to him. They are
taken captive by him at his will. 2 Tim. 2, 26. It is not
necessary in order that men should serve Satan, and even
worship him, that they should intend to do so, or even that
they should know that such a being exists. 1 Cor. 10, 20. It
is enough that he actually controls them, and that they fulfil
his purposes as implicitly as the good fulfil the will of God.
Not to serve God, is to serve Satan. There is no help for it.
If Jehovah be not our God, Satan is. He is therefore called
the prince of this world. John 12, 31. 14, 30. Comp. Matt.
4, 8. 9. Eph. 2, 2. 6, 12.  This was one of the designations
which the Rabbins applied to Satan. The true God, they said,
is Dens primus, Satan, Dels secundus. Or as old Calovius
said, Diabolus est simica Dei. As the Arians argued from the
fact that Satan is called god of this world, that Christ's
being called God is no proof of his true divinity; and as the
MIanicheans quoted the passage in favour of their doctrine of
two eternal principles, the one good and the other evil,
many of the fathers, including even Chrysostom and Augustine, in violation of its obvious construction, make it to mean,
" God hath blinded the minds of this world, i. e. of unbelievers."  On which Calvin remarks, We see how far the spirit of
controversy can lead men in perverting Scripture. The word
god may be used figuratively as well as literally. That we
say mammon is the god of the world, or that Paul said of certain men, "their belly is their god," does not prove that calling Jehovah God is no assertion of his divinity. And as to
the Manichean argument, unless it can be shown that when
Baal is called god of the Syrians, eternity and self-existence
are ascribed to him, it cannot be inferred that these attributes
belong to Satan because he is called the god of this world.
Satan is said to blind the minds of those that believe not; that
is, lie exerts such an influence over them as prevents their apprehending the glory of the gospel. This control of Satan
over the human mind, although so effectual, is analogous to




86           II. CORINTHIANS  4, 4.
the influence of one created intellect over another in other
cases, and therefore is perfectly consistent with free agency
and responsibility. It should, however, make us feel our danger and need of divine assistance, seeing that we have to contend not only against the influence of evil men, but against
the far more powerful influence of the rulers of darkness; the
pantocrators of this world. Eph. 6, 12.  The grammatical
construction of this clause is somewhat doubtful. The words
are iv oL Er1ts9Xwce &a vorjaTra W'v a7rtoTrv. The common explanation makes the genitive, T-v &7rti'rwv, virtually in apposition with Ev o~T.'In whom, i. e. in unbelievers, he had blinded the minds.' The simple meaning then is,'The gospel is
hid to them who are lost, because Satan hath blinded their
eyes.' The lost and the unbelieving are identical. According
to this view unbelief is the effect of the blinding. The same
idea is expressed if, according to Fritzsche and Billroth, Trv
a7rrwtrov be taken proleptically.'Whose minds Satan hath
blinded so that they believe not.' Comp. 1 Thess. 3, 13, "To
establish your hearts unblamable," i. e. so that they may be
unblamable; and Phil. 3, 21, (according to the corrected
text,) "changed like," i. e. changed so as to be like. According to Meyer this would require the accusative, ra voirykaT-a
araCta, as the genitive of adjectives taken substantively is
never thus proleptically used. His explanation is,'Blinding
the eyes of unbelievers is the business of Satan, and this he
has, done in them who are lost.' According to this view,
blindness does not precede, but follows unbelief. Those who
will not believe, Satan blinds so that they cannot see. Comp.
Rom. 1, 21, "Their foolish heart was darkened."  Their inexcusable folly was the ground of their judicial blindness. The
doctrine thus taught is one clearly recognized in Scripture.
Those who resist the truth, God gives up to a reprobate mind.
Rom. 1, 24. 28. The logical connection, however, is here opposed to this interpretation. Paul had said that the gospel
was hid to the lost. This he accounts for by saying that Satan had blinded their minds. The blindness therefore precedes the unbelief and is the cause of it.
Lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the
image of God, should shine unto them. This is both the design and effect of the blindness spoken of. Satan intends by
the darkness which he spreads over the minds of men, to prevent their seeing the glory of Christ. Lest the light, okrOTL-/0,
a word which does not occur in common Greek, but is used




II. CORINTIJIANS  4, 5.                   87
in the Septuagint, Ps. 44, 3, in the phrase rendered, "in the
light of thy countenance," anld Ps. 78, 14, " He led them all
night with a light of fire." The word therefore signifies the
brightness emitted by a radiant body. Of the glorious gospel
of Christ, literally, the gospel of the glory of Christ, i. e. that
gospel which reveals the glory of Christ. The word 305as,
glory, is not to be taken as a merely qualifying genitive of
EayyEXlov, gospel. It is the genitive of the object. The glory
of Christ is the sum of all the divine and human excellence
which is centred in his person, and makes him the radiant
point in the universe, the clearest manifestation of God to his
creatures, the object of supreme admiration, adoration and
love, to all intelligent beings, and especially to his saints. To
see this glory is to be saved; for we are thereby transformed
into his likeness from glory to glory, 3, 18. Therefore it is
that Satan, the great adversary, directs all his energy to prevent men becoming the subjects of that illumination of which
the gospel, as the revelation of the glory of Christ, is the
source.  Who is the image of God, i. e. who being God represents God, so that he who hath seen the Son hath seen the
Father also. John 14, 9. 12, 45. Christ, as to his divine nature, or as the Logos, is declared to be the brightness of the
Father's glory, Heb. 1, 3, to be in the form of God and equal
with God, Phil. 2, 6, and perhaps also Col. 1, 15; but here it
is the incarnate Logos, the exalted Son of God clothed in our
nature, who is declared to be the image of God, because in him
dwells the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Col. 2, 9.
5. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus
the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
The connection indicated by the particle for is with the
main idea of the preceding verse.' Our gospel,' says Paul,'is the gospel of the glory of Christ, for we do not preach
ourselves, but him.' To preach one's self is to make self the
end of preaching; that is, preaching with the design to attract to ourselves the admiration, the confidence or homage
of men. This Paul declares he did not do, but he preached
Christ Jesus the Lord. His object in preaching was to bring
men to recognize Jesus the son of Mary as Christ, i. e. as him
whom Moses and the prophets designated as the Messiah,
and consequently that this Jesus was, had done, is doing, and
would hereafter do, all that had been asserted or predicted of




88          II. CORINTHIANS  4, 6.
the Messiah; and further that he is LORD in that sense in
which every tongue in heaven, and on earth, and under the
earth shall confess that he is Lord. The great end of Paul's
preaching, therefore, was to bring men to receive and acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah and as the supreme Lord, the maker of heaven and earth.  This is the
only proper end of preaching. It is the only way by which
men can be made either virtuous or religious. It is the only
way in which either the true interests of society or the salvation of souls can be secured. To make the end of preaching
the incellcation of virtue, to render men honest, sober, benevolent and faithful, is part and parcel of that wisdom of the
world that is foolishness with God. It is attempting to raise
fruit without trees. When a man is brought'to recognize
Jesus Christ as Lord, and to love and worship him as such,
then he becomes like Christ. WVhat more can the moralist
want? Paul cared little for the clamour of the Greeks that he
should preach wisdom and virtue. IHe knew that by preaching Christ he was adopting the only means by which men can
be made wise and virtuous here and blessed hereafter.
And ourselves your servants (slaves) for Jesus' sake.
Paul presented Christ as Lord; himself as a servant.  A
servant is one who labours, not for himself, but for another.
Paul did not labour for himself; but for the Corinthians. For
Jesus' sake. The motive which influenced him to devote himself to the service of the Corinthians was the love of Christ.
IIere again the wisdom of the world would say the proper
motive would be a desire for their good. Paul always puts
God before man. A regard for the glory of Christ is a far
higher motive than regard fbr the good of men; and the former is the only true source of the latter. The ideal of a
Christian minister, as presented in this pregnant passage, is,
that he is a preacher of Christ, and a servant of the church,
governed and animated by the love of Jesus.
6. For God, who commanded the light to shine out
of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to (give) the
light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face
of Jesus Christ.
There are two different views taken of the meaning of this
verse. First, it may be understood to assign the reason why




II. CORINTHIANS 4, 6.                     89
Paul was the servant of the Corinthians. He devoted himself
to their service, because God had revealed to him the knowledge of Christ, in order that he might communicate that
knowledge to others. According to this view the connection
is with the last clause of v. 5. "I am your servant, OTL, because," &c.; "in our hearts," means in Paul's heart; and
7rrpOS coTtO'V (for the light) is equivalent to rp,; T- roTLaEV,
to diffuse the light. Second, it may be understood to state
the reason why Paul preached Christ.' Ve preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, ortL, because in him is revealed the glory of God.' In this case the connection is with
the first clause of v. 5, and not with the last; "in our hearts"
means in the hearts of believers; and 7rpSo coru-wpto'v (for light)
means, as our version expresses it, to give eus the light. The
end or design of God's shiqining into our hearts is that we
should apprehend the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
The latter of these interpretations is adopted by Calvin, the
former by Luther and by almost all the modern commentators. With regard to the former it must be admitted that
the sense is good and consistent with the meaning of the
words. It accords also with Gal. 1, 16, where the apostle
says that God had revealed his Son in him that he might
preach him among the Gentiles. The following considerations, however, are in favour of the other view of the passage.
1. The connection is better. The main idea of the context is
that Paul preached Christ, and therefore it is more natural to
understand him to give the reason for so doing, than why he
served the Corinthians, which is a subordinate matter. 2.
The phrase "in our hearts" is much more naturally understood to mean " in the hearts of believers " than in Paul's own
heart. It is indeed possible that here, as in 3, 2, the plural
(hearts) may be used in reference to the apostle himself:
Still this is admissible only when the context requires it. Had
Paul meant himself he would probably have said "in our
heart," as in the parallel passage in Galatians 1, 16 he says, Ev,ot, in me. To explain the plural form here by assuming
that Paul means himself and Timothy is contrary to his uniform habit of speaking for himself. His epistles are his and
not Timothy's. 3. The former interpretation supposes  WTwc —,uos to have a different meaning here from what it has in v. 4.
There it means light, here it is made to mean the act of' cormnzmunicating light. But if 0WTtLO  Tos' EayyEXlov means the
light which flows from the gospel (or the gospel itself as lumi



90           II. CORINTHIANS  4, 6.
nous), then WOTLOtkL 9t  S 7VcrEws means the light of which the
knowledge of Christ is the source, (or that knowledge as
light.) In v. 4, it is said that Satan hath blinded the eyes of
unbelievers so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of
the glory of Christ, Here it is said that God has enlightened
us so that we do see it. In Test. XII. Patr. p. 578, it is said,
i' 0(-1, TOV K6OrlWov, TO' 8O&EV Ev V/jIV 7TpOS /p:,ot-r0v rav'ro  av9pw7rrov,
the light of the world deposited in you, for the (subjective) illumination of every man. 4. It is an additional reason in favour of this interpretation that it suits the antithesis between
vs. 4 and 6. The gospel is hid to one class of men, but God
has opened the eyes of another class to see its glory. Here,
as elsewhere, particularly in I Cor. 2, 14, the apostle recognizes a twofold illumination, the one external by the word, to
which Satan renders unbelieversblind; and the other internal
by the Spirit, whereby we are enabled to see the glory which
is objectively revealed.
The literal translation of this passage is,'God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, who shined into
our hearts.' Something must be supplied to complete the
sense. We may read either' It is God who commanded, &c.,
who shined into our hearts;' or,' God who commanded the
light to shine out of darkness, is he who shined,' &c. There
is an obvious reference to the work of creation as recorded in
Genesis. Darkness originally brooded over chaos, until God
said, Let there be light. So spiritual darkness broods over
the minds of men, until God shines into their hearts. Shined
into our hearts. The word Xaca7ro), means either, to be luminous; or as here, to illuminate, or cause light, as the analogy
with the physical creation, just referred to, requires. The
idea is not that God becomes luminous in us, but that he prioduces light in our hearts. The design of this inward illurnination is expressed by the words rrpo3s WTrLTSOV T4 7vwcrEcons, which,
according to the former of the two interpretations mentioned
above, means, to the shining abroad of the knowledge, &c.
He illuminates us that we may diffuse light, and thus illuminate others. Accordiing to the second interpretation, the
meaning is, to give us the light of the knowledge. God illuminates our minds so that we apprehend that light which
flows from the knowledge of the glory of God, or which consists in that knowledge. By the glory of God is of course
meant the divine majesty or excellence, which is the proper
object of admiration and adoration. in the face of Jesus




II. CORINTHIANS  4, 7.                  91
Christ; the position of these words and the sense require
that they should be connected with the word glory, notwithstanding the omission in the Greek of the connecting article
(ris). It is the glory of God as revealed in Christ that men
are by the illumination of the Holy Ghost enabled to see.
There are two important truths involved in this statement.
First, that God becomes in Christ the object of knowledge.
The clearest revelation of the fact that God is, and what he is,
is made in the person of Christ, so that those who refuse to
see God in Christ lose all true knowledge of him. "No man
hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in
the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him," John 1, 18.
"' Neither knoweth-any man the Father, save the Son, and he
to whomsoever the Son will reveal him," Matt. 11, 27.
" Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father,"
1 John 2, 23. 2 John 9. John 15, 23. Insignis locus, says
Calvin, unde discimus Deum in sua altitudine non esse investigandum (habitat enim lucem inaccessibilem), sed cognoscendum quatenus se in Christo patefacit. Proinde quicquid extra
Christum de Deo cognoscere appetunt homines, evanidum est,
vagantur enim extra viam.... Nobis utilius est Deum conspicere, qualis apparet in Filio unigenito, quam arcanam ejus
essentiam investigare. The other truth here taught is, that
this knowledge of God in Christ is not a mere matter of intellectual apprehension, which one man may communicate to another. It is a spiritual discernment, to be derived only from
the Spirit of God. God must shine into our hearts to give us
this knowledge.  Matt. 16, 17. Gal. 1, 16. 1 Cor. 2, 10. 14.
As the glory of God is spiritual, it must be spiritually discerned. It is therefore easy to see why the Scriptures make
true religion to consist in the knowledge of Christ, and why
they make the denial of Christ, or want of faith in him as God
manifest in the flesh, a soul-destroying sin. If Christ is God,
to know him, is to know God; and to deny him, is to deny
God.
7. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels,
that the excellency of the power may be of God, and
not 0f us.
Tlzis treasure is not the light or inward illumination spoken
of in v. 6, but the ministry of the gospel which Paul had re



92         II. CORINTHIANS  4, 8. 9.
ceived, and of which he had spoken in such exalted terms. It
was a ministration of life, of power, and of glory. It revealed
the grandest truths. It produced the most astonishing effects.
It fireed men from the condemnation and power of sin; it
transformed them into the image of Christ; it delivered them
from the power of the god of this world, and made them partakers of eternal life. These are effects which infinitely transcend all human power; and to render this fact conspicuous
God had committed this treasure to earthen vessels.  By
earthen vessels is not meant frail bodies, but weak, suffering,
perishing men, because it is not on account of the frailty of
the body merely that ministers are so incompetent to produce
the effects which flow from their ministrations. The apostle
means to present the utter disproportion between the visible
means and the effects produced, as proof that the real efficiency is not in man, but in God.  The excellency of the power,
i. e. the exceedingly great power, the wonderful efficiency of
the gospel. May be, i. e. may be known and acknowledged
to be, of God, i. e. to flow from him as its source, and not
from us. Although what the apostle here says is true of all
ministers, yet he had, no doubt, special reference to himself
and to his own peculiar circumstances. He had magnified in
the highest degree his office, but he himself was a poor, weak,
persecuted, down-trodden man. This, he says, only renders
the power of God the more conspicuous, not only in the success of my ministry, but in my preservation in the midst of
dangers and sufferings which it seems impossible any man
could either escape or bear. It is to show, on the one hand,
how weak he is, how truly a mere earthen vessel, and, on the
other, how great and manifest God's power is, that in the following verses he contrasts his trials and his deliverances.
8. 9. (We are) troubled on every side, yet not distressed; (we are) perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed.
Our version supplies the words we are, turning the participles into verbs, which, in the Greek, are all connected with
the verb EXOILEV (we have) in the preceding verse.'We,
troubled, perplexed, persecuted and cast down, have, &c.'
On every side, v 7ravr', in every way and on every occasion.




II. CORINTHIANS  4, 10.                   03
These words belong to all the clauses, and not merely to the
first. HI-e was not only troubled, but perplexed and persecuted, Ev 7raVTL, in every way.  Troubled, but not distressed, 3XtIo1LEvot, aXX' o (TEVoxWopoVlEVOt, "pressed for room, but still
having room." The figure is that of a combatant sore pressed
by his antagonist, but still finding room to turn himself. Perplexed, but not in despair, constantly doubtful what way to
take, and yet always finding some way open. The word a&ropEw (17ropo6 diltL) means to be at a loss what to say or do; 4ea7ropew is intensive, to be absolutely shut up so as to have no
way or means available. Persecuted, but not forsaken; that
is, although God allowed men to persecute him, and seek to
destroy his life and usefulness, yet he never deserted him or
gave him up to the power of those who thus followed him.
Cast down, but not destroyed. The allusion is still to a combat. Paul was not only persecuted or pursued by his enemies,
but actually overtaken by them and cast to the ground, but
not killed. When they seemed to have him in their power,
God delivered him. This occurred so often, and in cases so
extreme, as to make it manifest that the power of God was
exerted on his behalf. No man from his own resources could
have endured or escaped so much. There is in these verses
an evident climax, which reaches its culmination in the next
succeeding sentence. He compares himself to a combatant,
first hardly pressed, then hemmed in, then pursued, then actually cast down. This was not an occasional experience, but
his life was like that of Christ, an uninterrupted succession of
indignities and suffering.
10. Always bearing about in the body the dying
of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be
made manifest in our body.
WVe constantly illustrate in our person the sufferings of
Christ. We are treated as he was treated; neglected, defamed, despised, maltreated; oppressed with hunger and
thirst, and constantly exposed to death.  Always bearing
about. Wherever he went, among Jews or Gentiles, in Jerusalem and Ephesus; in all his journeyings, he met everywhere, fiom all classes of persons, the same kind of treatment
which Christ himself had received.  Its his body. This is
said because the referenlce is to his external trials and suffer



04          II. CORINTIIIANS  4, 10.
ings, and not to his internal anxieties and sorrows.  The dying qf [the Lord] Jesus. The word KvpLov, of the Lord, is
not found in the majority of the ancient manuscripts, and is
therefore omitted in the later editions of the Greek Testament. If this word be left out, the two clauses more nearly
correspond. The dying of Jesus then answers to the life of
Jesus in the following clause.  The word vE'KpOrLts is used
figuratively in Rom. 4, 19, " the deadness of Sarah's womb."
Here it is to be taken literally. It means properly a slaying
or putting to death, and then violent death, or simply death.
The death of Jesus does not mean death on his account; but
such death as he suffered. Comp. 1, 5. Though the reference
is principally to the dying of Christ, and the climax begun in
the preceding verse is here reached, yet his other sufferings
are not to be excluded. "The mortification of Jesus," says
Calvin, "includes every thing which rendered him (i. e. Paul)
despicable before men." Paul elsewhere refers to his constant exposure to death in terms as strong as those which he
here uses. In Rom. 8, 36 he says, "We are killed ail the day
long," and 1 Cor. 15, 31, "I die daily."  Compare also 1 Colr.
4, 9. 2 Cor. 11, 23. The death or sufferings of Christ were
constantly, as it were, reproduced in the experience of the
apostle. In the use of another figure he expresses the same
idea in Gal. 6, 17. "I bear in my body the marks of the
Lord Jesus."  The scars which I bear in my body mark me as
the soldier of Christ, and as belonging to him as my divine
MiIaster, and as suffering in his cause.
TLCat the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our
body. This expresses the design of God in allowing Paul to
be thus persecuted and involved in the constant danger of
death. The treasure of the gospel was committed not to an
angel, but to Paul, an earthen vessel, and he was pressed,
persecuted, cast down, and beset with deadly perils, in order
that his preservation, his wonderful efficiency and astonishing
success, should be a constant proof that Jesus lives, and not
only exercises a providential care over his servants, delivering
them out of all their perils, but also attends their labours with
his own divine efficiency.  Paul's deliverances, and the effects
of his preaching, made it manifest that Jesus lives. In Rom.
15, 18 the apostle says, "I will not dare to speak of those
things which Christ bath not wrought by me, to make the
Gentiles obedient, by word and deed;" and in Gal. 2, 8, " He
that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the cir:




II. CORINTHIANS  4, 11.                   95
cumcision, the same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles."
As the life of every believer is a manifestation of the life of
Christ, (for it is not we that live, but Christ liveth in us, Gal.
2, 20,) so also was the apostolic life of Paul. As the life of
Christ, however, is not only manifested in the spiritual life of
his followers, and in the deliverance and success of his ministers, as it is not only made known in rescuing them from
deadly perils, but is hereafter to be more conspicuously revealed in delivering them from death itself, it seems from v.
14 that Paul includes the resurrection in the manifestation of
the life of Jesus of which he here speaks. We die (daily, and
at last, literally) in order that the life of Christ may be revealed. This passage is thus brought into unison with Rom.
8, 17, "If so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also
glorified together;"' and with 2 Tim. 2, 11, "If we be dead
with him, we shall live with him." See 1 Peter 4, 13. 14.
Rom. 6, 8. 9. John 14, 19, "Because I live, ye shall live also."
The association is natural between deliverance from the danger of death, and the ultimate deliverance from death itself.
The following verses show that this association actually existed in the apostle's mind, and that both were regarded as
manifestations of the life of Christ, and therefore proofs that
he still lives. In our body; this does not mean simply in me.
A special reference is made to the body, because Paul was
speaking of bodily sufferings and death.
11. For we which live are always delivered unto
death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might
be made manifest in our mortal flesh.
This is a confirmation and explanation of what precedes.
Paul constantly bore about the dying of Jesus, for he was always delivered to death for Jesus' sake. He was, as he says
1 Cor. 4, 9, us -L7rLavaLTLO, as one condemned, and constantly
expecting death.  We which are alive;'pEZg ol SWrTE, we the
living, i. e. although living, and therefore, it might seem, not
the subjects of death. Death and life are opposed to each
other, and yet in our case they are united. Though living we
die daily. The words in this connection do not mean'as long
as we live,' or,'we who are alive,' as in 1 Thess. 4, 17, where
they designate the living as a class distinguished from the
dead. They mark the peculiarity of Paul's conditiQn as living
although constantly delivered to death,




96        II. CORINTHIANS  4, 12.13.
Th/at the lf'e also of Jesus might be made manifest in our
mortal flesh. The only variation between this and the corresponding clause of the preceding verise is, that here the
phrase in our mortalflesh is substituted bfor in our body. The
word body does not of itself involve the idea of weakness and
mortality, but the word flesh does. Hereafter we are to be
clothed with bodies, but not with flesh and blood. The contrast, therefore, between the power of the life of Christ, and
the feebleness of the instrument or organ through which that
life is revealed, is enhanced by saying it was manifested in our
mortal flesh. In himself Paul was utter weakness; in Christ
he could do and suffer all things.
12. So then death worketh in us, but life in you.
This verse expresses the conclusion or the result of the
preceding exhibitions. So then I have the suffering and you
the benefit. I am constantly dying, but the life of Jesus
manifested in me is operative for your good. The death and
life here spoken of must be the same as in vs. 10. 11. The
death is Paul's sufferings and dying; the life is not his physical life and activity by which the life of Christ is represented,
but the divine life and efficiency of Jesus. Death and life are
personified. The one is represented as operative in Paul; the
other in the Corinthians. The divine power manifested in the
support of the apostle, and in rendering his labours so successful, was not primarily and principally for his benefit, but for
the benefit of those to whom he preached. It was, however,
to him and to them a consolation that his labours were not in
vain. There is no analogy between this passage and 1 Cor. 4,
8-10, where the apostle in a tone of irony contrasts his own
condition with that of the dorinthians, " Now ye are full, now
9e are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us," &c., and
therefore there is no propriety in understanding the apostle
here to represent the Corinthians as living at their ease while
he was persecuted and afflicted. According to this view, life
here signifies a state of enjoyment and prosperity, and death
the opposite. But it is plain from the connection that the
life spoken of is " the life of Jesus " which was manifested in
the apostle, the fruits of which the Corinthians enjoyed.
13. Wte having the same spirit of faith, according




II. CORINTHIANS  4, 13.                   9I
as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken;
we also believe, and therefore speak.
The afflictions and dangers to which the apostle was exposed, were adapted to discourage and even to drive him to
despair. He, however, was not discouraged; but having the
same faith which of old animated the Psalmist, he also, as David did, proclaimed his confidence in God. Our version omits
the connecting particle, 8, which expresses the contrast between what follows and what precedes.' We are delivered
unto death, but having,' &c. l7te same spirit of faith. " The
spirit of faith" may be a periphrase for faith itself; or the
word spirit may refer to the human spirit, and the whole mean'having the same believing spirit.' It is more in accordance
with scriptural usage, and especially with Paul's manner, to
make spirit refer to the Holy Spirit, who is so often designated from  the effects which he produces. He is called the
Spirit of adoption, Rom. 8, 15; the Spirit of wisdom, Eph. 1,
17; Spirit of grace, Heb. 10, 29; Spirit of glory, 1 Pet. 4, 14.
The apostle means to say that the same blessed Spirit which
was the author of faith in David he also possessed. According as it is written, i. e. the same faith that is expressed in
the passage where it is written,' I believed, therefore have I
spoken.' This is the language of David in Ps. 116, 10. The
Psalmist was greatly afflicted; the sorrows of death compassed him, the pains of hell gat hold of him, but he did not
despair. He called on the Lord, and he helped him. I-Ie delivered his soul from death, his eyes from tears, and his feet
from falling, David's faith did not fail. He believed, and
therefore, in the midst of his afflictions, he proclaimed his
confidence and recounted the goodness of the Lord. Paul's
experience was the same. He also was sorely tried. He also
retained his confidence, and continued to rely on the promises
of God. The apostle follows the Septuagint in the passage
quoted. The Hebrew expresses the same idea in a rather difebrent form. " I believed for I speak." In either way, speaking is represented as the effect and proof of faith. See ALEXANDER on the Psalms.
We also believe, therefore we also speak. As Paul's faith
was the same, its effect was the same. The faith of David
made him proclaim the fidelity and goodness of God. The
faith of Paul made him, despite all the suffering it brought
upon him, proclaim the gospel with full assurance of its truth




98          II. CORINTHIANS  4, 14.
and of his own participation of its benefits. This clause, "we
also believe," depends on the participle at the beginning of
the verse.'Having the Holy Spirit, the author of faith, we
speak.' The interpretation here given of this passage is the
common one. Calvin and many other commentators take a
very different view. They say that by the same faith is to be
understood, not the same the Psalmist had, but the same that
the Corinthians had. Paul, says Calvin, is to be understood
as saying,' Although there is a great difference between my
circumstances and yours; although God deals gently with
you and severely with me, yet, notwithstanding this difference,
we have the same faith; and where the faith is the same, the
inheritance is the same.' But this supposes that the design
of the preceding part of the chapter is to contrast the external condition of Paul with that of the Corinthians; and it
supposes that by we is meant we Christians, whereas the apostle evidently means himself.' We are persecuted, cast down,
and delivered to death, but we, having the same faith with
David, do as he did. We retain our confidence and continue
to confess and to proclaim the gospel.' It is his own experience and conduct, and not those of the Corinthians, that Paul
is exhibiting.
14. Knowing, that he which raised up the Lord
Jesus, shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present
(us) with you.
That this is to be understood of the literal resurrection,
and not of a mere deliverance from dangers, is evident, 1. Because wherever a figurative sense is preferred to the literal
meaning of a word or proposition, the context or nature of
the passage must justify or demand it. Such is not the case
here. There is nothing to forbid, but every thing to favour
the literal interpretation. 2. Because the figurative interpretation cannot be carried through without doing violence to
the passage and to the analogy of Scripture. "To present us
with you" cannot be made to mean,'to exhibit us with you
as rescued from danger.'  3. The figurative interpretation
rests on false assumptions. It assumes that Paul confidently
expected to survive the second coming of Christ, and therefore could not say he expected to be raised from the dead.
In this very connection, however, he says he longs to be ab



II. CORINTHIANS  4, 14.                    99
sent froml the body and to be present with the Lord; as he
said to the Philippians, at a later period of his career, that he
had a desire to depart and to be with Christ. Agzain, it is
said that according to the true reading of the passage, Paul
says he knows we shall be raised up with (not by) Christ, and
therefore he cannot refer to the literal resurrection. But admitting the reading to be as assumed, to be raised up with
Christ does not mean to be raised contemporaneously with
him, but in fellowship with him, and in virtue of union with
him. This figurative interpretation, therefore, although at
first adopted by Beza and advocated by many of the most distinguished modern commentators, is generally and properly
rejected.
The apostle here indicates the ground of the confidence
expressed in the preceding verse. He continued to speak,
i. e. to preach the gospel, notwithstanding his persecutions,
/knowing, i. e. because he was sure that he and his fellowbelievers should share in its glorious consummation.  The
word to know is often used in the sense of being convinced or
sure of: Rom. 5, 3. 1 Cor. 15, 58. It is assumed as a fact
which no Christian did or could doubt, that God had raised
up Jesus fiom the dead. What Paul was fully persuaded, of
is, that God would raise us (i. e. him, for he is speaking of hinmself) with or by Jesus. The majority of the ancient manuscripts and versions here read cr-v, with, instead of ta), by, and
that reading is adopted in most critical editions. Both forms
of representation occur in Scripture. Believers are said to be
raised up by Christ and with Christ. Our Lord often says,
"I will raise him up at the last day; ) and in 1 Cor. 15, 21,
the resurrection is said to be (n;u) by man, i. e. by Christ.
On the other hand, believers are said to be raised up with or
in him.  1 Cor. 15, 22. Eph. 2, 6. Col. 3, 3. 4. 1 Thess. 5, 10.
The two modes of statement are nearly coincident in meaning
The believer is united to Christ, as a member of his body, and
therefore a partaker of his life. It is in virtue of this union,
or of this participation of life, which, the apostle expressly
teaches, extends to the body as well as to the soul, Rom. 8,
8-11. 1 Cor. 6, 13-20. 15, 21. 22, that our bodies are raised
from the dead. It is therefore immaterial whether we say we
are raised by him, i. e. by the power of his life, or, we are
raised with, i. e. in union with him, and in virtue of that
union. As our resurrection is due to this community of life,
our bodies shall be like his glorious body. Phil. 3, 21. Atnd




100          II. CORINTHIANS  4, 14.
this congeniality and conformity are included in the idea
which is expressed by saying, we shall be raised up with him,
i. e. in his fellowship and likeness. The resurrection, therefore, was the one great, all-absorbing object of anticipation
and desire to the early Christians, and should be to us. It is
then that we shall be introduced into the glorious liberty of
the sons of God; it is then that the work of redemption shall
be consummated, and Christ be admired in his saints. Anld
presednt us together with you. To present, 7rap (r071t,  is to
cause to stand near or by, to offier to. We are required to
present our members (Rom. 6, 13,) or our bodies (Rorn. 12, 1,)
unto God; Paul says he desired to present the Corinthians as
a chaste virgin unto Christ, 11, 2; God is said to have reconciled us to present us holy in his sight, Col. 1, 22; and Jude
(v. 24) gives thanks to him who is able to present us faultless
before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy. This is
the idea here. It is true that in the following chapter it is
said that we must all appear before the judgment seat of
Christ, whence many suppose that the apostle means here that
favinig been raised from. the dead, believers shall be presented
before the tribunal of the final judge. But the idea of judgment is foreign firom the connection. It is a fearftl thing to
stand before the judgment seat of Christ, even with the certainty of acquittal. The apostle is here exulting in the assurance that, however persecuted and down-trodden here, God,
who had raised up Jesus, would raise him up and present hill
with all other believers before the presence of his glory with
exceeding joy. This it was that sustained him, and has sustained so many others of the afflicted of God's people, and
given them a peace which passes all understanding.
The resurrection of Christ here, as in other passages, is
represented as the pledge of the resurrection of his people.
"lie that raised Christ fiom the dead shall also quicken your
mortal bodies," Rom. 8, 11. "God hath both raised up the
Lord, and will also raise us up by his own power," 1 Cor. 6,
14. " Christ is risen from the dead and become the first firuits
of them that slept; for... in Christ shall all be made alive,"
15, 19-22.  "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again,
even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with
him," 1 Thess. 4, 14. See also John 11, 25. Eph. 2, 6. Col.
2, 12. In the view of the sacred writers, therefore, the glorious resurrection of believers is as certain as the resurrection
of Christ, and that not simply because God who has raised tiup




II. CORINTHIANS 4, 15.                   101
Jesus has promised to raise his followers, but because of the
union between him' and them. They are in him in such al
sense as to be partakers of his life, so that his life of necessity
secures theirs. If he lives, they shall live also. Now as the
fhct of Christ's resurrection was no more doubted by the
apostles, who had seen and heard and even handled him after
he rose from the dead, than their own existence, we may see
how assured was their confidence of their own resurrection to
eternal life. And as to us no event in the history of the world
is better authenticated than the fact that Christ rose from the
dead, we too have the same ground of assurance of the resurrection of those who are Christ's at his coining. Had we only
the faith of the apostle, we should have his constancy and his
joy even in the midst of the greatest afflictions.
15. For all things (are) for your sakes, that the
abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of
many redound to the glory of God.
In the preceding verse Paul had expressed his confident
hope of being delivered even from the grave and presented
before God in glory with his Corinthian brethren, for all
things are for your sakes. They were to be partakers of the
salvation which he proclaimed and for which he suffered. All
he did and all he suffered was for them. According to this
interpretation the all things are limited to all things of which
he had been speaking, viz. his sufferings, his constancy, and
his deliverance. In 1 Cor. 3, 21, however, he says in a much
more comprehensive sense,'All things are yours, whether
things present or things to come.' Hence some understand
the expression with the same latitude in this passage:'I expect to be presented with you, for all things are for your
sakes.' But this does not agree with the latter part of the
verse. He evidently means all that he did, and suffered, and
experienced.'They are fbr your sake, that (Eva, in order that)
the abundant grace or favour manifested to me, might,
through the thanksgiving of many, i. e. through your gratitilde, called forth by your experience of the blessings flowing
firom my labour and sufferings, as well as from my deliverance,
redound to the glory of God.' This is the sense of the passage, according to the construction of the original, adopted
by our translators. Paul says that the tavour shown him re.




102         II. CORINTHIANS 4, 16.
dounds the more to the glory of God, because others besides
himself are led to give thanks for it. This supposes that in
the Greek, 8ta rwv rktELOVWV, K.T.X. are to be connected with
7rCpLrEvpCe, might abound through. Those words, however,
may be connected with rrXEovo-ao-a, the grace rendered abtundant by many. This may mean either that the favour shown
the apostle was the more abundant because so many interceded in his behalf. Comp. 1, 11, and Phil. 1, 19. "I know that
this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer."  Or the
meaning may be,'The favour shown me, rendered abundant,
or greatly multiplied, through the participation of many.' In
the one case, Paul says the grace was the greater because so
many prayed for him; in the other, it was the greater because
so many enjoyed the fruits of it. The passage admits of either
of these constructions and explanations; and whichever is preferred the general idea is the same. The church is one. If
one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
If Paul was redeemed from his enemies, all the church gave
thanks to God. A favour shown to him was a favour shown
to all, and was thereby multiplied a thousand-fold and rendered a thousand-fold more prolific of thanksgiving unto God.
Whichever construction be adopted, 7rEpLEo-/o-, is to be taken
transitively, as in Eph. 1, 8. 1 Thess. 3, 12.'Grace causes
thanksgiving to abound.'
16. For which cause we faint not; but though our
outward man perish, yet the inward (man) is renewed
day by day.
For which cause, that is, because we are sure of a glorious
resurrection, and are satisfied that our present sufferings and
labours will advance the glory of God.  We faint not, we do
not become discouraged and give up the conflict. Oin the
contrary, though his outward man, his whole physical constitution, perish, 8La0.-EtpeTat, be utterly worn out and wasted
away by constant suffering and labour, yet the inzward maWn,
the spiritual nature, is renewed, i. e. receives new life and
vigour, day by day. By'inward man' is not meant simply
the soul as distinguished from the body, but his higher nature
-his soul as the subject of the divine life.  Rnom. 7, 22.
Eph. 3, 16. Of no unholy man could it be said inl the sense
of the apostle that his inward man was daily renewed. It is




II. CORINTHIANS  4, 17.                  103
not of renewed supplies of animal spirits or of intellectual
vigour that the apostle speaks, but of the renewal of spiritual
strength to do and suffer. This constant renewal of strength
is opposed to fainting.' We faint not, but are renewed day
by day,' ylpE'pa Kalt rEpa. This is a Hebraism, Gen. 39, 10.
Ps. 68, 19. fimiliar to our ears but foreign to Greek usage.
The supplies of strength came without fail and as they were
needed.
17. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding (and) eternal weight of glorv.
This is the reason why we faint not. Our afflictions are
light, they are momentary, and they secure eternal glory.
Every thing  depends upon the standard  of judgment.
Viewed absolutely, or in comparison with the sufferings of
other men, Paul's afflictions were exceedingly great.  He
was poor, often without food or clothing; his body was weak
and sickly; he was homeless; he was beset by cruel enemies;
he was repeatedly scourged, he was stoned, he was imprisoned, he was shipwrecked, robbed, and counted as the offt
scouring of the earth; he was beyond measure harassed by
anxieties and cares, and by the opposition of false teachers,
and the corruption of the churches which he had planted at
such expense of time and labour. See I Cor. 4, 9-13, and 2
Cor. 11, 23-29. These afflictions in themselves, and as they
affected Paul's consciousness, were exceedingly great; for he
says himself he was pressed out of measure, above strength,
so that he despaired even of life. 1, 8. IIe did not regard
these afflictions as trifles, nor did he bear them with stoical
indifference. He felt their full force and pressure. When
five times scourged by the Jews and thrice beaten with rods,
his physical torture was as keen as that which any other man
would have suffered under similar inflictions. He was not insensible to hunger, and thirst, and cold, and contempt, and
ingratitude. His afflictions were not light in the sense of giving little pain. The Bible does not teach, either by precept
or example, that Christians are to bear pain as though it were
not pain, or bereavements as though they caused no sorrow.
Unless afflictions prove real sorrows, they will not produce the
fiuits of sorrow. It was only by bringing these sufferings
5*




104          II. CORINTHIANS  4, 17.
into comparison with eternal glory that they dwindled into
insignificance. So also when the apostle says that his afflictions were for a moment, it is only when compared with eternity. They were not momentary so far as the present life
was concerned. They lasted from his conversion to his martyrdom. His Christian life was a protracted dying. But
what is the longest life to everlasting ages? Less than a single second to threescore years. The third source of consolation to the apostle was that his afflictions would secure for
him eternal glory, i. e. the eternal and inconceivable excellence and blessedness of heaven. This is all the words KaTepryaLEraT rejv express. Afflictions are the cause of eternal glory.
Not the meritorious cause, but still the procuring cause. God
has seen fit to reveal his purpose not only to reward with exceeding joy the afflictions of his people, but to make those
afflictions the means of working out that joy. This doctrine
is taught in many passages of Scripture.  Matt. 19, 29. Rom.
8, 17. 2 Tim. 2, 12. 13. 1 Pet. 1, 6. 4, 13. Rev. 7, 14. It is
not, however, suffering in itself considered which has this effect; and therefore not all suffering; not self-inflicted suffering, not punishment, but only such sufferings which are either
endured fobr Christ's sake, or which when imposed for the trial
of our faith are sustained with a Christian spirit. We alrc,
therefore, not to seek afflictions, but when God sends thenm
we should rejoice in them as the divinely appointed means of
securing for us an eternal weight of glory. Our Lord calls on
those who were persecuted to rejoice and be exceeding glad,
Matt. 5, 12; so does the apostle Peter, 4, 13; and Paul often
asserts that he gloried or rejoiced in his afflictions. Phil. 2, 17.
Col. 1, 24.
The expression To 7rapavTtKa EXacfpov rl7s S3Xc'ies, the mnomentary lightness of affiction, exhibits the adverb (7rapavrTKa)
used as an adjective, and the adjective (iXacp6v) used as a substantive. Comp. 8, 8. 1 Cor. 1, 25. Wetstein and other collectors furnish abundant illustrations of this usage from the
Greek writers. In this carefully balanced sentence, iXacpo'v,
light, stands opposed to f3apos, weight, and 7rapavTtKa, momenltary, to alc'vtov, eternal. In Hebrew the same word signifies
to be heavy, and to be glorious, and the literal meaning of the
Hebrew word for glory is weight, which may have suggested
the peculiar expression " weight of glory."  The words KaY
vrrep[3oXlv Eds VrrEpl3oX7v, according to excess unto excess, in the
sense of exceeding exceedingly, (one of Paul's struggles with




II. CORINTHIANS  4, 18.                    105
the impotency of language to express his conceptions,) may
be taken as an adjective qualification of flapots 86'q, weight qf
glory. This is the explanation adopted by our translators,
who render the phrase, "far more exceeding, and eternal
weight of glory."  There is, however, no Kat (and) in the
text. If this view be adopted, it would be better therefore
to take " eternal weight of glory" as one idea. The eternal
glory exceeds all limits. The words in question, however,
may be connected adverbially with KaTepya'fErat, as proposed
by AMeyer and De Wette.' Our light afflictions work exceedingly, i. e. are beyond measure efficacious in securing or producing an eternal weight of glory.'
18. While we look not at the things which are
seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the
things which are seen (are) temporal; but the things
which are not seen (are) eternal.
Thile participial clause with which this verse begins (/u/
O-KOTrOVVTWV SHI&v) may have a causal force.'Our light afflictions are thus efficacious because we look not at the things
which are temporal.'  This, however, is hardly true. The
afflictions of Christians do not work out for them  eternal
glory, because their hearts are turned heavenward. It is
therefore better to understand the apostle as simply expressing the condition under which the effect spoken of in v. 17 is
produced. This is the idea expressed in our version by the
word while. Afflictions have this salutary operation while
(i. e. provided that) we look at the things which are eternal.
This clause thus serves to designate the class of persons to
whom even the severest afflictions are light, and for whom
they secure eternal glory. It is not for the worldly, but for
those whose hearts are set on things above. The word translated look, 0rKorWEo, is derived from  oK07o'S (SCOpus, scope),
meaning the mark or goal on which the eye is fixed, as in
Phil. 3, 14, KCTaL (OKO7rOV 8CLKKW   I press toward the mark.
Therefore looking here means making things unseen the goal
on which'our eyes are fixed; the end toward which the attention, desires and efforts are directed. As is usual with the
apostle, he states both what is not, and what is, the absorbing object of the believer's attention.  Not the visible, but the
invisible; i. e. not the world and the things of the world, but




106            II. CORINTHIANS 5.
the things which pertain to that state which is to us now invisible.  The reason why the latter, and not the former class
of objects do thus engross the believer, is that the things seen
are temporal, or rather, temporary, lasting only for a time;
whereas the things unseen are eternal.  Few  passages in
Paul's writings exhibit so clearly his inward exercises in the
midst of sufferings and under the near prospect of death. He
was, when he wrote what is here written, in great affliction.
He felt that his life was in constant and imminent danger, and
that even if delivered from the violence of his enemies, his
strength was gradually wearing away under the uninterrupted
trials to which he was subjected.  Under these circumstances
we see him  exhibiting great sensibility to suffering and sorrow; a keen susceptibility in reference to the conduct and
feelings of others towards him; a just appreciation of his danger, and yet unshaken confidence in his ultimate triumph; a
firm determination not to yield either to opposition or to suffering, but to persevere in the faithful and energetic discharge
of the duty which had brought on him all his trials, and a heroic exultation in those very afflictions by which he was so
sorely tried.  He was sustained by the assurance that the life
of Christ secured his life; that if Jesus rose, he should rise
also; and by the firm conviction that the more he suffered for
the sake of Christ, or in such a way as to honour his divine
master, the more glorious he would be through all eternity.
Suffering, therefore, became to him not merely endurable, but
a ground of exceeding joy.
CHAPTER V.
The confidence expressed in the preceding chapter is justified by showing
that the apostle was assured of a habitation in heaven, even if his earthly
tabernacle should be destroyed, vs. 1-10. His object in what he had
said of himself was not self-commendation. He laboured only for the
good of the church, impelled by the love of Christ, whose ambassador
he was, in exhorting men to be recoceiled to God, vs. 11-21.
The state of believers after death. Vs. 1-10.
PAUL did not faint in the midst of his sufferings, because he
knew that even if his earthly house should be destroyed, he




II. CORINTHIANS  5, 1.                 107
had a house in heaven-not like the present perishable tabernacle, but one not made with hands, and eternal, v. 1. He
looked forward to the things unseen, because in his present
tabernacle he groaned, desiring to enter his heavenly habitation. He longed to be unclothed that he might be clothed
upon with his house which is from heaven, vs. 2-4. This confidence he owed to God, who had given him the Holy Spirit
as a pledge of his salvation, v. 5. Having this indwelling of
the Spirit he was always in good courage, knowing that as
soon as he should be absent from the body, he would be present with the Lord, vs. 6-8. Therefore his great desire was to
please him, before whose tribunal he and all other men were
to appear to receive according to their works, vs. 9. 10.
1. For we know that if our earthly house of (this)
tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God,
a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
The connection between this passage and the preceding
chapter is plain. Our light afflictions, Paul had said, work
out for us an eternal weight of glory, for we know that even
if our earthly house perishes, we have an everlasting habitation in heaven. The general sense also of the whole of the
following paragraph is clear. The apostle expresses the assurance that a blessed state of existence awaited him after
death. There is, however, no little difficulty in determining
the precise meaning of the figurative language here employed.
Few passages in Paul's writings have awakened a deeper or
more general interest, because it treats of the state of the soul
after death; a subject about which every man feels the liveliest concern, not only for himself, but in behalf of those dear
to him. Where are those who sleep in Jesus before the resurrection? What is the condition of a redeemed soul when it
leaves the body? These are questions about which no Christian can be indifferent. If Paul here answers those inquiries,
the passage must have peculiar value to all the people of God.
This, however, is the very point about which the greatest dif
ficulty exists. There are three views taken of the passage;
that is, three different answers are given to the question,
What is that building into which the soul enters when the
present body is dissolved? 1. The first answer is, that the
house not made with hands is heaven itself: 2. That it is the




108          II. CORINTHIANS  5, 1.
resurrection body. If this be the correct view, then the passage throws no light on the state of the soul between death
and the resurrection. It treats solely of what is to happen
after Christ's second coming. 3. The third opinion is, that
the house into which the soul enters at death is, so to speak, an
intermediate body; that is, a body prepared for it and adapted to its condition during the state intermediate between
death and the resurrection. This, however, is not a scriptural doctrine. Many philosophers indeed teach that the soul
can neither perceive nor act unless in connection with a body;
nay, that an individual man is nothing but a revelation of the
general principle of humanity in connection with a given corporeal organism, as a tree is the manifestation of the principle
of vegetable life through a specific material organization. As
therefore vegetable life is, or exists, only in connection with
vegetable forms, so the soul exists only in connection with a
body. Thus Olshausen in his Commentary, 1 Cor. 15, 42-44,
says, Wie ohne Leib keine Seele, so ohne Leiblichkeit keine
Seligkeit; Leiblichkeit und die dadurch bedingte Personlichkeit ist das Ende der Werke Gottes. "As without body
there is no soul, so without a corporeal organization there can
be no salvation; a corporeal organization, as the necessary
condition of personality, is the end of God's work."  Still
more explicitly, when commenting on verses 19 and 20 of the
same chapter, he says, Ein Fortleben als reiner Geist ohne
korperliches Organ erkennt der Apostle gar nicht als MIoglichkeit an; die Lehre von der Unsterblichkeit der Seele ist der
ganzen Bibel, ebenso wie der Name, fremd-und zwar mit
vollem  Recht, indemr ein pers6nliches Bewusstseyn im geschaffenen Wesen die Schranken des Leibes nothwendig voraussetzt.  "The continued existence of the soul as a pure
spirit without a body is to the apostle an impossibility. The
Bible knows nothing of the doctrine of the immortality of the
soul; the very expression is strange to it. And no wonder,
for self-consciousness in a created being necessarily supposes
the limitation of a bodily organization." Of course all angels
must have bodies, and of course also if the soul exists between
death and the resurrection it must have a body. Strange to
say, however, Olshausen, despite his maxim, "no body no
soul," admits the existence of the soul during the interval between death and the resurrection, and yet denies that it has
a body. His utterly unsatisfactory attempt to reconcile this
contradiction in his theory is, first, that self-consciousness in




II. CORINTHIANS 5, 1.                   109
departed spirits is very obscure-a mere dreamy state of existence; and secondly, that it must be assumed that a relation
continues between the soul and the elements of its decaying
body in the grave. This is a perfect collapse of the theory.
If it involves either of these consequences, that the soul is unconscious after death, or that its life is in connection with its
disorganized body, and conditioned by that connection, then
it comes in direct conflict with the Script-ure, and is exploded
as a mere product of the imagination. If the Bible teaches or
assumes that a body is necessary to the self-consciousness of
the soul, or even to its power to perceive and to express, to
act and to be acted upon, then it would be not only natural
but necessary to understand the apostle to teach in this passage that the moment the soul leaves its present body it enters into another. Then it would follow either that the only
resurrection of which the Scriptures speak takes place at the
moment of death, or that there is a body specially fitted for
the intermediate state, differing both from the one which we
now have, and fiom that which we are to have at the resurrection.  The former of these suppositions contradicts the
plain doctrine of the Bible that the resurrection is a future
event, to take place at the second advent of Christ; and the
latter contradicts this very passage, for Paul says that the
house on which wre enter at death is eternal. Besides, the
Bible knows nothing of any body except the (or/a qVXWKOV, the
natural body, which we have now, and the Are/oa rTVEcv/aTtKOV,
the spiritual body, which we are to receive at the resurrection.
We are therefore reduced to the choice between the first and
second of the three interpretations mentioned above. The
building of which the apostle here speaks must be eilher a
house in heaven, or the resurrection body. If the latter, then
Paul teaches, not what is to happen immediately after death,
but what is to take place at the second coming of Christ. In
opposition to this view, and in favour of the opinion that the
house here mentioned is heaven itself, it may be argued, 1.
Heaven is often in Scripture compared to a house in which
there are many mansions, John 14, 2; or to a city in which
there are many houses, Heb. 11, 10. 14. 13, 14. Rev. 21, 10; or
more generally to a habitation, Luke 16, 9. 2. The figure in
this case is peculiarly appropriate. The body is compared to
a house in which the soul now dwells, heaven is the house into
which it enters when this earthly house is dissolved. Our
Lord told his sorrowing disciples that they should soon be




110         II. CORINTHIANS  5, 1.
with him, that in his Father's house, whither he went, ther6
were many mansions, and that he would receive them unto
-himself. 3. The description here given of the house of which
the apostle speaks agrees with the descriptions elsewhere
given of heaven. It is a building of God; compare Heb. 11,
10, where heaven is said to be a city whose builder and maker
is God. It is not made with hands, i. e. not of human workmanship or belonging to the present order of things. In the
same sense the true tabernacle in heaven is said to,be "not
made with hands," Heb. 9, 11. It is eternal, because the state
on which the soul enters at death is unchanging. And finally,
this house is said to be "in heaven," or, we are said to have
it "in heaven." This last clause is not consistent with the
assumption that the house spoken of is the resurrection body.
That body is not now in heaven awaiting our arrival there,
nor is it to be brought down to us from heaven. But the
mansion which Christ has gone to prepare for his people is in
heaven; and therefore the apostle in raising his eyes heavenward could appropriately say,'If this tabernacle be dissolved
I have a house in heaven.' 4. The principal argument in fhvour of this interpretation is that the house spoken of is one
on which the soul enters immediately after death. This is
plain because Paul says, that if our earthly house be dissolved
we have, i. e. we have at once, a house in heaven. The whole
context requires this explanation to be given to'xojxEV) we
have. The apostle is speaking of the grounds of consolationl
in the immediate prospect of death. He says in effect that
the dissolution of the body does not destroy the soul or deprive it of a home. His consolation was that if unclothed
he would not be found naked. While at home in the body
he was absent from the Lord, but as soon as he was absent
fiom the body he would be present with the Lord. It is so
obvious that the apostle is here speaking of what takes
place at death, that those who maintain that the building referred to is the resurrection body, propose various methods
of getting over the difficulty. Some, as Usteri, assume that
Paul, when he wrote the first epistle to the Corinthians, believed that the resurrection was not to take place until the
second advent of Christ, but changed his view and here teaches
that it takes place at death. That is, that the soul when it
leaves the present body is furnished with that spiritual body
which in the former epistle he taught was not to be received
until Christ comes the second time. To those who proceed




II. CORINTHIANS  5, 1.                 111
on the assumption of the inspiration of Scripture, this unnatural explanation needs no refutation. In his epistle to the
Philippians, written still later, he teaches the same doctrine
that we find in First Corinthians. He must, therefore, have
reverted to his former view. Paul was not thus driven about
by every wind of doctrine. Even those who deny his inspiration must admit his consistency. Others say that as the apostle confidently expected to survive the second advent, he here
speaks of what he anticipated in his own case. He believed
he would not die, but be changed at once as described in
1 Cor. 15, 51. 52. But even admitting that Paul at this time
did expect to sulvive the coming of the Lord, that is not the
expectation here expressed. On the contrary, he is speaking
of what would take place (Ediv) even in case he should die. It;
worn out by his sufferings, his earthly house should be dissolved before Christ came, still he knew he should have a
house in heaven. Others again say that the interval between
death and the resurrection is not taken into account, but that
the apostle, after the manner of the prophets, speaks of events
as chronologically coincident which in fact are separated by a
long period of time. But this does not meet the difficulty.
As the apostle is speaking of the ground of consolation in the
prospect of death, he must be understood to refer, not to what
might be expected at an indefinite period after that event, but
to its immediate consequence. He did not glory in his afflictions because when his earthly house should be dissolved he
would sink into a state of unconsciousness until the resurrection; but because he would have another and unspeakably
better habitation. This is evident, because he speaks of his
being absent from the body as the immediate antecedent of
his being present with the Lord; which is only another form
of saying he would be clothed upon with his house which is
from heaven. 5. A fifth consideration in favour of the interpretation in question, is derived from the analogy of Scripture.
The Bible in other places teaches that the souls of believers do
at their death immediately pass into glory. Our Lord in refiting the Sadducees, who denied the existence of spirits,
said, " Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by
God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of
the livin g," Matt. 22, 32. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob therefore are living, and not in a dreamy state of semi-conscious
existence. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, we




112         II. CORINTHIANS 5, 1.
are told that when Lazarus died he was carried by angels into
Abraham's bosom, i. e. to heaven. On the mount of transfiguration, Mloses and Elias appeared talking with Christ.
Our Lord said to the dying thief; "This day shalt thou be
with me in paradise," and paradise, as we learn from 2 Cot.
12, 2 and 4, is the third heaven. In Phil. 1, 22-24, Paul says
that although he had a desire to depart and be with Christ,
yet his abiding in the flesh was more needful for them. This
clearly implies that as soon as he departed from the flesh he
expected to be present with the Lord. This flows from the
perfection of Christ's work. As his blood cleanses from all
sin, there is no process of expiation or purification to be endured or experienced by believers after death. And as we
know, as our Lord says, that they still live, they must enter
on the blessedness secured by his merits. Accordingly the
apostle says that the saints ofn earth and the saints in heaven
form one communion. " We are come unto Mount Zion-and
unto the spirits of' just men made perfect," IIeb. 12, 23.
The considerations above presented appear decisive in fivour of understanding the apostle to mean by the house not
made with hands, a mansion in heaven into which believers
enter as soon as their earthly tabernacle is dissolved. It is,
however, objected to this view of the passage, that as the
earthly house is the present body, the heavenly house must
also be a body. This, however, does not follow. The comparison is not of one body with another; but of one house
with another. We dwell now in an earthly tabernacle; after
death, we shall dwell in a heavenly house. This is all that the
figure demands. In the second place, it is urged that in v. 2
it is said our house is "from heaven," and if from heaven it is
not heaven itself. But our resurrection body is not frown
heaven in the local sense. It is from heaven only in the general sense of being heavenly, and in this sense our house is of'
heaven. It is not of the earth, does not belong to the present
state of existence, but to that on which we enter in heaven.
Besides, it is not heaven considered as a state, nor even as a
place, (in the wide sense of the word heaven,) that is olur
house, but the mansion which the Lord has gone to prepare
for his people in heaven. The simple idea is that the soul,
when it leaves its earthly tabernacle, will not be lost in immensity, nor driven away houseless and homeless, but will find
a house and home in heaven. This is the consoling doctrine
here taught. The soul of' the believer does not cease to exist




II. CORINTHIANS  5, 1.                  113
at death. It does not sink into a state of unconsciousness.
It does not go into purgatory; but, being made perfect in holiness, it does immediately pass into glory. As soon as it is
absent from the body, it is present with the Lord. This is all
that is revealed, and this is enough. WVhat Paul learnt more
than this when he mwas caught up into the third heaven, he
was not permitted to make known.
As Paul is speaking of himself in this whole connection,
when he says we know, he does not refer to a knowledge common to all men, nor to other Christians, but he expresses his
personal conviction-I know. That if, iev, if as it may;
(not although). The apostle is speaking of his afflictions,
which were wearing away his strength; and says,'Even if
my sufferings should prove fatal, and my earthly house
be dissolved, I have another habitation.'  Our earthly house
of this tabernacle, i. e. our earthly house which is a tabernacle,
o -K'jvos, a frail, temporary abode, as opposed to a stable, permanent building. See 2 Peter 1, 13. 14. Is dissolved, i. e.
its component parts separated either by violence or decay, so
that it falls in pieces.  We have, i. e. I have, as he is speaking
of himself. The present tense, EXo/Jetv, is used because the one
event immediately follows the other; there is no perceptible
interval between the dissolution of the earthly tabernacle and
entering on the heavenly house. As soon as the soul leaves
the body it is in heaven. A  building of God, OlKO&oey-V (K
3EOV, a building from God, one provided by him, and of which
he is the builder and maker, Heb. 11, 10, and therefore is
said to be not made with hands, i. e. not like the buildings
erected by man. Comp. Heb. 9, 11 and Col. 2, 11. The latter passage refers to the circumcision of the heart as the immediate work of God; it is therefore said to be aXEtpo7roTo70s.
The soul therefore at death enters a house whose builder is
God. This is said to exalt to the utmost our conceptions of
its glory and excellence. Being made by God it is eternal.
It is to last forever; and we are never to leave it. We dwell
in our present bodies only for a little while, as in a tent; but
heaven is an abode which, once entered, is retained forever.
The words in the heavens may be connected with house, in
the sense of heavenly, i. e. a celestial house. This construction is assumed in our version where the words " eternal in
the heavens " are made to qualify or describe the house spoken
of. The natural connection of the words, however, is with




114          II. CORINTHIANS 5, 2.
(EXO E0v) we have.' If our earthly house be dissolved, we have
in heaven a house of God, not made with hands, and eternal.'
2. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be
clothed upon with our house which is from heaven.
This verse must, from the force of the connecting particle
(yap) for, be a confirmation of what precedes, but whether of
what is said in v. 1, or at close of preceding chapter, is doubtful. The words Kal y7ap may mean either for also, or for even.
If the former, this verse is condinate with v. 1, and assigns an
additional reason why the apostle looked at the things unseen
and eternal. He thus looked for he knew he had in heaven a
house not made with hands, and because he earnestly desired
to enter that house. If the latter explanation of the particles
be preferred, the sense is,'I know I have a house in heaven,
for even in this I groan, desiring to be clothed with my house
which is from heaven.' In this case the argument would be,'There is such a house, for I long for it.' This, however, is
hardly a scriptural argument. Paul's confidence in a state of
blessedness beyond the grave was not founded on the obscure
aspirations of his nature, but on express revelation from God.
Rom. 8, 22 is not parallel, for there the groaning of the creation
is presented, not as a proof of future blessedness, but to show
that the creature is subject to vanity, not willingly nor finally.
In this, i. e. in this tabernacle, as the word crKrjvo is used in v. 1,
and also v. 4. We groan earnestly desiring, i. e. we groan because we desire. The groaning is the expression of this longing after his heavenly home; and not, as in v. 4, of suffering
caused by afflictions. The [t' in bLuro.ogVVTrE is either intensive, earnestly desiring, or it expresses the tendency of the desire. The word and its cognates are always used in the New
Testament to express strong desire or longing. What the
apostle thus longed for was, brrevSo'-ao-Jat, to be clothed upon,
i. e. to put on over, as an outer garment.  lWith our house
which is from  heaven. As the body is familiarly compared
sometimes to a house in which the soul dwells, and sometimes
to a garment with which it is clothed, the two figures are
here combined, and the apostle speaks of putting on a house
as though it were a garmeht. Both are a covering and a protection.  Our house, otiKT-)rqp'ov, i. e. dwelli:ig, more specific
than the general term  obKda, a building.  YWhich is f'rom
heaven     ozpavov, i. e. heavenly, as distingluished from  a




II. CORINTHIANS  5, 2.                  115
dwelling which is IK yD, of the earth. 1 Cor. 15, 47. It is not
"of this building," -aiSr- Tris KTt1EWS) Heb. 9, 11. Those who
understand this whole passage to treat of the change which is
to take place in those believers who shall be alive when the
Lord comes, and which is described in I Cor. 15, 51-54, lay
special stress on this verse. Tihey urge that this house being
from heaven cannot be heaven; and that the verb 17rEVrv$W,
meaning to put on over, evidently refers to the putting on of
the new body, as it'were, over the old one; and therefore can
be understood only of those who, being in the body when
Christ comes, are thus clothed upon without being unclothed.
It has already been remarked that there is no force in the former of these arguments, because the new body is not from
heaven. It is Ei o'pavov only in the sense of being heavenly,
and in that sense the expression suits the idea of a building as
well as that of a body. As to the second argument, it may be
admitted, that if the context demanded, or even naturally admitted of our understanding " the house not made with
hands" to be the resurrection body, there would be a peculiar propriety in the use of the word E'rEv'cOrar3at,, (to be
clothed upon,) instead of the simple verb EivSvao-.3at, to be
clothed. But the use of this word is not sufficient to determine the interpretation of the whole passage. 1. Because
niothing is more common than the use of compound verbs in
the same sense as the corresponding simple ones. 2. Because
in 1 Cor. 15, 53. 54, Paul uses the simple verb (Evv'OracSaLt) four
times to express the very thing which it is here urged he must
refer to because he uses the compound irEVamo-vca-rSaL. That is,
he uses the two words in the same sense. He makes no difference between "putting on" and being "clothed upon."
We are not required, therefore, by the use of the latter expression, to infer that the apostle speaks of the change which
those who are in the body should experience at the coming of
Christ. This view, as remarked above, is out of keeping with
the whole context. Paul was daily exposed to death, his outward man was perishing. His consolation was that if his
earthly tabernacle were dissolved, he had a better house in
heaven. He earnestly longed for that house; to be absent
from the body and to be present with the Lord. All he says
is said on the hypothesis of his dying, and therefore he cannot
say he earnestly desired to escape death. What he longed
for was, not that he might be alive when Christ came, and
thus escape the pains of dissolution, but that he might quit




116         II. CORINTHIAN S  5, 3.
his mud hovel and enter in that house not made with hands,
eternal in the heavens.
3. If so be that being clothed we shall not be
found naked.
Few verses in this epistle have been more variously explained than this. In the first place the reading is doubtful.
The received text has'aye, which the great majority of the
critical editions also adopt; Lachmann, on the authority of
the manuscripts, B, D, E, F, G, reads E'Trep. The latter (if so
be, provided) expresses doubt; the former (since) expresses
certainty. This distinction, however, is not strictly observed
in Paul's writings. See 1 Cor. 8, 5. Gal. 3, 4. Col. 1, 23. 2
Thess. 1, 6. A more important diversity is that several ancient
manuscripts and most of the Fathers read EK68VaaEVOL (unclothed) instead of EvVroa-Evot (clothed). The former renders
the passage much plainer.' We earnestly desire to be clothed
with our house from heaven, since (or, even if') being unclothed
we shall not be found naked.' That is,'Although despoiled
of our earthly tabernacle we shall not be found houseless.'
Mill, Semler and Riickert prefer this reading, but the weight
of authority is in favour of the received text. There are three
general modes of explaining this passage which have been
adopted.  1. Calvin among the older commentators, and Usteri and Olshausen among the moderns, say that the words
clothed and naked must be understood to refer to the moral
or spiritual state of the soul; to its being clothed with righteousness or being destitute of that robe.  Calvin says the
apostle's design is to limit the blessedness spoken of in the
preceding verses to the righteous. The wicked are to be despoiled of their bodies and will appear naked before God; but
believers, being clothed in the righteousness of Christ, will
stand before him in the glorious vesture of immortality.
There are two garments, therefore, he says, referred to; the
one, the righteousness of Christ, received in this life; the other, immortal glory, received at death. The former is the
cause and necessary condition of the latter. Calvin lays
special stress on the Kal, also, which is inserted for the sake
of amplification, as though Paul had said,'A new garment shall
be prepared for believers at death if also (or already) in this
life they were clothed.' This interpretation, however, is evidently out of keeping with the context. It is very unnatural




II. CORINTHIANS  5, 3.                  117
to make the same words have such different meanings in the
same connection. In v. 2 we are said to be clothed with our
house from heaven; in v. 3 we are so clothed as not to be
found naked, and in v. 4 Paul speaks of being unclothed. Ift
in vs. 2 and 4 the word refers to a body or house, in v. 3 it
cannot refer to the robe of righteousness. Being unclothed
is evidently the opposite of being clothed. As the former refers to laying aside the earthly tabernacle, the latter must refer to our being invested with the house from heaven. Besides, any such distinction between the righteous and the
wicked, or any caution that the unrighteous are not to be
received into heaven, as this interpretation supposes, is foreign to the design of the passage. Paul is not speaking of
the general destiny of men after death, but of his own personal experience and conviction.'I know,' he says,'that if
I die I have a house in heaven, and being clothed with that
house I shall not be found naked.' There is no room here for
a warning to the unrighteous. They are not at all brought
into view.
2. The second general view of this passage is founded on
the assumption that v. 2 speaks of the change to be effected
in those who shall be alive when Christ comes. According to
Grotius the meaning is,' We shall be clothed upon (i. e. invested with a new body over the present one), it' so be that
day shall find us clothed (i. e. in the body) and not naked
(i. e. bodiless spirits).'  That is, we shall experience the
change mentioned in v. 2, provided we are alive when Christ
comes., To this, however, it is objected, fist, that as the
event of Paul's being alive at that time was entirely uncertain,
and is here so presented, the appropriate particle would be
EL7rep (if so be) and not E'l-e (if, as is sure to be the case); and
second, that this interpretation is inconsistent with the force
of the aorist participle EvvcrSvoe-voL. The sense given to the
passage would require the perfect Ev3scvtE'vot, being then
clothed. According to Meyer the meaning is,' Ift; as is certain
to be the case, we in fact (Kay) shall be found clothed, and not
naked.' That is,' If clothed upon with our house from heaven
(i. e. the new body) we shall not be found bodiless when
Christ comes.' This interpretation suits the words, but not
the connection. As before remarked, the whole passage proceeds on the hypothesis of death.' If I die,' says the apostle,'so and so will happen.' This being the case, he cannot be
jnderstood to state what would happen if he did not die, but




118         II. CORINTHIANS  5, 4.
survived the coming of the Lord. Besides, the whole basis of
this interpretation is unsound. Paul did not expect to survive
the second advent, as is plain firom 2 Thess. 2, 1-6. See the
comment on 1 Cor. 15, 51.
3. The third interpretation assumes that the apostle refers
not to the spiritual body but to a mansion in heaven. In the
preceding verse he said that he earnestly desired to be clothed
upon with his house from heaven, " since," he adds, "being
clothed, we shall not be found (i. e. shall not be) naked." As
the house from heaven is spoken of as a garment, being houseless is expressed by the word naked. This interpretation
gives the same translation of the words as the preceding, but
a different exposition of their meaning; and it has the advantage of agreeing logically with the context and with the elevated tone of the whole passage.'If I die,' says Paul,'I
know I have a home in heaven, and I earnestly desire to enter
on that heavenly house, since when driven from this earthly
tabernacle I shall not be houseless and homeless.' According
to this view the object of his desire was the glory and blessedness of heaven; according to the other, it was that he milight
live until Christ came, and thus escape the pain of dying.
This was an object comparatively insignificant, and utterly
out of keeping with the heroic spirit which pervades the
whole context.
4. For we that are in (this) tabernacle do groan,
being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed,
but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed
up of life.
This verse gives the reason of the desire expressed in v. 2.' We desire our house which is from heaven, for in this we
groan, &c.' The words o' ovTEs mean we who are, not'whilst
we are,' which would require the simple OVTEs without the article. In this tabernacle, Ev' o —K'VEtL, literally, in the tabernacle, i. e. the tabernacle mentioned in v. 1, and implied in v. 2.
-Do groan being burdened, i. e. because burdened. The burden meant may be the affliction by which Paul was overwhelmed; or the body itself; or the longing after a better
world. As this passage is intimately connected with the preceding chapter, in which the apostle had spoken so freely of
his sufferings, and as his experience in view of death was de:




II. CORINTHIANS  5, 5.                  119
termined by those sufferings, it is perfectly natural to understand him to refer to the burden of sorrow. It was because
he suffered so much that he groaned to be delivered, i. e. to
be absent from the body and present with the Lord. Not
that we would be unclothed. The words are E' aJ, which in
Rom. 5, 12 mean propterea quod,'because that;' but here
they more naturally mean quare,'wherefore.' They introduce the reason of what follows, not of what precedes.'On
which account,' i. e. because we are thus burdened we desire,
&c. If i4P' W be taken in the sense of because that the sense is
just the opposite. Then this clause states the nature of the
burden under which the apostle groaned.'We groan because that we do not wish to be unclothed.' It was then the
dread of death, or the desire to be glorified without the necessity of dying, that was the object of the apostle's intense
desire. This is altogether unworthy of the man and inconsistent with the context. Paul says,' We groan being burdened, wherefore, i. e. because thus burdened, we do not wish
to die; death is not that for which we long, but that which
comes after death. It is not mere exemption from the burden of life, from its duties, its labours or its sufferings, which
is the object of desire, but to be in heaven.' The passage is
in its spirit and meaning altogether parallel with v. 8. " Willing rather to be absent from the body and present with the
Lord."  To be unclothed means to lay aside our earthly tabernacle. To be clothed upon means to enter the house not made
with hands. As the earthly house is compared to a garment,
so is the heavenly house.  That mortality (TO 3vTrpov, that
which is mortal) may be swallowed up of life, i. e. absorbed
by it so that the one ceases to appear and the other becomes
dominant. Comp. 1 Cor. 15, 53. 54. This is the elevated object of the apostle's longing desire. It was not death, not
annihilation, nor mere exemption from suffering; but to be
raised to that higher state of existence in which all that was
mortal, earthly and corrupt about him should be absorbed in
the life of God, that divine and eternal life arising from the
beatific vision of God, and consisting in perfect knowledge,
holiness and blessedness.
5. Now, he that hath wrought us for the selfsame
thing (is) God, who also hath given unto us the earnest
of the Spirit.




120          II. CORINTHIANS  5, 6.
It was something very heroic and grand for a poor, perse.
cuted man to stand thus erect in the presence of his enemies
and in the immediate prospect of death, and avow such superiority to all suffering, and such confidence of a glorious immortality.  The apostle, therefore, adds that neither the
elevated feelings which he expressed, nor his preparation for
the exalted state of existence which he so confidently expected, was due to himself.  ile who hath wrought us for the
selfsame thing is God. The words dsi avro5 Tovo, to this very
thing, naturally refers to what immediately precedes, the
being clothed upon so that mortality should be swallowed up
of life. For this elevated destiny God had prepared him;
not created him, but (o KaTepyaro-aEvos) made him fit by giving
the requisite qualifications. He was, as a believer, looking
forward with joyful expectation to his home in heaven, the
workmanship of God.  Who also hath given unto us the
earnest of the Spirit. God had not only prepared him for
future glory, but'had given him the assurance of a blessed
immortality, of which the indwelling of the Holy Ghost
was the earnest, i. e. a foretaste and pledge. 1, 22. Eph. 1,
18.14. Rom. 5, 5. 8, 16. According to the view given
above of the context, the object of the apostle's desire was
not the resurrection, nor the change which the living believer is to experience at Christ's coming, but the state of
glory immediately subsequent to death. It is therefore of
that the Holy Spirit is here declared to be the earnest. Elsewhere, as in Rom. 8, 11, the indwelling of the Spirit is represented as the pledge of the future life of the body, because he
is the source of that life which the believer derives from
Christ, and which pertains to the body as well as to the soul.
Comp. 1 Cor. 6,19. All therefore in whom the Spirit dwells,
i. e. manifests his permanent presence by producing within
them the Christian graces, have the pledge of immediate admission into heaven when they die, and of a glorious resurrection when the Lord comes.
6. Therefore (we are) always confident, knowing
that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent
from the Lord.
The grammatical construction in this and the following
verse, 8, is interrupted and irregular, which our translators




II. CORINTIIIANS  5, 7.                  121
have helped out by inserting the words we are, thus turning
the participle 93appovvrE into a verb. The unfinished sentence
in v. 6 is resumed and completed in v. 8. Omitting the words
of resumption in v. 8, the whole sentence stands thus: 1" Being
confident and knowing that whilst at home in the body, we
are absent from the Lord, we are desirous (EV3OKOVEV) rather
to be absent from the body and present with the Lord."  This
verse is introduced as a consequence of what precedes.' Having the earnest of the Spirit, therefore we are confident.'
This confidence is. not a mere temporary feeling due to some
transient excitement; but a permanent state of mind. Being
always, rcarVTor, on all occasions and under all circumstances,
even in the midst of dangers and discouragements which, were
it not for divine support, would produce despair. The ground
of the boldness and confidence expressed by the word Sappozrv-.es is not any thing in the believer; it is not his natural
courage, not the strength of his convictions; but it is a state
of mind produced by the indwelling of the Spirit, and the
natural consequence of his presence.  -Being confident and
knowing; both these particles are grammatically constructed
with the verb we are willing, EU3OKOitEv, in v. 8, and together
express the ground of the apostle's desire to be absent from
the body. JiKowing that, whilst we are at home in the body,
we are absent from  the Lord. The words Ev8-%E%, to be at
home (literally, among one's people), and KK8/LE'Wo are opposed
to each other. The figure is slightly changed fiom that used
in the preceding verses. There it was a house, here a city, at
least 83}o, people, naturally suggests that idea. Comp. Phil.
3, 20. Heb. 11 13. 13, 14.
7. (For we walk by faith, not by sight.)
This is a passing, parenthetical remark, intended as a confirmation of the preceding declaration.' We are absent from
the Lord, for we now, in this life, walk by faith.' The passage
is parallel to Rom. 8, 24, " We are saved by hope (or in hope,
i. e. in prospect)."  Salvation is not a present, but a future
good. So here, presence with the Lord is now a matter of
faith, not of fruition. The condition of our present state of
being is that of believing. The faith which is the evidence of
things not seen and the substance (or assurance) of things
hoped for, is the element in which we live, so long as we are
not present with those things. Being the objects of faith they




122         II. CORINTHIANS  5, 8.
are of course absent. The preposition, Sta, may have its ordinary force, "We walk by means of faith;" it is by faith we
regulate our walk through life. Or it may be used here as in
Rom. 8, 25. Heb. 12, 1, and elsewhere, to mark the attending
circumstances, "we wait with patience," "let us run with
patience," "we walk with faith."  And not by sight. The
word JEoO; does not mean the sense of sight, but the thing
seen, form, appearance, that which is the object of sight. In
Luke 3, 22, the Spirit is said to have descended o-uatLK4^ E;3EL,
in a bodily shape; in 9, 29 it is said of our Lord that the
ot-os Tovy rpoaorrov airoc, the fashion of his face was changed;
and in John 5, 37' our Lord tells the Jews, speaking of the
Father, "Ye have never heard his voice or seen his (E13o)
shape."  If this, the proper signification of the word, be retained, then JE3o is the object of faith, the form and fashion
of the things believed.  Loco rei verbo acquiescimus, as
Calvin expresses it. We are conversant with the report of
heavenly things, not with the things themselves. We are
absent, not present with them. In this case aLa means with.':We are not surrounded with the forms of things in heaven.'
It is no objection to this interpretation that the preposition
tad has a different force given to it in the second clause, from
that commonly given to it in the first clause of the verse.'We walk by faith, and not with, or in presence of the objects
of our faith.' This change in the force of the same preposition in the same sentence is not unusual. See Hieb. 9, 11. 12.
10, 20. The majority of commentators, however, depart from
the proper signification of the word EJoS and take it in the
sense of odLs, because this agrees best with the antithesis to
grtcrLts (faith) and with the force of the preposition. "We
walk by faith, not by sight;" we believe, but do not see
things which govern our life. This, no doubt, is the idea
which the apostle intended, although not precisely the form
in which he has expressed it.
8. We are confident, (I say,) and willing rather to
be absent from the body, and to be present with the
Lord.
The sentence begun and left incomplete in v. 6 is here
resumed and carried out. ~appocLEv 8E  we are of good courage.
The particle U8 may either serve to indicate the resumption of
what he had begun to say in v. 6, or be taken adversatively in




II. CORINTHIANS  5, 9.                  123
reference to v. 7.' We walk by faith, not by sight, nevertheless we are not discouraged.' We are not only not desponding, but are so confident as to prefer to be absent from the
body. Death is not an object of dread, but of desire. That
the phrase "to be absent from the body" means to die is evident, not only from the import of the expression and from
the parallel passage in Phil. 1, 23, but also from the whole
context, which treats of the apostle's experience in view of
death. He was surrounded by dangers; he could scarcely
bear up under the load of his sufferings; he was every day
exposed to a violent death, which he had escaped hitherto
only, as it were, by miracle; still he was not cast down. He
sustained his courage, and even desired to die. There can be
no doubt that this verse is parallel with v. 4, where the apostle
says he desired to be clothed upon, i. e. with his house which
is from heaven. The object of desire is the same in both.
It is also plain that in this verse it is absence from the body
and presence with the Lord, not the being changed from corruptible to incorruptible without dying, that he earnestly
longed for; and therefore this verse shows that the subject
treated of in the context is the change which the believer
experiences at death, and not that which those who are alive
shall experience at Christ's second coming. The words EKc8-!Ezo and Mvo3yEw, here used as in v. 6, are best rendered'from
home' and' at home.''We would be from home as to the
body, and at home with -the Lord.' THE LORD is of course
Christ, the supreme Lord, who in virtue of the fulness of the
Godhead is the rightful sovereign and possessor of the universe, and in virtue of his dying for the redemption of his
people, in a peculiar sense the sovereign and possessor of believers. The Christian's heaven is to be with Christ, for we
shall be like him when we see him as he is. Into his presence
the believer passes as soon as he is absent from the body, and
into his likeness the soul is at death immediately transformed;
and when at the resurrection, the body is made like unto his
glorious body, the work of redemption is consummated.
Awaiting this consummation, it is an inestimable blessing to
be assured that believers, as soon as they are absent from the
body, are present with THE LORD.
9. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or
absent, we may be accepted of him.




124         II. CORINTHIANS  5, 10.
Wherefore, 8&t Kat, wherefore also, i. e. because we desire to
be with the Lord. Longing after communion with him produces the desire and secures the effort to be found acceptable
to him. Those who have this hope purify themselves as he is
pure. 1 John 3, 3. It is impossible that those who regard the
presence of Christ, or being with him, as heaven, should not
desire and labour to be pleasing to him, by living in obedience
to his commandments.  We labour. The word  LXooL~Etio-SaL
means more than to labour. It signifies literally, to love honour, to be ambitious; and then to make any thing a point of
honour, or to set one's honour in doing or attaining something.
So Paul says, he made it a point of honour not to build on
another man's foundation. Rom. 15, 20. And here he intends
to say that as ambitious men desire and strive after fame, so
Christians long and labour to be acceptable to Christ. Love
to him, the desire to please him, and to be pleasing to him,
animates their hearts and governs their lives, and makes them
do and suffer what heroes do for glory.  Whether present or
absent. These words may be variously explained. 1. The
sense may be,' Whether present in the body, or absent from
the body,' i. e. whether living or dying.  Comp. Rom. 14, 8,
"Whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we
die, we die unto the Lord."  1 Thess. 5, 10, "Whether we
wake or sleep, we live together with him.," The connection
is then either with 0ALXOTLVt0oIEa,'we strive whether in the
body or out of the body; i. e. the desire in question is active
as well in the living as the dead;' or, as is better, with evapeo —
rot ELvat,'we strive to be acceptable whether in the body or
absent from it.' 2. The sense may be,' Whether present with
the Lord, or absent romn the Lord.'  This is only expressing
the same idea in a different form. Whether living or dead,
as in Rom. 14, 8.  3. MIeyer takes the words literally,'Whether at home or abroad.'  But this is utterly inconsistent with the context. The objection to the first interpretation, that the desire to be acceptable to the Lord when
actually saved, must cease, inasmuch as the object is attained,
is of no force. The thing desired, TO qTroV1Eov, as Chrysostom
says, is that we may be pleasing to Christ whether here or
there, whether in this world or the next.
10. For we must all appear before the judgmentseat of Christ; that every one may receive the things




II. CORINTHIANS  5, 10.                    125
(done) in (his) body, according to that he hath done,
whether (it be) good or bad.
In what precedes Paul had been speaking of himself. It
was his own sufferings, hopes, and efforts which the occasion
called upon him to exhibit. In all this, however, he spoke as
a Christian, and therefore in the name of other Christians.
In this verse he expressly comprehends others, and all others.'I strive to be acceptable to the Lord, Jbr we must all (I as
well as all believers, and even all men) must, &c.' As Christ
is to decide upon our eternal destiny, it is of infinite moment
that we should be acceptable, or well-pleasing, in his sight.
WTe must all appear, oavEpwo@3vat. This means either nothing
more than a judicial appearance, as when any one is said to
appear in court before a judge; or, as Bengel explains it,
rmanrifestos fieri cum occultis nostris,'we must all stand revealed in our true character before the judgment-seat of
Christ.' 1 Cor. 4, 5. Col. 3, 4. As there can be no disguise,
no deception befbre an omniscient judge, Paul was assiduous
illn his efforts to be prepared to stand the scrutiny of an allseeing eye.  The judgment-seat of Christ; P/fica, literally,
step, then a raised platform, or seat; most frequently used of
the elevated seat on which the Roman magistrates sat to administer justice, an object of reverence and fear to all the
people. As Christ is to be the judge, as all men are to appear
before him, as the secrets of the heart are to be the grounds
of judgmnent, it is obvious that the sacred writers believed
Christ to be a divine person, for nothing less than omniscience
could qualifty any one for the office here ascribed to our Lord.
That every one may receive, KO/XtSo, which in the active form
means to take up, in the middle, as here, to take for one's self,
properly to take or receive what is one's due, or what on
some ground one is entitled to.  Matt. 25, 27. Col. 3, 25.
2 Pet. 2, 13. The punishment whigh men are to receive will
be what they have earned, and tbercfore what is in justice due
to them. The reward of the righteous, although a matter of
grace and not of justice, yet being, agreeably to the tenor of
the covenant of grace, according to their works, it is of the
nature of a reward. The pay of' a faithful soldier is a matter
of debt, titles and estates are matters of favour. There is no
inconsistency, therefore, in the Scriptures denying all merit to
believers, and yet teaching that they shall be rewarded according to their works. We are said to receive the things




126         II. CORINTHIANS  5, 10.
done in the body, because the matter is conceived of, or is
here represented as an investment. Our acts are treasures
laid up for the future, whether treasures of wrath, or treasures
in heaven; and these (KOLUto'clE a) we receive back. The words
&La 8ta ro (ro /caros may mean things (dose) through or by the
body. Then bodily acts are taken for acts of all kinds. Compare Rom. 8, 13. Or the 8L& may be taken as in v. 7, (according to one interpretation of that verse,) as indicating the attending circumstance-with the body, i. e. while clothed with
the body. This is the sense expressed in our version, which
renders the clause " things (done) in the body," although 6La
of course does not mean in. According to that he hath done,
7rpos a ~7rpac~v, indicating the rule according to which the
retributions of the final judgments are to be administered.
Both with regard to the wicked and the righteous, there is to
be a great distinction in the recompense, which different members of each class are to receive. Some will be beaten with
few stripes, and some with many. It will be more tolerable
in that day for Tyre and Sidon than fbr those who reject the
gospel; and on the other hand, those believers who suffer
most, will love most and be most blessed.  Whether good or
evil, i. e. whether he did good or evil. Each shall receive
according to his deeds whether good or bad. It is from such
passages as this that some American theologians have inferred
that the only benefit which the believer receives from Christ
is the forgiveness of sin, and that being pardoned he is dealt
with according to the principles of justice. Others, especially
in Germany, have drawn from the same source the conclusion
that the doctrine of Paul is that the merit of Christ cleanses
only from the sins committed before conversion. If a Jew or
Gentile became a Christian his sins were blotted out, and then
he was rewarded or punished, saved or lost, according to his
works. The merit of Christ availed nothing for the pardon
of sin after conversion. And this again is very much the
ancient doctrine that there is no forgiveness for post-baptismal
sins. The benefits of Christ's work, according to many of the
ancients, are conveyed to the soul in baptism, but if once forfeited by sin can never be reapplied. This gloomy doctrine,
which belonged to the transition period which preceded the
full development of the theology of the Papal church, has been
revived by the inchoate Romanists of the present day. But
according to the Scriptures and the doctrine of all Protestant
churches, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin,




II. CORINTHIANS  5, 10.                  127
whether committed before or after baptism  or conversion.
It is a fountain to which we may daily come for cleansing.
He is a priest who ever lives to make intercession for us, and
who ever presents before God the merit of his sacrifice as a
perpetual offering, typified by the morning and evening sacrifice under the law. According to the anti-scriptural views
mentioned above, when a man first comes to Christ his sins
are forgiven, and he then commences anew under the covenant of works, and stands in the same relation to God that
Adam did before the fall. The condition of salvation is to
him as it was to our first parent, "Do this and live." Christ
henceforth profits him nothing. But according to the apostle
we are not under the law, but under grace. Rom. 6, 14. On
the ground of the one offering of Christ, by which those who
believe are forever sanctified, (i. e. atoned for,) God does not
impute to the penitent believer his sins unto condemnation.
He is not judged by the law or treated according to its principles, for then no man could be saved. But he is treated as
one for all whose sins, past, present, and future, an infinite
satisfaction has been made, and who has a perpetual claim to
that satisfaction so long as he is united to Christ by faith and
the indwelling of his Spirit. Hence the Scriptures are filled
with exhortations not merely to the unconverted, to Jews and
Pagans, but to baptized Christians, to repent of sin and to
believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; that is, to exercise trust in
the merit of his sacrifice and the prevalence of his intercession
for the pardon of their daily and manifold transgressions and
shortcomings. The sacrifice of Christ avails for the sins committed from the foundation of the world to the final consummation. It affords a permanent and all-sufficient reason why
God can be just and yet justify the ungodly.
Paul's defence of himself against the charge of self-commendation. Vs. 11-21.
IHe declares that he acted under a solemn sense of his
responsibility to God, v. 11. This was not said with the view
of commending himself; but rather to afford them the means
of vindicating his character, v. 12. Whether his way of
speaking of himself was extravagant or moderate, sane or insane, his motive in doing as he did was a sincere regard to
the glory of God and the good of his church, v. 13. For the
love of Christ constrained him to live, not for himself, but for
6*




128         II. CORINTHIANS  5, 11.
him who died for him and rose again, vs, 14. 15. Acting un.
der the control of this elevated principle, he was raised above
the influence of external things. He did not judge of men by
their external condition. He was a new creature in virtue of
his union with Christ, vs. 16. 17. This great change which he
had experienced was not self-wrought; it was of God, who is
the author of the whole scheme of redemption. He is reconciled unto the world through Jesus Christ, and he has commissioned his ministers to proclaim this great truth to all
men, vs. 18.19. Therefore, thea apostle, as an ambassador of
God, exhorted men to accept of this offer of reconciliation, for
which the most abundant provision had been made, in that
God had made Christ to be sin for us, in order that we might
be made the righteousness of God in him, vs. 20. 21.
11. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we
persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God;
and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
This verse is an inference from what precedes, as is indicated by the particle (orv) therefore. Paul had asserted his
earnest desire to be acceptable to the Lord, and, therefore,
knowing the terror of the Lorcl, &c. In this version of the
clause, roiv f5,Iov Tro Kvplov, the genitive is taken as the genitive of the subject. It is the terror which belongs to the
Lord.'Knowing how terrible the Lord is.'  But this is
contrary to the constant use of the phrase. The fear of the
Lord is that fear or reverence which the Lord excites, or of
which he is the object. Hence it so often stands in Scripture
for true religion. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of
wisdom."  So in Acts 9, 31, "Walking in the fear of the
Lord." Rom. 3, 18, "The fear of God is not before their
eyes;" and in 7, 1 of this epistle, "perfecting holiness in the
fear of God." See also Eph. 5, 21, "Submitting yourselves
one to another in the fear of Christ." In all these cases
(fojios) fear means pious reverence. There is no reason for
departing from that sense in this place. Knowing, i. e. feeling or experiencing, the pious reverence for Christ, the earnest desire to meet his approbation, asserted in the context,
the apostle acted under the influence of that sentiment, and
not fiom selfish or unworthy motives, in all his conduct as a
man and as a minister. As the expression " fear of the Lord "




II. CORINTHIANS  5, 11.                  129
is so uniformly used to express that reverence and submission
which are due only to God, it is clear from this and analogous
passages that Christ was to the apostles the object of the
religious affections; and that they felt themselves to be responsible to him for their moral character and conduct. The
evidence of the divinity of the Lord is thus seen to pervade
the New Testament, and is not confined to a few isolated
passages. Influenced, says the apostle, by the fear of the
Lord, Ipersuade men. What this means is somewhat doubtful. The word retaEtV expresses the endeavour to convince,
as in Acts 18, 4, " He persuaded the Jews," i. e. endeavoured
to convince them of the truth, and in Acts 28, 23, " Persuading them concerning Jesus." The apostle therefore may here
mean that he endeavoured to convince men of the truth of
the gospel, i. e. to convert them, or bring them to the obedience of faith. Or, he may mean that he endeavoured to convince them of his integrity, or that he was really governed by
the fear of Christ, and was therefore sincere and honest, which
in Corinth had been so unjustly called in question. This latter
explanation is generally preferred, both because it suits the
context, and because the following clause seems to require
this idea.'We seek to convince men of our integrity, but
God we need not convince, to him our inmost soul is manifest.'
The word (7rESELv), however, also signifies to conciliate, to seek
to please, as in Gal. 1, 10, "Do we persuade (i. e. seek to
please) men, or God."  Matt. 28, 14. Acts 12, 20. 1 John 3,
19. Many prefer that sense here. Luther, in his idiomatic
style, renders the clause, fahresn wir schbnz mit den Leuten.
The apostle is supposed to refer to the fact that he accommodated himself to all classes, and became all things to all men,
that he might save some. 1 Cor. 9, 22. Though he thus acted
still he was manifest unto God; i. e. God knew the purity of
his motives. This, however, is an idea foreign to the connection. His accommodating himself to others was not the specific objection made against him by his enemies in Corinth,
but, as appears from the previous chapters, his "lightness"
or instability of purpose, and his consequent untrustworthiness
as a man and as a teacher. Others again, take -7rEi'ELV in a bad
sense.' We deceive men, (as our enemies say,) but are manifest to God.' But this is utterly incongruous. -How could
Paul say in such a solemn connection,' I deceive men,' and
leave the saving clause, as may enemies say, to be supplied by
the reader. The most natural interpretation is that given




130        II. CORINTHIANS  5, 12.
above.' Under the influence of the fear of the Lord, we en.
deavour to convince men, i. e. as he had said in 4, 2, to com
mend himself to every man's conscience, and whether success.
ful in this or not he was at least known to God.' MIade
manifest unto God, i. e. to God I am (cavpo's) apparent, my
true character is known. And I trust also are made manifest
in your conscience. Although misunderstood and defamed
by others, he trusted that the Corinthian Christians as a body
had an inward conviction of his integrity. The evidence of
his sincerity was his moral excellence, and therefore it addressed itself to their consciences. There may be many reports against a good man which we cannot contradict; many
charges which we cannot refute; and yet the self-evidencing
light of goodness wifl produce the conviction of his integrity
in the consciences even of wicked men, and much more in the
hearts of the good.
12. For we commend not ourselves again unto
you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that
ye may have somewhat to (answer) them which glory
in appearance, and not in heart.
His object in thus speaking of himself was not self-praise,
nor to secure the confidence of the Corinthians, which he already possessed; but to give them materials for a vindication
of his character against the aspersions of his enemies. The
connection, as indicated by for, is with the preceding verse,
of which this is a confirmation.'I am assured of your confidence, for the object of my self-commendation is not to re-,commend myself to you, but, &c.' In chapter 3, 1, Paul had
had occasion to repel the charge of self-laudation, and hence
he says, he was not about to commend himself again, as some
said he had before done.  But give you, literally, giving
(&8T6v.Es), and therefore a verb must be supplied,'Giving you
occasion we say these things.' An occasion of glorying in
our behalf, &aop/lzv KavXlxiaT-os; KavX?7lza being taken in the
sense of Ka'vXgLS.  On our behalf, 6VrEp r'1Wv, not simply over
us, or about us, but for our benefit. That is, for our vindication. Some commentators suppose that there is something
ironical in this whole passage. As though the apostle de.
signed to taunt the Corinthians with their readiness to listen
to the false representations of his opponents, and with the




II. CORINTHIANS  5, 13.                  131
plea that they needed not the disposition, but the ability to
defend him. This view, however, is inconsistent with the
connection and with the whole drift of the epistle. In the
immediately preceding verse he had expressed his assurance
of their confidence in his integrity, and throughout the epistle
his overflowing love for the faithful in Corinth is mingled with
his severe denunciations of the false teachers and their followers. That ye may have. There is no object expressed to the
verb (EXT1E), ye may have. We may supply (iT) something,
and insert the words to answer, as is done by our translators;
or we may borrow fiom the context the word KaVX]xyJa; "; That
ye may have some ground of boasting."  Against those who
glory in appearance and not in heart. This is evidently descriptive of the false teachers. The words Ev lrpocrr-w, in face,
may, from the antithesis to 6v Kap3La, in heart, be taken, as in
our version, for what is external as opposed to what is inward.
Then the expression refers to the fact that those teachers
gloried in their Hebrew descent, in their circumcision, their
external religious privileges, their churchmanship, &c. It
was in these things they placed their confidence, and of them
they made their boast. Or the words may be taken literally,
and according to their uniform use in other passages. Then
the expression describes the sanctimoniousness and hypocrisy
of the false teachers. They gloried, says Meyer, in the holiness, the zeal, and devotion which expressed themselves in the
face. They wished to appear unto men to fast, to wear the
look of sanctity, while their hearts, as our Lord describes the
same class of men, were full of all uncleanness. The former
explanation is commonly adopted, and is probably the true
one, because regard for externals is elsewhere in this epistle
represented as the prominent characteristic of Paul's opponents in Corinth. Their great boast was that they belonged
to the true church or theocracy, and that Paul and his followers were dissenters and schismatics.
13. For whether we be beside ourselves, (it is) to
God: or whether we be sober, (it is) for your cause.
This verse again is a confirmation of the preceding.'You
have good reason to glory on my behalf, for, &c.' Whether
we be beside ourselves. The word  eo-uVmL, to be out of one's
mind, and other words of like signification, are used either in
their strict sense to express insanity or madness, or in a wider




132         II. CORINTHIANS  5, 14.
sense, to express undue excitement or extravagance. When
Festus, Acts 26, 24, said to the apostle, " Paul, thou art beside
thyself; much learning doth make thee mad," he did not
mean that he was really insane. And when our Lord's zeal
provoked his friends to say of him, "He is beside himself,"
Mlark 3, 21, they certainly did not intend to charge him with
insanity. There is therefore no necessity for taking the word
here in its strict sense, and assuming that Paul's enemies had
accused him of being out of his mind. It is the more natural
to take the word in a wider sense here, because the opposite
term, (o-wpovWo, (to be sober, or sane,) and its cognates, are
much more frequently used to express moderation and discretion than sanity in the strict sense of that word. The apostle
means to say that whether he was extravagant or moderate,
whether he exceeded the bounds of discretion, as his enemies
asserted, or whether he was sober and discreet, it was not for
himself; he had in view only the glory of God and the good
of his church, and therefore the Corinthians might safely
boast of him, i. e. vindicate him from the aspersions of the
false teachers. Whether the extravagance or insanity here
referred to, consisted in his self'commendation, or in his zeal
and devotion, is matter of dispute. The former is the more
probable, both because in the immediate context he had been
speaking of that subject, and because in chapters 11 and 12
he speaks so much at large of his commending himself, although forced upon him, as a kind of folly or insanity. In
those chapters the &alpo-rv'vq, (the want of mind,) of which he
accuses himself, was self-praise; and the ao-oporv'vy (soberness
or sanity) which he desired to exhibit was moderation in
speaking of himself and of his labours. Paul, therefore, in
this passage, is most naturally understood to mean, that
whether he praised himself or whether he did not, whether
the manner in which he had spoken of himself be considered
as adpouv'vy or ao-poav'Vq, as insanity or sobriety, he spoke not
for himself, but for God and his people.
14. For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were
all dead.'In whatever I do,' says the apostle,'I act for God and
his church, for the love of Christ constraineth me.' The con



II. CORINTHIANS  5, 14.                  133
nection is thus plain. The love of Christ here means Christ's
love for us, not the love of which he is the object. This is
obvious, because the apostle goes on to illustrate the greatness of Christ's love to us, and not of our love to him. Comp.
Gal. 2, 20, where the same idea is expressed by the words
"who loved me."  See Rom. 8, 35. Eph. 3, 19.  Constraineth
us, i. e. controls and governs us. The word rovvEXo means also
to restrain, a sense whict many adopt here.'The love of
Christ restrains me from acting for myself.' This is a more
limited sense, and is not required by the usage of the word,
which is often used to express the idea of being pressed as by a
crowd, or figuratively, by calamity or sorrow. There is no
better version for it in this passage than that adopted by our
translators. ('The love of Christ constraineth us.' It coerces,
or presses, and therefore impels. It is the governing influence which controls the life. This is a trait of Paul's experience as a Christian, and is therefore common to all Christians.
It is not benevolence which makes a man a Christian, for then
all philanthropists would be Christians. Nor is it mere piety,
in the sense of reverence for God, which makes a man a
Christian, for then all devout Mussulmans and Jews would be
Christians. M3orality does not make us religious, but religion
makes us moral. In like manner benevolence and piety (in
the wide sense) do not make men Christians, but Christianity
makes them benevolent and devout.> A Christian is one who
recognizes Jesus as the Christ, tD'on of the living God, as
God manifested in the flesh, loving us and dying for our redemption; and who is so affected by a sense of the love of
this incarnate God as to be constrained to make the will of
Christ the rule of his obedience, and the glory of Christ the
great end for which he lives. The man who does this perfectly, is a perfect Christian. The man who does it imperfectly, yet with the sincere desire to be entirely devoted to
Christ, is a sincere Christian. i On the other hand, the man
who lives supremely for himselb~or his family, for science, bor
the world, for mankind, whatever else he may be, is not a
Christian.  Whosoever loveth father or mother, son or
daughter, more than me, saith our Lord, is not worthy of
me, Matt. 10, 37. He that hateth not his own life, cannot be
my disciple, Luke 14, 26. The great question is, What constitutes a Christian?f It is being so constrained by a sense of
the love of qur divibe Lord to us, that we consecrate our
lives to himn.J Hence faith in his divinity, faith in his love,




134         II. CORINTHIANS 5, 14.
faith in his having died for us, is the principle or source of the
Christian life. And this is the only form in which true religion can now exist. That is, the only true religion now
possible is the worship, love, and service ofT  rWJ — Jesus
Christ. It is impo sible fa man toTrn his back on Christ
and worship the God of nature or the God of the Jews.
Should a man reveal himself to us first as an acquaintance,
then as a friend, and then as a father,'Mial reverence and dev"oton would be the only form in which sincere and true
regard for him could exist. To deny him as father, would be
to reject him as a friend and acq"'aintance. S4fi=, therefore,
the same God who revealed himselfirst in nature, and then
as the Jehovah of the Hebrews, has revealed himself in the
flesh, loving us and dying for our redemption, to deny him in
this the clearest revelation of his being and perfection, is to
deny him altogether. "Whoso denieth the Son, the same
hath not the Father," 1 John 2, 23. It is the practical or experimental form of this great truth, which is presented in this
passage.
Because we thus judge. This clause assigns the reason
why the love of Christ exerted the constraining power referred to. It was because the apostle judged that the death
of Christ for his people not only placed them under the
strongest obligation to devote themselves to his service, but
it secured this devotion. They died in him. Rom. 6, 4. 5.
As the participle (Kp'vavras) is in the aorist, it would be more
strictly rendered, because we judged(That is,'I live for
Christ, because when I became a Christian I regarded his
dyi_'for me as involving the obligation and necessity of my
livmi'g  orim.') This was the aspect under which he embrac-dU~nrisianity; the judgment which he formed of it
from the beginning.  That if one died for all. The contrast
presented, especially in the epistle to the IHebrews, between
the priest and sacrifices of the old economy on the one hand,
and the high priest and sacrifice of the gospel on the other,
is that those were many, these are one. The ancient priests
could not continue by reason of death. Our high priest, being a divine person, and therefore possessed of an endless life,
ever lives to save. The sacrifices of the law were daily repeated, because it was impossible that they should take away
sin; Christ by the offering up of himself hath forever perfected them that are sanctified. His blood cleanses fiom all sin.
The apostle here presents him as the one priest and the one




II. CORINTHIANS  5, 14.                    135
sacrifice. Died for all. The words are ZTrEp 7rav7Tv.  The
preposition irEp, may have the general sense, for the benefit
of, in behalf of, or the stricter sense, in the place of, as in v.
20 of this chapter. Philem. 13. Eph. 6, 20. In many places
the choice between these senses depends on the context. In
all those passages in which one person is said to die for another, as Rom. 5, 6. 7. 8. 14, 15. 1 Thess. 5, 10. Heb. 2, 9.
Comp. Luke 22, 19.  1 Tim. 2, 6. Titus 2, 14. &c., &c., or in
which the reference is to a sacrifice, the idea of substitution is
clearly expressed. The argument does not rest on the force
of the preposition, but on the nature of the case. The only
way in which the death of the victim benefited the offerer,
was by substitution. WVhen, therefore, Christ is said to die
as a sacrifice for us, the meaning is, he died in our stead. IIis
death is taken in the place of ours so as to save us from death.
That the preposition  7r'p, in this and similar passages, does
mean instead of, is admitted by the great body of even Rationalistic  commentators.  See De Wette, Rickert, &c.
Christ, it is said, died for all, i. e. for all the subjects of redemption. This limitation is not an arbitrary one, but arises
of necessity out of the nature of the case, and is admitted
almost universally. He did not die for all creatures; nor for
all rational creatures; nor for all apostate rational creatures.
The all is of necessity limited by what the Scriptures teach
of the design of his death. If his death was merely didactic,
intended to reveal and confirm some truth, then he may be
said to have died for all benefited by that revelation, and
therefore for angels as well as men. If designed to make it
consistent with the interests of God's moral government for
him to pardon the sins of men, then he may be said to have
died equally for all men. But if his death was intended to
save his people, then it had a reference to them which it had
not to others. The true design of the death of Christ is to be
learned from express assertions of Scripture, and from its
effects. It is so obvious that the death of Christ was designed
to save those for whom it was offered, that many of the recent
as well as ancient commentators justify their explaining 67rep
r&,avTv as meaning all men, by attributing to Paul the belief
that all men are to be saved. This is an admission that the
all for whom he died, are the all who are saved by his death.
One of its effects is stated in the fbllowing clause; Then were
all dead, or, Then all died. The word is carE'Savov. It is the
same verb, and in the same tense.'If one died, (&7r$arvEv,)




136         II. CORINTHIANS  5, 14.
then all died, (1ar7'avov).' The'word must have the same
sense in both clauses. It cannot mean were dead, becaase
that is inconsistent with the force of the aorist. All, (literally, the all, ot 7ravrTes,) i. e. the all for whom the one died. His
death involved, or secured their death. This was its design
and effect, and, therefore, this clause limits the extent of the
word all in the preceding clause. Christ died for the all who
died when he died. The meaning of this expression has, however, been variously explained. 1. It is made to mean,' Then
all died to themselves and sin.' His dying literally, secured
their dying figuratively. 2. Others say the true meaning is,'Then all ought to die.' But this is not included in the words.
The aorist does not express obligation. 3. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Beza and others, give the same explanation which is
implied in our version,'If one died for all, then were all subject to death.' That is, the vicarious death of Christ proves
that those for whom he died were in a state of condemnation.
But this suits neither the meaning of the word nor the context.
It was not to Paul's purpose to prove that men were in a state
of death. It was noti what they were, but what the death of
Christ caused them to become, that he evidently intended to
express. 4. The simple meaning of the passage is, that the
death of one was the death of all. If one died for all, the all
died. The Scriptures teach that the relation between Christ
and his people is analogous to that between Adam and his
posterity.  Rom. 5, 12-21. 1 Cor. 15, 21. 22.  The apostasy
of Adam was the apostasy of all united to him; the work of
Christ was the work of all united to him. In the one, all
died; in the other, all are made alive. As the sin of Adam
was legally and effectively the sin of his race; so the death
of Christ was legally and effectively the death of his people.
This doctrine underlies the whole scheme of redemption. It
is, so to speak, the generic idea of the Epistle to the Romans.
The apostle shows that man, ruined by the sin of Adam, is
restored by the work of Christ. His people are so united to
him that his death is their death, and his life is their life.
"If we be dead with him, we shall also live with him," Rom.
6, 8. Hence believers are said to be crucified with Christ, to
rise with him, to reign with him. Gal. 2, 20. Eph. 2, 5. 6.
The simple meaning of the words, " If one died for all, then all
died," therefore is, that Christ's death was the death of his
people. This as we have seen is according to the analogy,f Scripture; and is also entirely pertinent to the design of




II. CORINTHIANS  5, 15.                  137
this passage. The apostle denied that he lived for himself.
He asserts that he lived for God and his people. For, he
adds, I died in Christ. This is precisely the argument which
he uses in Rom. 6. Shall we continue in sin that grace may
abound?  Far from it, he says, How shall they who have
died on account of sin live any longer therein? If united to
Christ in his death, we must be united to him in his life.
Another consideration in favour of this interpretation is that
it comprehends the others. They are objectionable, not because they are erroneous, but because they are defective.
Death on account of sin, is death to sin. Dying with Christ,
involves death to self and sin; and of course includes the obligation so to die. The death of Christ reconciles us to God;
and reconciliation to God secures a life of devotion to his service. This is the doctrine set forth in the Epistle to the
Romans, ch. 7.
15. And (that) he died for all, that they which live
should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto
him which died for them, and rose again.
This is a continuation of the preceding sentence, and is
designed to express more fully the judgment or conviction
(Kpt'vavTas) which the apostle had formed of his relation to
Christ. He judged that the death of Christ was the death of
his people, and that the design with which he died for them
was that they might live for him. This idea is expressed in
various forms in the word of God. Sometimes our Lord is
said to have died, the just for the unjust, to bring us near to
God, 1 Pet. 3, 18; or, that we, being dead to sins, should live
unto righteousness, 1 Pet. 2, 26; or, to purify to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works, Titus 2, 14. In Rom.
14, 9, the mode of statement is exactly parallel to the passage
before us. "To this end Christ both died and rose that he
might be the Lord both of the dead and living." To say
that Christ died that he might be the Lord of his people, is to
say that he died that they might be his servants, i. e. belong
to him and be devoted to him. The proximate design and
effect of the death of Christ is the expiation of sin and reconciliation with God, and the design and effect of reconciliation
mith God are devotion to his service. Hence the death of
Christ is sometimes presented in reference to its proximate,




138         II. CORINTHIANS  5, 16.
sometimes in reference to its ultimate design; i. e. sometimes
he is said to have died to make a propitiation for sin, and
sometimes, to bring us near to God. Here it is the latter.
He died that they which live should not henceforth live unto
themselves. "Those who live," or 5iVTrEs, not, those who survive his death; nor, those who are spiritually living; nor,
the happy or blessed, but, those who, although they died in
Christ, are still living. Their death in him is not inconsistent
with their being alive, for they died in one sense and they
live in another. Those for whom Christ died, and on whom
his death takes effect, thenceforth,'. e. from the time they
apprehend their relation to him, and feel the power of' his vicarious death, do not live unto themselves, i. e. self is not the
object for which they live. This is the negative description
of the Christian. He is a man who does not live unto himself.
This is what he is not. The positive description is given in
the next clause. He lives for him who diedfor him and rose
again. This presents both the object and the ground of the
Christian's devotion. He lives for him who died for him, and
because he died for him. He is not a Christian who is simply
unselfish, i. e. who lives for some object out of himself. He
only is a Christian who lives for Christ. Many persons think
they can be Christians on easier terms than these. They
think it is enough to trust in Christ while they do not live for
him. But the Bible teaches us that if we are partakers of
Christ's death, we are also partakers of his life; if we have
any such appreciation of his love in dying for us as to lead us
to confide in the merit of his death, we shall be constrained to
consecrate our lives to his service. And this is the only evidence of the genuineness of our faith. And rose again. We
do not serve a dead Saviour. The resurrection of Christ is
as essential to redemption as his death. He died for our sins
and rose again for our justification. And it is to this risen
Saviour, seated at the right hand of God, to whom all power
in heaven and earth has been committed, and who ever lives
to make intercession for us, who is the object of the supreme
love of the believer, to whose service and glory the Christian
consecrates his life.
16. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after
the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the
flesh, yet now henceforth know we (him) no more.




II. CORINTHIANS  5, 16.                   139
This is an inference, (orTcE, so that).'Such is the nature
of the change which I have experienced through the apprehension of the love of Christ, as just described, that I no
longer see or judge of things according to the flesh.' The we
refers primarily to the apostle himself, as he is still engaged
in self-vindication. He was acting from pure motives, he says,
for a sense of the love of Christ constrained him not to live for
himself but for Christ, and therefore he no longer judged of
persons or things as he had been accustomed to do. Paul's experience, however, was his experience as a Christian, and therefore not peculiar to himself. It is true of all Christians that
they do not know (i. e. estimate, judge, feel in reference to)
any man according to the flesh. This may mean, that the
judgment is not regulated or determined by a regard to
what is external. It is not a man's outward circumstances,
his birth, his station, his being rich or poor, Jew or Gentile,
that determines our estimate of him. Or the meaning may
be, that the judgment was not determined by carnal or selfish
considerations. Paul was not led to approve or disapprove,
love or hate any man from selfish or corrupt motives. This
latter view would suit the context, for the apostle had just
said that he lived not for himself but for Christ, and therefore
his judgments of men were not determined by a regard to
himself. It is also consistent with the usage of the word; for
crap$ means corrupt nature, as well as what is outward. The
following part of the verse, however, is decisively in favour of
the former interpretation.  Comp. 11, 18. John 8, 15. Phil.
3, 4. Paul evidently contrasts himself as he now was (&ab Troi
vZv) with what he was before his conversion; and also himself
with his Judaizing opponents in Corinth. Yea, though we
have known Christ after the flesh. The words El 8E Kal, but
even if, are concessive. Paul admits that he had once done
what he here condemns. He had known or estimated Christ
after the flesh. Of course this does not mean that he had
known Christ while in the flesh, as Olshausen supposes, because that would be saying nothing to the purpose,,and because there is no evidence of Paul's ever having seen our
Lord before his resurrection. Olshausen's idea is, that as he
formerly regarded men as men, but now only as Christians,
i. e. had reference only to what was spiritual, so also he no
longer thinks of Christ as he once knew him on earth, but as
he is glorified in heaven. But this does not suit the connection nor the facts of the case. The words KaTa 0a'pKa must




140         II. CORINTHIANS  5, 17.
have the same sense in both parts of the verse; and in the
former they do not designate the life before conversion, and
therefore when spoken in reference to Christ are not to be
understood of his earthly as opposed to his heavenly life.
Paul had known Christ after the flesh in the sense of estimating him entirely according to the outward appearance of
things.  Christ does not here mean the Messiah, but is the
historical designation of our Lord as an individual. Paul had
despised and hated him because he judged him only according
to his outward appearance as a poor suffering man, yet claiming to be the Christ the Son of the living God. His Jewish
notions of what the Messiah was to be led him to regard with
indignation the claims of Jesus to be the Christ.  Yet now
henceforth know we (him) no more. The order of the words
in the original shows that the words Kara crapKa are to be connected with the verb and not with its object; Ci 8E KaL EyvWKaLeV Kara aOapKa Xptr-ro'v. That is, we no longer judge after the
flesh concerning Christ; we no longer estimate him according
to appearance, but know him to be the Son of God, who loved
us and gave himself for us. Gal. 2, 20.
17. Therefore, if any man (be) in Christ, (he is) a
new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all
things are become new.
A further inference from what precedes. What was true
in Paul's case, must be true in all analogous cases. If the
revelation of Christ, the apprehension of his glory and love,
had wrought such a change in him, the same illumination
must produce a like change in others. He therefore says, If
any man be in Christ he is a new creature. The proposition
is general; it applies to every man. To be in Christ is the
common scriptural phrase to express the saving connection or
union between him and his people. They are in him by covenant, as all men were in Adam; they are in him as members
of his body, through the indwelling of his Spirit; and they
are in him by faith, which lays hold of and appropriates him
as the life and portion of the soul. Rom. 8, 1. 9. Gal. 5, 6, &c.
This union is transforming. It imparts a new life. It effects
a new creation. This expression indicates not only the greatness and radical nature of the change effected, but also its
divine origin. It is a divine work, i. e. one due to the mighty
power of God. It is therefore called a creation, the com



II. CORINTHIANS  5, 17.                  141
mencement of a new state of being. Eph. 1, 19. In Gal. 6, 15.
Rom. 8, 9, and elsewhere, the same effects are ascribed to
union with Christ. If we are united to him so as to be interested in the merits of his death, we must also be partakers of
his life. This is the foundation on which the apostle builds
his whole doctrine of sanctification as developed in the sixth
and seventh chapter of his epistle to the Romans. The word
KaLvor, new, unimpaired, uncontaminated, is an epithet of excellence; a new song, a new name, new heavens, new earth,
the new Jerusalem, the new man, a new creature, are scriptural expressions which will occur to every reader. In the
margin of the English Bible this clause is rendered, Let him
be a new creature. This is in accordance with Calvin's view
of the passage. "If any man would be in Christ, i. e. if he
would be of consequence in Christ's kingdom, let him become
a new creature." He supposes that the apostle refers to the
ambition of the false teachers, whom he tells that if they wish
to attain the influence to which they aspire, they must like
him be entirely changed from selfishness to devotion to Christ.
There is nothing in the words to require this, and every thing
in the context is opposed to it. The apostle is detailing his
own experience, unfolding the principles on which he acted,
and showing the effect which the apprehension of the love of
Christ had on him and must have on others. If any man is in
Christ he is thereby made a new creature. In the Old Testament, Is. 43, 18. 19. 65, 17, the effects to be produced by the
coming of the Messiah are described as a making all things
new. The final consummation of the Redeemer's kingdom in
heaven is described, Rev. 21, 5, in the same terms. "He that
sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new."
The inward spiritual change in every believer is set forth in
the same words, because it is the type and necessary condition
of this great cosmical change. What would avail any conceivable change in things external, if the heart remained a
cage of unclean birds? The apostle therefore says that if any
man is in Christ he experiences a change analogous to that
predicted by the prophets, and like to that which we still anticipate when earth shall become heaven. " Old things are
passed away; behold, all things have become new." /Old
opinions, views, plans, desires, principles and affection  are
passed away; new views of truth, new principles, new apprehensions of the destiny of man, and new feelings and purposes
fill and govern the soul,




142         II. CORINTIHIANS  5, 18.
18. And all things (are) of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to
us the ministry of reconciliation.
All things are of God; this is not spoken of the universe
as proceeding from God as its author; nor does it refer to
the providential agency of God, by which all events are controlled. The meaning of ra 8e WravTa here is, but all is of God,
i. e. the entire change of which he had been speaking. The
new creation experienced by those who are in Christ is EK Tro
~Eogv, is out of God, proceeds from him as its efficient cause.
It is his work. God effects this great moral and spiritual
revolution by reconciling us unto himself. The word us is
not to be limited to the apostle, first, because the reconciliation
spoken of is not peculiar to him; and secondly, because the
change or new creation effected by this reconciliation belongs
to all who are in Christ. Us, therefore, must include all who
are in Christ. The objection to this interpretation that to us
in the next clause of the verse must refer to the apostle, is
not a serious one, because the passage is perfectly perspicuous
even supposing 6/z~5, us, to refer to all believers, and Slzv, to
us, to the apostle himself.  To reconcile is to remove enmity
between parties at variance with each other. In this case
God is the reconciler. Man never makes reconciliation. It
is what he experiences or embraces, not what he does. The
enmity between God and man, the barrier which separated
them, is removed by the act of God. This is plain, 1. Because
it is said to be effected by Jesus Christ, that is, by his death.
The death of Christ, however, is always represented as reconciling us to God as a sacrifice; the design and nature of a
sacrifice are to propitiate and not to reform. 2. In the parallel passage, Rom. 5, 9. 10, being " reconciled by the death of
the Son," is interchanged as equivalent with "being justified
by his blood," which proves that the reconciliation intended
consists in the satisfaction of the divine justice by the sacrifice
of Christ. 3. In this case our reconciliation to God is made
the source and cause of our new creation, i. e. of our regeneration and holiness. God's reconciliation to us must precede
our reconciliation to him. This, as remarked above, is the
great doctrine of the Bible. So long as we are under the
wrath and curse of God, due to us for sin, we are aliens and
enemies, cut off from his favour and fellowship, which are the
life of the soul. Therefore until God's wrath and curse are




II. CORINTHIANS  5, 19.                  143
removed, there is no possibility of holiness and love. It is
vain to attempt to secure the favour of God by being holy;
we must enjoy his favour before we can be holy. See Rom.
7, 56. As the apostle here ascribes our holiness to our being
reconciled to God, he must of necessity refer to the reconciliation of God to us; i. e. to his being propitious, ready to receive us into his favour and to manifest to us his love. And
hath given to us, i. e. to the apostle and to other preachers of
the gospel, for the thing given was not something peculiar to
the apostles but common to all preachers, viz., t.~e ministry
of reconciliation, i. e. the office and duty of announcing this
reconciliation. It is therefore the peculiar duty or special
design of the ministry to proclaim to men that God, justly
offended by their sins, can be just and yet justify those who
come to him by Jesus Christ. This is the EvayyeXLov, or glad
tidings, which our blessed Lord has commissioned his disciples
to announce to every creature under heaven.
19. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the
world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto
them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
This verse is an explanation and confirmation of what precedes. According to our version, and to the common interpretation, it is an explanation of the last clause of v. 18, i. e.
of the "reconciliation" there spoken of:' He hath given to
us the ministry of reconciliation-because God was reconciling
the world unto himself, &c.' To this it is objected by Meyer
and others, that the position of the word &E6o (God) requires
the emphasis to be thrown on that word; and secondly, that
the two following clauses must, in that case, explain the mode
)f that reconciliation. Paul would then say,  God was reconciling the world unto himself, having committed to us the
word of reconciliation.' But our reconciliation to God is not
the ministry of reconciliation. The former ddes not consist
in the latter; nor is the first the consequence of the second.
This verse therefore is referred to the first clause of v. 18.'All things are of God, &c., because God was reconciling, &c.'
The words us OTtL rendered to wit, mean here seeing that, or
because. They are equivalent to the simple JIL. The expression is explained either as a pleonasmn, or as the mixture of
tw o constructions, Ws 3,Eou OVTro and ogrn 3ETS Co't




144          II. CORINTHIANS  5, 19.
The principal difference among interpreters in the explanation of this verse relates to the question whether (rv) was is
to be referred to (iv XptLor) in Christ, or to (Ka-aXXaora-ov)
reconciling. Our version favours the former mode of construction, which is adopted both by Luther and Calvin. The
sense then is,'God was in Christ, when he reconciled the
world unto himself;' or, as Luther renders it, "God was in
Christ, and reconciled the world with himself; and imputed
not to them their sins, &c."  This breaks up the verse into
distinct propositions, turning all the participles into verbs.
Calvin says that by God we are not to understand the divine
nature, or " the fullless of the Godhead," but God the Father;
and refers to John 10, 38, "The father is in me," as a parallel
expression. He thinks the design of the apostle is to assure
believers that in having Christ, they have the Father also;
that Christ is the true Immanuel, whose advent is the approximation of God to man. But all this is foreign to the
context. What follows is no proof that " God was in Christ,"
but it is a proof of his being engaged, so to speak, in the
great work of reconciling the world unto himself. Most interpreters, therefore, adopt the other construction,'God was
reconciling the world unto himself in Christ.' As in v. 18 it
is said that God reconciled us to himself &ta XpLctTo (through
Christ), here it is said to be iv XpL0Tw3 (in Christ). The imperfect'v KaTaXXaorwv, was reconciling, expresses either contemporary or continuous action. The sense may be,'God
was, when Christ died, reconciling the world unto himself;'
that was what he was doing and designed to do when he gave
his Son up for us all. So Meyer and others. Or, the reference is to what follows;'IIe reconciled the world, not imputing unto men their sins, &c.' That is,'While not imputing,
&c.' But this is impossible, because the next clause,'and
given to us the word of reconciliation,' cannot express what
was contemporaneous with the reconciling. Others say that
the imperfect is used for the aorist. The first explanation is
to be preferred.  God was reconciling the world unto himself
means God was making atonement for the sins of the world.
He set Christ forth as a propitiation. Theodoret explains Tv
KaTaXXacTar(ov by Ka'raXXa-y/as 7ro(To-rao. By the world (Ko'07oS,
without the article) is meant man, mankind.  The reference
or statement is perfectly indefinite; it merely indicates the
class of beings towards whom God was manifesting himself as
propitious,  In the same sense our Lord is called the Saviour




II. CORINTHIANS  5, 20.                   140
of the world, or, the Saviour of men, Jesus Salvator Hominum.
To reconcile unto himself, does not mean to convert, or to
render friendly to himself. This is plain first, because this reconciliation is said to be effected by the death of Christ as
a sacrifice; and secondly, because what follows is not a proof
of God's converting the world, but it is a proof of his being
propitious.  The proof that God was reconciling the world to
himself in Christ (i. e. in his death) is that he does not impute
to men their trespasses, and that he has established the ministry of reconciliation. The forgiveness of sin and the institution of the ministry are clear evidence that God is propitious.
Not to impute sin, is to forgive it. Rom. 4, 5. 2 Tim. 4, 16.
In Col. 2, 13, the same idea is expressed by saying, "'hath
forgiven you all trespasses."  The participle u  XooyttoLEvo.,
not imputing, is in the present because continuous action is
intended; whereas in the next clause, SE'Evos, having committed, is a past participle, because the institution of the ministry was done once for all.  To them, i. e. to men, as included
in the Koa/qos, world. When God is said to forgive men it of
course does not mean that all men, penitent and impenitent,
believing and unbelieving, are forgiven; but here, as before,
the class of beings is indicated towards whom forgiveness is
exercised. God is propitious to men, as is manifest by his
forgiving their trespasses. And hath committed unto us, Kal
4EpoEv ov 7jk&v, i. e. having deposited in us. This may mean,' having put within us,' i. e. in our souls. Or the idea may be,'having placed upon us.' If the former, then the following
words, tov XO7yV sT-  KaTraXXay/-, must mean'the doctrine of
reconciliation.' That is, God hath instructed us apostles in
the doctrine of reconciliation. If the latter, then the clause
just quoted means,'the word of reconciliation,' i. e. the
preaching of reconciliation, as in 1 Cor. 1, 18, o X6yos TOZ trToavpov means' the preaching of the cross.' This latter view is to
be preferred. The evidence that the death of Christ has been
accepted as an expiation for sin, of infinite value and efficiency,
is the fact that God hath commissioned his ministers to announce to all men that God is reconciled and ready to forgive,
so that whosoever will may turn unto him and live.
20. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as
though God did beseech (you) by us: we pray (you)
in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.




146         II. CORINTHIANS  5, 20.'This is an inference from what precedes. Now then (orv,
therefore).'Seeing that God in Christ is reconciled, and that
he has commissioned us to make known this great truth, it
follows that we, as preachers of the gospel, are ambassadors
of Christ.' An ambassador is at once a messenger and a
representative. He does not speak in his own name. He
does not act on his own authority.  What he communicates is not his own opinions or demands, but simply what he
has been told or commissioned to say. His message derives
no part of its importance or trustworthiness from him.
At the same time he is more than a mere messenger. He
represents his sovereign. He speaks with authority, as accredited to act in the name of his master. Any neglect, contempt or injury done to him in his official character, is not a
personal offence, but an offence to the sovereign or state by
whom he is commissioned. All this is true of ministers.
They are messengers. They communicate what they have received, not their own speculations or doctrines. What they
announce derives its importance not from them, but from him
who sends them. Nevertheless, as they speak in Christ's
name and by his authority, as he hath ordained the ministry
and calls men by his Spirit into the sacred office, the rejection of their message is the rejection of Christ, and any injury
done unto them as ministers is done unto him.
For Ch]rist, 6rwp XpLtTOr, this may mean either'in Christ's
stead,' as his substitute and representative; or,'in Christ's
behalf,' for his sake, to promote his interests by furthering the
accomplishment of the object for which he died; as in Eph.
6, 20, the apostle, speaking of the gospel, says, ~vrEp o' 7rpEo-r3evw,
for which I act as an ambassador. The latter sense is good,
and is in accordance with the common force of the preposition.
The former, however, is better suited to the context. To act
as an ambassador for any one, is to act in his name or as his
representative. And in the following explanatory clause it is
said,'God beseeches you by us,' where the idea of substitution is clearly expressed. The clause, as though God did beseech you by us, is commonly connected with what precedes.'We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech
you by us.' That is,' We are the ambassadors of Christ, because it is God that speaks through us; or, we speak in his
name,' Beza and others connect the words with the follow
mg clause,'We are the ambassadors of Christ,' here is the
pause, and then follows as one clause,'As though God did




II. CORINTHIANS  5, 21.                  147
beseech you by us we pray, &c.' This is the more natural,
because the latter words express the prayer, so to speak,
which God through the ministry addresses to sinners. It will
be noticed that to be an ambassador for Christ, and that God
speaks through us, mean the same thing. Redemption is as
much the work of the Father as of the Son. God reconciles
the world unto himself in Christ. God gives us the word of
reconciliation. We are acting for God, or in his name, when
we appear as the ambassadors of Christ.  WVe pray you in
CGhrist's stead.  Here again 5r-ep XpLtcTOV may be either in
Christ's stead, or, for Christ's sake. The former is to be preferred as better suited to the uniformity of the passage. Be
ye reconciled unto God; this does not mean,' Reconcile yourselves unto God.' The word, KaTarXXy7TrE, is passive. Be
reconciled, that is, embrace the offer of reconciliation. The
reconciliation is effected by the death of Christ. God is now
propitious. He can now be just, and yet justify the ungodly.
All we have to do is not to refuse the offered love of God.
Calvin remarks that this exhortation is not directed exclusively to the unconverted. The believer needs daily, and is allowed whenever he needs, to avail himself of the offer of peace
with God through Jesus Christ. It is not the doctrine of the
Scriptures that the merits of Christ avail only for the forgiveness of sins committed before conversion, while for post-baptismal sins, as they were called, there is no satisfaction but in
the penances of the offender. Christ ever lives to make intercession for us, and for every short-coming and renewed offence
there is offered to the penitent believer, renewed application
of that blood which cleanses from all sin.
21. For he hath made him  (to be) sin for us, who
knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness
of God in him.
This verse is designed to enforce the preceding.'Be re.
conciled to God, for an abundant and trustworthy provision
has been made for your reconciliation and acceptance.' It is
indeed doubtful whether ya7p, for, belongs to the text, as it is
omitted in many of the oldest manuscripts. Its omission only
renders the transition more abrupt, the relation of the passage
remains the same. The apostle states in this verse what God
has done for the justification of men. The passage, therefore,




148         II. CORINTHIANS  5, 21.
is of special interest, as presenting in a concise form the testimony of the Spirit on that all important subject.  Ile made
him  who knew no sin to be sin Jfr us. The Greek here is,
Sov 1FL7 yvvrTa a' ap~T'V  ryp IFLwv ~aaprTav EWroLaoore. Our Lord
is presented as one whom God contemplated as free from sin
and yet he made him sin. Others understand the jug yvovra as
referring to Christ himself; as one having no consciousness of
sin. Others again, to the necessary judgment of believers, he
whom we know was free from sin. One or the other of these
modes of interpretation is supposed to be necessary, as the
apostle uses /u and not ou; the one being, as the grammarians
say, the subjective, the other the objective particle of negation; the one denying a thing as it appears to the mind, the
other denying it simply as a fact. In either case the thing
here asserted is that Christ was without sin. This was one of
the indispensable conditions of his being made sin for us.
Had he not been free from sin, he could not have taken the
place of sinners.  Under the old dispensation the sacrifices
were required to be without blemish, in order to teach the
necessity of fieedom  from all sin in him who was to bear the
sins of the world.  See Heb. 4, 15. 1 Pet. 2, 22. 1 John 3, 5.
He was made sin, may mean either, he was made a sin-offering,
or, the abstract being used for the concrete, he was made a
sinner. MTany of the older commentators prefer the former
explanation; Calvin, and almost all the moderns adopt the
latter. The meaning in either case is the same; for the only
sense in which Christ was made sin, is that he bore the guilt
of sin; and in this sense every sin offering was made sin.
Hence in the Hebrew Scriptures the same word is used both
for sin and a sin-offering. This is the principal ground on
which the explanation of aFJapTla here in the sense of a sacrifice for sin is defended. The reasons, however, against this
explanation are decisive.  1. In the Septuagint the Hebrew
word for sin, when it means a sin-offering, is always rendered
by a&apTt'a in the genitive.  It is always " of sin," or " fbr sin,"
(replt auapTtas), Lev. 5, 9. 14, 19. Num. 8, 8, and never simply
"sin," as here. 2. The use of the word in the ordinary sense
in this same clause,' He made him to be sin who knew no sin.'
It must have the same meaning in both cases. 3. The antithesis between "sin" and " righteousness."  HIe was made sin,
we are made "righteousness."   The only sense in which we
are made the righteousness of God is that we are in Christ regarded and treated as righteous, anrid therefore the sense in




II. CORINTHIANS 5, 21.                      149
which he was made sin, is that he was regarded and treated
as a sinner.  Iis being made sin is consistent with his being
in himself free from sin; and our being made righteous is consistent with our being in ourselves ungodly.  In other words,
our sins were imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. Justitia hic non plro qualitate ant habitn, says
Calvin, sed pro imputatione accipitur, eo quod accepta nobis
fertur Christi justitia.  Quod e converso peccatumn? reatus
quo in Dei judicio obstringinur.....     Personami enim nostram quodammodo suscepit, ut reus nostro nomine fieret, et
tanquam peccator judicaretur, non propriis, sed alienis delictis,
quumn  purus foret ipse et immunis ab omnni culpa, pcenamqlue
subiret nobis, non sibi debitam. Ita scilicit nune justi sunius
in ipso: non quia operibus propriis satisfaciamus judicio Dei,
sed quoniam censimur Christi justitia, quam fide induimus, ut
nostra fiat.  In Gal. 3, 13, the apostle says that "Christ was
made a curse for us," which is equivalent to saying that ihe
was made sin for us. In both cases the idea is that he bore
thle punishment of our sins.  God laid on him the iniquities
of us all. His sufferings and death were penal, because inflicted and endured in satistihction of justice.  And in virtue of
the infinite dignity of his person they were a perfbct satisftction; that is, a full equivIalent for all the law's demands.  In
Roml. 8, 3, it is said, " What the law could not do, in that it
was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinfil flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh."
I-lere again we have precisely the same doctrine.  What in
one passage is expressed by saying that Christ was made sin,
in the other is expressed by saying, he was sent " for sin," i. e.
as a sin-offering (7rrept  apTras).
The apostle says Christ was made sin fior us, Vrrp' o@V,
i. e. in our stead, because the idea of substitution is involved
in the very nature of the transiaction. The victim was the
substitute for the offender.  It was put in his place.  So
Christ was our substitute, or, was put in our place. This is
the more apparent fiom the following clause, which teaches
the design of this substitution. He was made sin, that we
might be made righteous.  lie was condemned, that we
might be justified.  Tile very idea of substitution is that what
is done by one in the place of another, avails as though that
other had done it himself. Tie victim was the substitute of
the offerer, because its death took the place of his death.  If
both died there was no substitution.  So if Christ's being




150          Ii. CORINTHIAN S  5, 21.
made sin does not secure our being made righteousness, he
was not our substitute. Righteousness does not here mean
inward rectitude, or moral excellence. It is true that the
word often has this sense; and it is true that the work of
Christ does secure the holiness of his people, and was designed
to produce that effect, as is often asserted in Scripture. But
this was neither its only, nor its proximate design. Its immediate end was to reconcile us to God; to propitiate him, by
the satisfaction of justice, so that he can be just and yet justify the ungodly. As the apostle is here speaking of the sacrificial effect of Christ's death, that is, of the proximate effect
of his being made sin for us, the word righteousness must be
understood in its forensic sense. It expresses our relation to
the law, not our inward moral state. It is that which justifies,
or satisfies the demands of the law. Those who have this
8EKaLo&~vVr are &lKaLoL, just in the sight of the law, in the sense
that the law or justice is satisfied as concerns them. It is
called the righteousness of God, either because it is from him
as its author; or, because it renders us righteous in his sight.
Those who possess this righteousness are  KatloL 7irapa r&  S e,
i. e. righteous before God. The former is the more common
representation in Paul's writings. Rom. 1, 17. 3, 22. 10, 3.
Phil. 3, 9, where "' the righteousness of God," is explained by
"the righteousness which is of God."  In this view of the
meaning of the phrase, the sense of the clause " we become
the righteousness of God," is that we become divinely righteous. We are righteous with the righteousness of God, not
with our own which is but as a filthy rag, but with that which
he has provided and which consists in the infinitely meritorious righteousness of his own dear Son. All this is true; but
the context here fivours the other mode of representation.
Christ was treated as a sinner, i. e. condemned, that we might
be justified, i. e. regarded as just before God. The apostle
uses the present tense, Y7LVWuEC3a, we become righteous, because
this justification is continuous.  We are introduced into a justified state. In him, that is, in Christ.  It is by virtue of our
union with Christ, and only as we are in him by faith, that we
are righteous before God.
There is probably no passage in the Scriptures in which
the doctrine of justification is more concisely or clearly stated
than in this.  Our sins were imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. He bore our sins; we are clothed
in his righteousness. Imputation conveys neither pollution




II. CORINTHIANS 6.                       151
nor holiness. Christ's bearing our sins did not make him
morally a sinner, any more than the victim was morally defiled
which bore the sins of the people; nor does Christ's righteousness become subjectively ours, it is not the moral quality of
our souls. This is what is not meant.  What is meant is
equally plain. Our sins were the judicial -ground of the sufferings of Christ, so that they were a satisfaction of justice;
and his righteousness is the judicial ground of our acceptance
with God, so that our pardon is an act of justice. It is a
justification; or, a declaration that justice is satisfied.  We
are set free by no mere act of sovereignty, but by the judicial
decision of the infinitely just. As we, considered in ourselves,
are just as undeserving and hell-deserving as ever, this justification is to us an act of infinite grace.  The special consideration, therefore, by which the apostle enforces the exhortation,'Be ye reconciled to God,' is that God can be just in the justification of sinners. There is nothing in the perfection of his
character, nothing in the immutability of his law, nothing in
the interests of his moral government, that stands in the way
of our pardon. A full, complete, infinitely meritorious satisfaction has been made for our sins, and therefore we may
come to God with the assurance of being accepted. This is a
ground of confidence which an enlightened conscience, burdened with a sense of sin, absolutely needs. It is not mere
pardon, but justification alone, that gives us peace with God.
CHAPTER VI.
The apostle continues the vindication of himself, vs. 1-10. Asserts his
strong love for the Corinthians, and exhorts them to keep themselves
free from all contaminating alliances, vs. 11-18.
The apostle's fidelity and love. Vs. 1-18.
As the occasion of writing this epistle was the false accusa.
tions of his opponents, a strain of self-vindication runs through
the whole. In 5, 12 he said he spoke of himself to enable his
friends in Corinth to defend him against his enemies.  lie was
7*




152          II. CORINTHIANS  6, 1.
governed by the love of Christ, and acted as his ambassador;
as such he was a fellow-worker with God, and exhorted men
not to fail of the grace of God, vs. 1. 2. In the exercise of
this office he avoided all offence, v. 3, proving his sincerity
and fidelity as a minister of God, by the patient endurance of
all kinds of trials, vs. 4. 5; by the exercise of all the graces
and gifts of the Spirit, vs. 6. 7; and under all circumstances,
whether of honour or dishonour, prosperity or adversity,
whether understood or misunderstood by his fellow men, vs.
8-10. He thus unbosomed himself to the Corinthians, because his heart was enlarged. It was wide enough to take
them  all in. Whatever there was of the want of love or of
due appreciation between them and him, the fault was on
their side, not on his, vs. 11. 12. Hie begs them to be as
large-hearted towards him as he was towards them, v. 13, and
not to allow themselves to be involved in any intimate alliances with the wicked, vs. 13-18.
1. We then, (as) workers together (with him), beseech (you) also that ye receive not the grace of God
in vain.
This verse is intimately connected with the preceding
chapter by the particles 8E Kal, but also. He is still describing his manner of discharging his apostolic duties. He not
only announced that God had made Christ sin for us, that we
might become the righteousness of God in him, but also, as a
co-worker with God, he exhorted men not to receive the
grace of God in vain. In our version the apostle is made to
say, "I beseech you also."  This is wrong; the also belongs
to the verb-" I also beseech you."  That the word uvvEpyoVVTrE, co-operating, refers to the apostle's co-operating with
God, is plain from the connection, and fiom the nature of the
work. He had just before, 5, 20, spoken of God's beseeching
them; and now he says, we as co-workers beseech you. So
in 1 Cor. 3, 9, he says, "We are co-workers with God."  In
the Vulgate the word is rendered adjuvantes, which favours
the idea that he was co-operating with them, assisting them
(i. e. the Corinthians) by his exhortations. Luther's version
suggests the same meaning; Wir ermahen aber euch, als
MIithelfer, as joint-labourers or helpers we exhort you. Conmpare 1, 24, where the apostle says, "XWe are helpers (wvvEpyo[)




II. CORINTHIANS 6, 1.                     153
of your joy."  This view of the passage is given by many
commentators. It does not, however. so well, as just remarked, agree with the context; and it would require, to
prevent ambiguity, the insertion of /Zv, with you. As an
apostle or minister of the gospel, Paul 0ras a co-worker with
God.
T]Cat ye receice not the gq(e ccel (bood in vain. What is
it to receive the grace of God in vain?  Some say that the
meaning is to accept of the atonement of Christ, or reconciliation with God spoken of in the preceding chapter, and yet to
live in sin. The favour of God is then accepted to no purpose.
But this is an unscriptural idea. Justification and sainctification cannot be thus separate(. A man cannot accept of reconciliation with God and live in sill; because the renunciation
of sin is involved in the acceptance of reconciliation. Paul
never assumes that men may accept one benefit of redemption,
and reject another. They cannot take pardon and refuse
sanctification. Others say that the apostle here exhorts his
readers to guard against " falling friom grace;" that having
been graciously pardoned they should not, by a relapse into
sil, forfeit the grace or favour which they had received. This
is a very common interpretation.  Olshausen says, " It is undeniable that the apostle assumes that grace when once received may be lost; the Scriptures know nothing of the dangerous error of the advocates of predestination, that grace
cannot be lost; and experience stamnps it as a lie."  But in
the first place, it is no arg'ument in fiavour of this interpretation that the apostle uses the infinitive aorist (83ao-traL), have
received, because tile aorist infinitive is very commonly used
fbr the l)resent after verbs signifying to command or exhort.
See Romn. 12, 1. 15, 20. 2 Cor. 2, 8. Eph. 4, 1. Winer's Idioms
of the New Testament, p. 386.  In the second place, the
"grace of God," here spoken of; does not mean the actual
forgiveness of sin, nor the renewing, sanctifying influence of
the Spirit, but the favtour of which the apostle spoke in the
preceding chapter. It is the infinite grace or favour of having
made his Son sin for us, so that we may become the righteousness of God inl hil. This is the grlace of God of which the
apostle speaks. He exhorted men  not to let it be in vain, as
it regarded them, that a satisfaction for sin sufficient for all,
and appropriate to all, had been made and offered to all who
hear the gospel. In precisely the same sense he says, Gal. 2,
21, "I do not friustrate the grace of God."  That is,' I do




154         II. CORINTHIANS  6, 2.
not, by trusting to the works of the law, make it in vain that
God has provided a gratuitous method of salvation.' That
great grace or favour he did not make a thing of naught. In
Gal. 5, 4, he says, " Whosoever of you are justified by the law,
are fallen from grace."  That is,'ye have renounced the gra.
tuitous method of salvation, and are debtors to do the whole
law.' So in Rom. 6, 14, it is said, "We are not under law,
but under grace." In no one of these cases does "grace"
mean either the actual pardon of sin, or inward divine influence. It means the favour of God, and in this connection the
great favour of redemption. The Lord Jesus Christ having
died for our sins and procured eternal redemption for us, the
apostle was most earnest in exhorting men not to allow this
great favour, as regards them, to be in vain. It is the more
evident that such is the meaning of the passage because it is
not so much a direct exhortation to the Corinthians, as a
declaration of the method in which the apostle preached. He
announced the fact that God had made Christ who knew no sin
to be sin for us, and he exhorted all men not to receive the
grace of God in vain, that is, not to reject this great salvation.
And finally, this interpretation is required by the following
verse. "Behold, now is the accepted time; now is the day
of salvation." This is appropriate as a motive to receive the
offer of pardon and acceptance with God, but it is not appro.
priate as a reason why a renewed and pardoned sinner should
not fall from grace. There is therefore no necessity to assume, contrary to the whole analogy of Scripture, that the
apostle here teaches that those who have once made their
peace with God and experienced his renewing grace can fall
away unto perdition. If reconciled by the death of his Son,
much more shall they be saved by his life. Nothing can ever
separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus.
Whom he calls, them he also glorifies. They are kept by the
mighty power of God through faith unto salvation.
2. (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured
thee; behold, now (is) the accepted time; behold, now
(is) the day of salvation.)
The Scriptures contain abundant evidence that inspiration
did not interfere with the natural play of the powers of the




II. CORINTHIANS  6, 2.                 155
sacred writers. Although they spoke as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost, yet they were probably in most cases unconscious of his influence, and acted as spontaneously as the believer does under the power of the Spirit in all his holy exercises. Hence we find that the sacred writings are constructed
according to the ordinary laws of mind, and that the writers
pass from subject to subject by the usual process of suggestion
and association. So here the use of the word 8E'ao3rat brought
up to the apostle's mind the word 8EKT-, as it occurs in the
beautiful passage, Is. 49, 8. Hence the quotation of that passage as it stands in the Greek version of the Old Testament.
I have heard thee in an accepted time. In the Hebrew it is, a
time of grace; and to this answers the equivalent expression,
the day of salvation. It is on these expressions that the appropriateness of the citation rests. The Old Testament speaks
of " a time of grace," and of "a day of salvation."  That is,
of a time and a day in which grace and salvation may be
obtained. The apostle adds, by way of comment and application, "Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the
day of salvation." The connection between this verse and
what precedes is thus clear.'Receive not the grace of God
in vain, for there is a time of grace and a day of salvation, and
that day is now. Therefore, neglect not this great salvation.'
The 49th chapter of Isaiah, whence this passage is taken, is
addressed to the Messiah. He it was whom God chose to be
his servant to restore Israel and to be a light to the Gentiles.
He it was whom man despised and the nation abhorred, to
whom kings should rise and princes worship. It was he to
whom Jehovah said, "I have heard thee in an accepted time,
and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee." This being the case, the use which the apostle makes of the passage
may be explained either on the hypothesis adopted by Dr. J.
A. Alexander, in his comment on this chapter, that the ideal
person addressed is not the Messiah exclusively, but the Messiah and his people as represented in him. Therefore a promise of grace and salvation to the Messiah was at the same time
a promise of grace and salvation to his people. This is the
view which Bengel adopts. "H fe saith, the Father to Alessi
ah, Is. 49, 8, embracing in him all believers." Or we may
assume, in strict accordance with scriptural usage, that the
apostle employs the language of the Old Testament to express
his own ideas, without regard to its original application. God
had in many ways, and on many occasions, promised to save




156         II. CORINTHIANS  6, 3.
sinners. To this promise the apostle appeals as a reason why
men should accept the grace offered to them in Christ Jesus.
He clothes this promise in scriptural language. He might
have expressed it in any other equivalent forml. But the language of the passage in Isaiah being brought to his mind by
the principle of association, he adopts the form there given,
without any intimation, expressed or implied, that the passage
had not in the original a different application. Thus in Rom.
10, 18 he might have expressed the idea of the general proclaration of the gospel in his own words, but he chose to express it
in the words of the nineteenth Psalm, " Their sound went into
all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world;"
although that Psalm relates to an entirely different subject.
We are accustomed, without hesitation and almost unconsciously, to make a similar use of scriptural language.
3. Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry
be not blamed.
The preceding verse is parenthetical, so that the connec.
tion is with v. ]. " We beseech-giving, &c."  This and the
following participles are all connected with the word (7rapaKaXo'v/ev) we beseech, or exhort, and are designed to show how
the apostle discharged the duties of his office. This is his defence. In nothing he gave ofence. He so acted that no one
could fairly make his conduct a ground of rejecting the gospel. The word WrpoorroKn is properly the act of striking or
stumbling; then metonymically, that at which or against
which any one stumbles. In the figurative use of the word,
as here employed, it means an occasion of unbelief. Paul, in
preaching the gospel to those to whom it was previously unknown, and whose principal means of judging of it was the
conduct of' its preachers, was specially careful to avoid every
thing which could prove a stumblingblock to his hearers.
Although this motive has peculiar weight where the gospel is
new, as among the heathen, yet every one knows that the
moral power of a preacher depends almost entirely on the
conviction which the people have of his sincerity and of the
purity of his motives. This is a source of power for which
neither learning nor talents can compensate.  That the ministry be not blamned; or, as it is in many copies, our ministry,
which gives the passage a most specific reference to himself,
and is well suited to the whole connection.




II. CORINTHIAN S  6, 4. 5.                 157
Although in the following verses the apostle, as is his wont,
gives his discourse free scope, allowing it, as it were, to flow
on in its own impetuous and majestic course, without any attempt to reduce it to logical arrangement, yet in his mind
order was so immanent that a certain method can always be
detected even in his most impassioned utterances.  So here,
he first refers to the manifold trials, vs. 4. 5, then to the graces
and gifts, vs. 6. 7, by which his sincerity had been tested and
established; and then to the diverse circumstances of evil and
of good report, under which he had maintained his integrity,
vs. 8. 9. 10. Under these several heads there are the same
number of specifications, nine in each. Under the two former,
there is a ternary arrangement observable; three divisions,
each with three specifications; and-under the last, nine pairs
of contrasts or antitheses, rising to that highest form of oratorical language, where truth is expressed in seeming contradictions.  "Having nothing, yet possessing all things."
4. 5. But in all (things) approving ourselves as the
ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in
necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments,
in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings.
So far from causing the ministry to be blamed, Paul in all
things, (iv raavTr) in every relations, and on every occasion, approved himself, i. e. commended himself, not by self-laudation,
but by so acting as to force the conviction of his sincerity on
all men. As the ministers of God, i. e. as the ministers of
God commend themselves. This interpretation is required, as
Paul uses 8taKOVOL, not 8&aKo'ovs. It was as a minister he conlmended himself. In much patience, i. e. by patient endurance and constancy. Both ideas are expressed by the word
67rotovr. Paul proved himself to be a true minister of Chrlist
by the fortitude with which he endured sufferings, and by the
constancy with which he adhered to his master under all these
trials. In what follows in this and the next verse we have the
trials enumerated to which he was subjected. These are arranged, as Bengel remarks, in three classes. The first, ane
general, afflictions, necessities, and distresses; the second are
specific, stripes, imprisonments, and tumults; the third, voluntarvy, labours, watchings, and fastings. His constancy was
exhibited in the cheerful endurance of all these kinds of trials.




158        II. CORINTHIANS  6, 4. 5.
As to the first, the terms used are often interchanged and
often combined.  ~X/AtcL, pressures, from without or from
within; including every thing which presses on the heart or
tries the power of endurance or resistance; avy'/Kat, necessities,
when a man is taxed to the utmost to know what to do or
how to bear; orTevoXowp'aL, straits, when one has no room to
stand or turn, and therefore escape seems hopeless. It is opposed to largeness of place. "He brought my feet into a
large place," as the Psalmist says. The preposition Ev is to be
rendered by before vrouov', and in before all the other nouns
in these two verses. He commended himself by patience, in
afflictions, in necessities, &c., &c. In stripes. Paul, as we
learn from 11, 24. 25,/had already, at this period of his history,
been eight times subjected to the ignominy and torture of the
lash, five times by the Jews and thrice by the heathen. In
imprisonments.  How often the apostle was in prison we
know not, as the Acts contain only a small part of his history.
He was a prisoner at Philippi, at Jerusalem, at Cesarea, and
at Rome; and when a prisoner his feet were in the stocks, or
he was chained. The Holy Ghost testified that in every place
"bonds and afflictions" awaited him.  In tumults.  The
word is aKaTacrTaOatL, which may mean " tossings to and fro,"
and refer to Paul's being constantly driven from one place to
another, so that he had no quiet abode. This he mentions as
one of his sore trials in 1 Cor. 4, 11. The word, however, in
the New Testament always elsewhere means either disorder
or tumultuous outbreaks. Luke 21, 9. To these violent bursts
of popular feeling the apostle was frequently exposed, as at
Antioch in Pisidia, Acts 13, 50; at Lystra, 14, 19; at Philippi,
16, 19; at Ephesus, Acts 19, 29; at Jerusalem, 21, 30. Before
these manifestations of wrath and power the bravest men often
quail. Such tumults can neither be resisted by force, nor be
stilled by the voice. What can one man do before an infuriated mob?  He could as well resist a tornado. Yet he can
be calm and adhere to his purpose. "It is often required,"
says Calvin, "of ministers of the gospel, that while they strive
for peace, they should pass unbroken through tumults, and
never deflect from the right course though heaven and earth
should be mixed." Besides these trials which came upon the
apostle against his will, or without his agency, there were
painful sacrifices which he made voluntarily, and which were
among the strongest proofs of his sincerity. These were his
(abours, wcatchings, and jfstings.  By labours are to be un



II. CORINTHIANS  6, 6. 7.               159
derstood not only his working with his own hands to support
himself while he made the gospel of no expense, but also the
indefatigable exertions which he was constantly called to
make, in travelling, and preaching, and in caring for the sick,
the poor, and the interests of the church.  Tatchings, the
sleepless nights which his constantly travelling, his anxieties
and labours caused him to pass. Fcastings; this is often
understood to refer to his suffering from hunger. But the
word'v(rErda is never used for involuntary abstinence from
food, and as it occurs here in connection with labours and
watchings, both of which were voluntary acts of self-denial,
it is probably to be taken in its ordinary sense. Perhaps,
however, the reference is to those cases of abstinence which
were in a measure forced upon him, or which he chose to submit to rather than to omit some duty or to fail to take advantage of some opportunity of usefulness. There is nothing in
the connection to demand a reference to religious fasting, as
when prayers and fasting are mentioned together. Here it is
labours and fastings.
6. 7. By pureness, by knowledge, by long-suffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned,
by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the
left.
As the apostle commended himself in the various trials
enumerated in the two preceding verses, so by the graces and
gifts here specified, it was made manifest to all that he was a
true apostle and faithful minister of God. By pureness, both
of heart and life. This includes not merely fieedom finom the
pollution of immoral acts, but disinterestedness and singleness
of motive. -By knowledge; what kind or form of knowledge
is here indicated can only be gathered from the context.
Some say it is the knowledge of the fitness and propriety of
things, which exhibits itself as discretion. But as the apostle
is speaking of those things which commended him as a minister of God and preacher of the gospel, and as several of the
other specifications in these two verses, refer to gifts as distinguished from graces, it is more probable that the reference
is to evangelical knowledge; that knowledge which he manifested in his teaching. Comp. Eph. 3, 4, where he speaks of




160         II. CORINTHIANS  6, 6. 7.
his knowledge of the mystery of Christ, as patent to all his
readers. And in Gal. 1, 12, et seq., he appeals to his possession
of this knowledge, without any hulnan teaching, as an undeniable proof of his divine mission.  By long-suffering, i. e.
patiently submitting to injustice and undeserved injuries. By
kindness, i. e. XP-roT7'rTs (from XpysTo/s, useful) benevolence; a
disposition to do good; as God is said to be kind to the unthankful and the evil, Luke 6, 35.  -By the h1oly Ghost;
that is, by the manifestation of the Holy Ghost as dweNing ill
me. It is the doctrine of the Scriptures, and specially of
Paul's writings, that the Spirit of God dwells in all believers,
and that besides those manifestations of his presence common
to all, there is given to each one his special gift, whether ordinary or extraordinary; to one wisdom, to another knowledge, to another the gift of teaching, to another the working
of miracles, &c. 1 Colr. 12, 7-11. In proof of his being a true
minister of God, Paul appeals to the evidence of the presence
of the Spirit in him, which evidence was to be found in those
graces and gifts of the Holy Ghost with which he was replenished; and in the divine power which attended and rendered
successful his preaching. IIe could appeal to his converts and
say, "Ye are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord," 1 Cor.
9, 2. -By love unfeigned. As in the preceding clause he referred to kindness or benevolence, here love must be taken in
the restricted sense of Christian love-not that affection which
is exercised towards the just and the unjust, but that which
springs from the peculiar relations of the believer to God and
to his brethren. It is brotherly love, or the love of the brethren as such. By the word of truth, that is, by the preaching
of the truth, or preaching the contents of which is truth. The
reference is not to veracity, but to the exhibition of the truth
in his preaching. In a previous chapter, 4, 2, he had said,
"By the manifestation of the truth I commend myself to
every man's conscience in the sight of God."  By the power of
God. The power of' God was manifested in various ways in
Paul's ministry. " lIe that wrought in Peter," he says, "to
the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in
me towards the Gentiles," Gal. 2, 8. By these various manifestations of divine power in his conversion, in his preparation
for his work, and in the exercise of his apostleship, he was
proved to be a true servant of God.  -By the armour of
righteousness. The word "righteousness" is used in Scripture in two senses. It means either rectitude, uprightness,




II. CORINTHIANS  6, 8-10.                 161
honesty, in the comprehensive sense of the terms; or it means
justifying righteousness, the righteousness of faith, so often
called the righteousness of God. Calvin and many others
take it in the former sense here, and understand by the " armour of righteousness," that armour which integrity affords, or
those arms which are consistent with moral rectitude. Others
prefer the latter sense of the word, and understand the armour
of righteousness to be that which is secured by our justification before God. This interpretation is not only more in
keeping with Paul's usage of the word, but more consistent
with the context. It was not Paul's honesty which was his
armour, or by which he established his claim to be a minister
of God, but the supernatural gifts and graces of the Spirit.
In Eph. 6, 14, he compares this righteousness to a breastplate; here to the whole panoply, on the right hand and on
the left, offensive and defensive, because he who is justified, or
clothed with the righteousness of Christ, has every thing at
command. He has the shield of faith, and the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit.
8-10. By honour and dishonour, by evil report
and good report; as deceivers, and (yet) true; as unknown, and (yet) well known; as dying, and behold,
we live; as chastened, and not killed; as sorrowful,
yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich;
as having nothing, and (yet) possessing all things.
These verses are intimately connected, forming a distinct
division of the apostle's discourse. In vs. 4. 5, we had the
preposition Ev in its local sense. Paul commended himself by
patience in afflictions, in necessities, &c. In vs. 6. 7 the same
preposition is used in its instrumental sense, by pureness, by
knowledge, &c. IIere the preposition &ta has a- local sense,
through, in the midst of. He maintained his consistency and
integrity under all circumstances, through honour and dishonour, through evil report and good report. He was always
the same —preached the same doctrine, urged the same duties,
maintained the same principles, whether his preaching was
approved or disapproved, whether it secured for him admiration or brought down upon him reproach. This is the common and most natural interpretation. Many, however, prefer




162        II. CORINTHIANS  6, 8-10.
the instrumental sense of the preposition.'By means of
honour which we receive from the friends of God, and by
means of the dishonour heaped upon us by our enemies.'
That the good honoured him, and the wicked defamed him,
was proof of his integrity. This requires too much to be supplied in order to bring out the sense. The former interpretation is more simple, and gives a meaning quite as pertinent.
The figure which he uses is that of a road, along which he
marches to victory, through all obstacles, disregarding what
is said or thought by others. This last clause serves as the
transition to a new mode of representation. He no longer
speaks of what he did, but of the judgment of others concerning him. As deceivers, and yet true. These and the following adjectives and participles, as they are in Greek, though
translated in some cases as substantives, are parallel with
0vVrLOv1E1s in v. 4.' We beseech you, commending ourselves,
&c., and we beseech you, as deceivers, yet true, &c.' That is,
we go steadily on in the discharge of our duty whatever men
may think or say. As deceivers, (rk-Xvot,) not merely false
pretenders, but seducers, men who lead others astray, and
themselves wander fiom the truth.  MAatt. 27, 63. 1 Tim. 4, 1.
2 John 7. It is here the opposite of JXk-EZs,3 in the sense of
truthful, loving and speaking the truth. Matt. 22, 16. 5Mark
12, 14.'Regarded as seducers, we are the advocates of the
truth.' As unknown, yet well known, (u3s ayvotLEvotL, Kat E7L/ytvwo-KOXEvol,) regarded with contempt as obscure and ignoble,
yet recognised and famous. The antithesis is either that expressed in our version, between being unknown and being
well known, or, between being misunderstood and being duly
appreciated. The latter of the two words used by the apostle
may well express that sense, as ErTLYLtVG-Ko often means to
recognize, or acknowledge one to be what he is, or professes
to be, 1, 13. 14.:Matt. 17, 12, and although the former word
does not elsewhere occur precisely in the sense of being misunderstood, yet to be unknown and to be unrecognized are
ideas so nearly related, that it is not unnatural to take the
word in that sense here, if the antithesis and context require
it. Paul was unknown to the mass of the people; he was
taken to be what he was not; and yet he was duly appreciated, and recognized in his true character by others. As dying, i. e. regarded by others as certain to perish, and behold
we live. This is one interpretation. It is, however, more in
harmony with what follows to understand the apostle to re-fte




II. CORINTHIANS  6, 8-10.                 163
to actual facts. tIe was, as he says, 4, 11 and I Cor. 15, 31,
constantly exposed to death. - He died daily, and yet he lived.
God always interposed to rescue him from destruction when
it seemed inevitable, and to sustain him  under calamities
which to all appearance no man could bear. As chastened,
but not killed. To chasten (7rac8Ev'ELv) is properly to treat as a
child, and as children are often made to suffer by their parents for their good, to chasten is to correct by suffering.
The word, however, is often used to express simply the idea
of infliction of pain without any reference to the end of the
infliction. God never punishes his people. That is, their suf
ferings are never designed to satisfy justice; nor are they
always even chastisements in the proper sense of the word.
They are not in all cases sent to correct evils, to repress pride,
or to wean from the world. God often afflicts his people and
his church simply to enable them the better to glorify his
name. It is an unchristian disposition, therefore, which leads
us always to ask, when afflictions are sent upon ourselves or
others, Why is this?  What have we or they done to call
forth this expression of parental displeasure or solicitude?
What does God mean to rebuke?  It may be that our sufferings are chastisements, that is, that they are designed to correct some evil of the heart or life, but this is not to be inferred
from the simple fact that they are sufferings. The greater
part of Paul's sufferings were not chastisements. They were
designed simply to show to all ages the power of the grace of
God; to let men see what a man could cheerfully endure, and
rejoice that he was called upon to endure, for the sake of the
Lord Jesus. In this case chastened means simply afflicted.
There is no reference to the design of God in sending the sufferings which the apostle was called to endure. There is another view of the meaning of this passage, which supposes the
words to be uttered from the stand-point of Paul's enemies.
" Chastised, but not killed."'Regarded as an object of divine displeasure, as smitten of God, (which may be true,) yet
I am not killed.' It is, however, more in keeping with what
follows to understand the apostle as referring to his actual experience. Ite was greatly afflicted, but not killed; cast down,
as he says in 4, 9, but not destroyed. Compare Ps. 118, 18,
"The Lord hath chastened me sore; but he hath not delivered me over unto death." Let believers therefore regard
their afflictions, when they can, not as indications of God's
disapprobation, but rejoice in them as opportunities graciously




164         II. CORINTHIANS 6, 11.
afforded them to glorify his name. As sorrouzful, yet always
rejoicing. This again may mean,' Looked upon as sorrowful,
yet in fact always rejoicing;' or,'Although overwhelmed
with sorrow, yet full of joy.' The latter interpretation is to
be preferred. This is one of the paradoxes of Christian experience. The believer has more true joy in sorrow, than the
world can ever afford. The sense of the love of God, assurance of his support, confidence in future blessedness, and the
persuasion that his present light afflictions shall work out for
him a far more exceeding and an eternal weight of glory,
mingle with his sorrows, and give the suffering child of God
a peace which passes all understanding. IIe would not exchange his lot with that of the most prosperous of the children
of this world. As poor, yet making many rich. Poor in this
world's goods, yet imparting to many the true riches; as having nothing, i. e. of earthly treasure, yet possessing all things,
in the sense in which in 1 Cor. 3, 21, he tells the Corinthians,
" All things are yours." The real property in any thing vests
in him for whose benefit it is held and used. And as all
things, whether the world, or life or death, or things present
or things to come, are held and disposed by God for the benefit of his people, for their present good and future glory, they
are the real proprietors of all things. Being joint heirs with
Christ, Rom. 8, 17, they possess all things.
11. 0  (ye) Corinthians, our mouth is open unto
you, our heart is enlarged.
This and the two following verses are an epilogue to the
preceding vindication of himself, and an introduction to the
following exhortations.  0 Corinthians. This direct address
is unusual with the apostle, and is expressive of strong feeling.
Gal. 3, 1.  Our mouth is open (aVETye, 2 perfect, as present
and intransitive, see John 1, 52.) To open the mouth is a
common scriptural expression, meaning to begin to speak, or,
to speak, as in Matt. 5, 2. Acts 8, 32. 35. Here, as the context shows, it is used emphatically, and means, to speak freely
and openly.  Compare Eph. 6, 19.  Our heart is enlarged.
See 1 Kings 4, 29. Ps. 119, 32. Is. 60, 5. Any joyful, generous feeling is said to enlarge the heart. A large-hearted man
is one of generous and warm affections. The apostle had
poured out his heart to the Corinthians. He has spoken with
the utmost freedom and openness, and in doing so his heart




II. CORINTHIANS  6, 12-14.                 165
was expanded towards them. He was ready to embrace them
all, and to take them to his arms as his dear children.
12. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
The apostle abides by his figure. A large heart is one
expanded by love; a straitened heart is one void of generous
affections. To be straitened (o-vEvoxoppEW) is to want room;
XrcEvoXwpta is want of room, straits, distress, anguish of mind.
Hence to enlarge, to give one a wide place, is to deliver, to
bless. Ps. 4, 1. 118, 5.  Ye are not straitened in us, i. e.
there is no lack of room for you in our heart; but ye are
straitened in your own bowels, i. e. your heart is too narrow
to admit me. Straitened in your own bowels, means, not that
you are inwardly afflicted, or that the cause of your trouble
is in yourselves, but, as the context requires,'Your bowels
(hearts) are narrow or contracted.' There is not room in
them to receive me. Without a figure the meaning is,'The
want of love is on your side, not on mine.'
13. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as
unto (my) children,) be ye also enlarged.
The exhortation or request is,'Be ye also enlarged, i. e.
open your hearts to receive me, which is only a proper recompense for my love to you. I speak as to children, who are
expected to requite the love of their parents with filial affection.' The words Trv  E aVTnv avrTtjuo3t-av are explained as a
concise expression for To 8E avrO, J &rEov  mVLLar&'a,' as to the
same thing, which is a recompense, be ye also enlarged.' The
accusative is the accusative absolute.
14. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with
unrighteousness? and  what communion  hath  light
with darkness?
After the exhortation to requite his love by loving him, he
exhorts them to keep aloof from all intimate association with
the evil. The exhortation is general, and is not to be confined
to partaking of heathen sacrifices, nor to intermarriage with




166         II. CORINTHIANS  6, 14.
the heathen, much less to association with the opponents of
the apostle. It no doubt had a special reference or application to the peculiar circumstances of the Corinthians, and was
intended to guard them against those entangling and dangerous associations with the unconverted around them, to which
they were specially exposed. And as we know that their
special danger was from idolaters, (see 1 Cor. ch. 8, and 10,
14-33,) whose festivals they were constantly urged to attend,
it is to be presumed that it was from all association with the
heathen in their worship that the apostle intended to warn
them. But this is only one application of the principle here
laid down, viz., that intimate associations ought not to be
formed by the people of God with those who are not his people. The same remark may be made in reference to the persons here intended by unbelievers. It is no doubt true that
by unbelievers (o Cro-ra7Tot) Paul meant the heathen. (See 1
Cor. 6, 6.) But it does not follow from this that intimate association with the heathen is all that is here forbidden. The
principle applies to'all the enemies of God and children of
darkness.  It is intimate, voluntary association with the
wnicked that is forbidden. The worse a man is, the more
openly he is opposed to Christ and his gospel, the greater the
danger and evil of connection with him. It is not so much
his profession as his real character and influence that is to be
taken into account. If it be asked whether the marriage of
professors of religion with non-professors, in the modern (or
American) sense of those terms, is here expressly prohibited?
The answer must be in the negative. There were no such
classes of persons in the apostolic age, as professing and nonprofessing Christians.  The distinction was then between
Christians and heathens. Persons born within the pale of the
Christian Church, baptized in the name of Christ, and religiously educated, do not belong to the same category as the
heathen. And the principle which applied to the latter therefore does not apply to the former. Still it is to be remembered that it is the union of incongruous elements, of the
devout and undevout, of the spiritual and the worldly, of the
good and the evil, of the children of God and the children of
the evil one, that the apostle exhorts Christians to avoid. Be
not unequally yoked. The word is ETEpOVYIE%, to be yoked
hzeterogeneously, i. e. with an animal of another kind. The
allusion is evidently to the Mosaic law which forbade the
uniting animals of different kinds in the same yoke. Deut. 22,




II. CORINTHIANS  6, 14.                  167
10. In Lev. 19, 19, Crepo'tvyo~, in the Septuagint, means an
animal of a different kind. It is the union of incongruous, uncongenial elements or persons that is forbidden. With unbelievers; as the dative, al7rt1-Tot% cannot depend on the preceding word, it is explained by resolving the concise phrase of
the apostle into the full form, /'1 yIvCYE ETpotvy. Ka' oV'To  0tZV'yovvTcE a7rtoTotiS. Winer, p. 252. By unbelievers, as above
remarked, are to be understood the heathen, those who did
not profess faith in the gospel. The exhortation is enforced
by the following questions, which are designed to show the
incongruity of such unions. For what fellowship hath right,
eousness with un.righteousness?  This is stronger than asking,
What fellowship have the righteous with the unrighteous?
because there are many bonds of sympathy between good and
bad men, arising from the participation of a common nature,
and from the fact that in this life, the good are not wholly
good, nor the bad wholly bad. The apostle, therefore, contrasts the characteristic and opposing principles by which the
two classes are distinguished. By righteousness as opposed
to unrighteousness, (tLKaLoo-'VYq to avouLa,) is meant goodness,
or moral excellence in general, conformity to the law of God
as opposed to opposition to that law. It does not mean justifying righteousness, as though the contrast were, as some
explain it, between the justified and the not justified. The
opposition intended is that which exists between the righteous
and the wicked. What fellowship, (/ErTOX,) partnership. That
is, what have they in common? What'bond of union or sympathy is there between them?  And what communion (KOtvovta), see Acts 2, 42. 1 Cor. 1, 9. 10, 16. Parties are said to
be in communion when they are so united that what belongs
to the one belongs to the other, or when what is true of the
one is true of the other. Believers are in communion, or have
fellowship one with another, when they recognize each other
as having a joint interest in the benefits of redemption, and
are conscious that the inward experience of the one is that of
the other. Incongruous elements cannot be thus united, and
any attempt to combine them must destroy the character of
one or the other. Ilcath light with darkness. Light is the
common scriptural emblem of knowledge, holiness and blessedness. Hence Christians are said to be the children of light.
Luke 16, 8. 1 Thess. 5, 5. Paul was sent " to turn men from
darkness to light," Acts 26, 18. Rom. 13, 12. Eph. 5, S. 9.
Darkness, on tlie other hand? is the emblem of error, sin and




168         II. CORINTHIANS  6, 15.
misery. Satan's kingdom is called the kingdom of darkness,
and the wicked are the children of darkness; and the state of
final perdition is " outer darkness." Nothing can be more incongruous than light and darkness, whether in the literal or
figurative meaning of the terms. The attempt, therefore, of
Christians to remain Christians and retain their inward state
as such, and yet to enter voluntarily into intimate fellowship
with the world, is as impossible as to combine light and dark.
ness, holiness and sin, happiness and misery.
15. And what concord hath Christ with Belial?
or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
What concord, (ov/t4uvrmats,) "harmony of voice."  How
discordant or opposite are Christ and Belial? How then can
their followers agree? The proper orthography of the word
according to the HIebrew is Belial, as here in the received
text. Many MSS. read Beliar, (agreeably to a common
change of the 1 for r by the Jews who spoke Greek,) others
Beliam. The word is properly an abstract noun signifying
worthlessness, then wickedness. Hence the wicked are called
C" sons of Belial," i. e. worthless. It is used as a concrete noun
in 2 Sam. 23,6. Job 34, 18. "Wicked one," and hence, by
way of eminence, for Satan, who is O rovqpo&, the evil one.
Compare 1 Cor. 10, 21, where the impossibility of uniting the
service of Christ and the service of Satan is presented in much
the same terms as it is here. Christ is God manifest in the
flesh; Satan is the prince of darkness. How can they, or their
followers agree?  Or what part (uteppt, in the sense of participation, fellowship. Col. 1, 12) hath he that believeth with an
infidel. In modern usage an unbeliever often means one destitute of saving faith; and an infidel one destitute even of
speculative faith, one who denies the gospel to be a revelation
from God. This is a distinction unknown to the Bible. The
word here rendered infidel is in v. 14 rendered unbeliever.
In the apostolic age all who professed faith of any kind were
called believers, and unbelievers were infidels. It was assumed that the faith possessed was genuine; and therefore it
was assumed that all believers were truly the children of God.
A mere speculative believer and an infidel may agree well
enough in their tastes, character and pursuits. There is no
such incompatibility or antipathy between them, as the apostle assumes to exist between the (7rtro'S and  nturroT) believer




II. CORINTHIANS  6, 16.                16t
and unbeliever. It is taken for granted that faith changes the
whole character; that it makes a man move in an entirely
different sphere, having different feelings, objects, and principles from those of unbelievers; so that intimate union, communion or sympathy between believers and unbelievers is as
impossible as fellowship between light and darkness, Christ
and Belial. And it must be so. They may indeed have many
things in common; a common country, common kindred, common worldly avocations, common natural affections, but the
interior life is entirely different; not only incongruous, but
essentially opposed the one to the other. To the one, Christ
is God, the object of supreme reverence and love; to the other, he is a mere man. To the one, the great object of life is to
promote the glory of Christ and to secure his favour; to the
other, these are objects of indifference. Elements so discordant can never be united into a harmonious whole.
16. And what agreement hath the temple of God
with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God;
as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in
(them); and I will be their God, and they shall be my
people.
In this and the following verses we have, 1. The assertion
of the incongruity between the temple of God and idols.
2. The reason assigned for presenting this incongruity,' For
ye are the temple of God.' 3. The proof from Scripture that
believers are God's temple. 4. The duty which flows from
this intimate relation to God; and 5. The gracious promise
made to all those who live in accordance with the relation
which they bear to God. What agreement (ov-yKaTardEOLT, see
Luke 23, 51,) hath the temple of God with idols? A building
consecrated to the true God is no place for idols. Men cannot combine the worship of God and the worship of devils.
Idolatry is everywhere in Scripture represented as the greatest insult the creature can offer the Creator; and the grossest
form of that insult is to erect idols in God's own temple.
Such was the indignity which those Corinthians offered to
God, who, while professing to be Christians, joined in the religious services of the heathen. And such, in its measure, is
the offence committed when the people of God become associated with the wicked in their inward and outward life. It is




;1'70     II. CORINTHIANS  6, 16.
the introduction of idols into God's temple. For ye are the
temple of the living God. There would be no propriety in
the preceding illustration if believers were not God's temple.
This, therefore, the apostle first asserts and then proves. The
text is here uncertain. The majority of MSS. read with the
common text, vLE)s, ye; Lachmann, AMeyer and some other
editors, on the authority of a few MSS. and of the context,
read alEZt, we. The sense is substantially the same. The
common text is to be preferred both on external and internal
grounds. The apostle is addressing the Corinthians, and properly therefore says, Ye are the temple of God. A temple is
not a building simply consecrated to God, but one in which
he dwells, as he dwelt by the visible manifestation of his glory
in the temple of old. Hence heaven, as God's dwelling place,
is called his temple. Ps. 11, 2. Habak. 2, 20. Christ's body
is called a temple, because in him dwelt the fulness of the
Godhead. John 2, 19. Believers collectively, or the church,
is God's temple, because inhabited by his Spirit, Eph. 2, 21,
and for the same reason every individual believer, and every
believer's body is a temple of God. I Cor. 3, 16. 6, 19. To
prove that they were the temple of God, individually and collectively, he therefore cites the declaration of the Scriptures
that God dwells in his people. "I will dwell in them  and
walk in them." God is said to dwell wherever he specially
and permanently manifests his presence. And since he thus
specially and permanently manifests his presence in his people
collectively and individually, he is said to dwell in all and in
each.  To walk in them is simply a parallelism with the preceding clause, expressing the idea of the divine presence in
another form. The nearest approach to the words here cited
is Lev. 26, 11. 12, where the same thought is expressed, though
in somewhat different words. Instead of, "I will set my
tabernacle among you," the apostle expresses the same idea
by saying, "I will dwell in them."  In them, is not simply
among them, because the presence of God by his Spirit is always represented as internal, in the heart. " If Christ be in
you," says the apostle, "the body is dead, &c."  "If the
Spirit of Him who raised Christ from the dead dwell in you,
&c." Rom. 8, 10. 11. So of every believer our Lord says,
"If a man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father
will love him; and we will come unto him, and make our
abode with him," John 14, 23. Every thing is full of God.
An insect, a flower, is a constant manifestation of his presence




II. CORINTHIANS  6, 17.                 171
and power. It is what it is because God is in it. So of the
human soul, it is said to be full of God when its inward state,
its affections and acts, are determined and controlled by himi
so as to be a constant manifestation of the divine presence.
Then the soul is pure, and glorious, and free, and blessed.
This is what God promises to accomplish in us, when he says,
" I will dwell in you and walk in you." It is only a variation
of form whem it is added, I will be their God, and they shall
be my people. This is the great promise of the covenant with
Abraham and with all the true Israel. It is one of the most
comprehensive and frequently repeated promises of the Scriptures. Gen. 17, 8. Deut. 29, 13. Jerem. 31, 33. Heb. 8, 10,
&c., &c. There is unspeakably more in the promises of God
than we are able to understand. The promise that the nations should be blessed in the seed of Abraham, as unfolded in
the New Testament, is fbund to comprehend all the blessings
of redemption. So the promise, I will be their God, and they
shall be my people, contains more than it has ever entered
into the heart of man to conceive. How low are our conceptions of God! Of necessity our conceptions of what it is to
have a God, and that God, Jehovah, must be entirely inadequate. It is not only to have an infinite protector and beneftctor, but an infinite portion; an infinite object of love and
confidence; an infinite source of knowledge and holiness. It
is for God to be to us what he designed to be when he created
us after his image, and filled us with his fulness. His people,
are those whom he recognizes as his peculiar property, the
objects of his love, and the recipients of his favours.
17. Wherefore come out from  among them, and
be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean (thing); and I will receive you.
This is a free citation from Is. 52, 11. 12, where the same
exhortation to separate themselves from the wicked, and specially from the heathen, is addressed to the people of God.
The words and I will receive you have nothing to answer to
them in the passage in Isaiah, unless it be the wdrds " God
shall be your rere-ward;" literally, " he that gathereth you."
In Judges 19, 18 the same word is rendered to receive,
"There is no one receiveth me to house."  It is more probable, however, that they are borrowed fiom Ezekiel 20, 34, as




172         II. CORINTHIANS 6, 18.
it is rendered in the Septuagint. The exhortation is founded
on the preceding passage. God is most intimately related to
his people. They are his temple. He dwells in them. Theref6re they are bound to keep themselves unspotted from the
world. Their being God's temple, his presence in them, and
his regarding them as his people, depends upon their separation from the world. For if any man love the world, the love
of the Father is not in him. 1 John 2, 15. In this whole conr
text the apostle clothes his own exhortation to the Corinthians
in the language of God himself;, that they might see that what
he taught was indeed the word of God.
18. And will be a Father unto you, arid ye shall
be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
This is a continuation of the promise commenced in the
preceding verse. God declares that he will not only receive
into his favour those who regard themselves as his temple and
keep themselves aloof from all contaminating associations with
the wicked, but that he will be a father to them. It is not
with the favour of a master to a servant that he will regard
them, but with the favour which a father exercises to his sons
and daughters. This is the language of the Lord Almighty;
of the omnipotent God. To be his sons and daughters is a
dignity and blessedness before which all earthly honouls and
all worldly good disappear. It is doubtful what particular
passage of the Old Testament the apostle had in his mind in
this citation. Some think it was 2 Sam. 7, 14, but there
God merely says to David in reference to his promised seed,
"I will be his father, and he shall be my son."  There is
too little similarity in form, and too remote an analogy of
sentiment, to render it probable that that passage was the
one referred to.  Is. 43, 6 is more in point.  "Brinor my
sons from far, and my daughters fiom the ends of the earth."
Here the people of God are said to be his sons and daughters;
which is all that the citation of the apostle asserts. The concluding verses of this chapter are an instructive illustration of
the way in which the New Testament writers quote the Old.
1. They often quote a translation which does not strictly adhere to the original. 2. They often quote according to the
sense and not according to the letter. 3. They often blend
together different passages of Scripture, so as to give the sense
not of any one passage, but the combined sense of several.




II. CORINTHIANS 7.                       173
4. They sometimes give the sense not of any particular passage or passages, but, so to speak, the general sense of Scriptaure. That is, they quote the Scriptures as saying what is nowhere found in so many words, but what nevertheless the
Scriptures clearly teach. There is no such passage, for example, as that contained in this verse in the Old Testament, but
the sentiment is often and clearly therein expressed. 5. They
never quote as of authority any but the canonical books of the
Old Testament.
CHAPTER  VII.
An exhortatioa founded on what is said in the preceding chapter, v. 1.
Paul's consolation derived from the favourable account which he habd
received from Corinth, vs. 2-16.
Th/e effect produced on thte c'trch in Corinth by the apostle's
former letter, and his consequent satisfaction and joy.
AFTER in v. 1 exhorting them  to live as became those to
whom such precious promises had been given as he had just
recited from the word of God, he in vs. 2. 3 repeats his desire
before expressed, 6, 13, that theywould reciprocate his ardent
love. So far as he was concerned there was nothing in the
way of this cordial reconciliation.  He had not injured them,
nor was he alienated from them. He had great confidence in
them.  His apprehensions and anxiety had been in a great
measure removed by the account which he had received from
Titus of the feelings of the Corinthians towards him, vs. 4-7.
It is true that he did at one time regret having written that
letter respecting the incestuous person; but he no longer regretted it, because he found that the sorrow which that letter
occasioned was the sorrow of true repentance, redounding not
to their injury, but to their good, vs. 8. 9. It was not the
sorrow of the world, but true godly sorrow, as was evident
fiom its effects, vs. 10-12. Therefore the apostle was coilforted, and delighted to find how much Titus had been gratified by his visit to Corinth.  All that the apostle had told him




174          II. CORINTHIANS  7, 1.
of the good dispositions of the Corinthians had proved to be
true, vs. 13-16.
1. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved,
let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh
and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
This verse properly belongs to the preceding chapter. It
is the appropriate conclusion of the exposition there made.
The promises referred to are, 1st. Of the indwelling of God,
6, 16. 2d. Of his favour, v. 17. 3d. That they should be his
sons and daughters. Therefore, says the apostle, having these
promises of intimate association with God, and this assurance
of his love, let us purify ourselves; i. e. not merely keep ourselves pure by avoiding contamination, but, as already defiled,
let us strive to become pure. Though the work of purification is so often referred to God as its author, Acts 15, 9. Eph.
5, 26, this does not preclude the agency of his people. They
are to work out their own salvation, because it is God who
worketh in them both to will and to do. If God's age ncy in
sanctification does not arouse and direct ours; if it does not
create the desire for holiness, and strenuous efforts to attain
it, we may be sure that we are not its subjects. HIe is leaving
us undisturbed in our sins. From  all.filthiness of the flesh
and spirit. All sin is a pollution. There are two classes of
sin here recognized; those of the flesh, and those of the spirit.
By the former we are to understand those sins which defile
the body, as drunkenness and debauchery; and by the latter
those which affect only the soul, as pride and malice. By
filthiness of the flesh, therefore, is not to be understood imere
ceremonial uncleanness, nor the participation of the body in
sinful acts, such as bowing down to an idol, or offering incense
to false gods, but the desecration of the body as the temple
of the Holy Ghost.  See 1 Cor. 6, 19.  Perfecting holiness.
This expresses or indicates the way in which we are to purify
ourselves. It is by perfecting holiness. The word  vLTrEX'OW
does not here mean simply to practise, but to complete, to
carry on to perfection. Comp. 8, 6. 11. Phil. 1, 6. It is only
by being completely or perfectly holy that we can attain the
purity required of us as the temples of God. Holiness (ayowrv'vq, Rom. 1, 3. 1 Thess. 3, 13) includes not only the negative
idea of purity, or freedom from all defilement, but also, positively, that of moral excellence. In the fear of God. This




II. CORINTHIANS  7, 2.                  175
is the motive which is to determine our endeavours to purify
ourselves. It is not regard to the good of others, nor our own
happiness, but reverence for God. We are to be holy, because he is holy.
2. Receive us; we have wronged no man, we have
corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man.
RTeceive us; literally, make room for us, i. e. in your heart.
It is a repetition or resumption of the request, "Be ye also
enlarged," contained in 6, 13. Then follow the reasons, at
least those of a negative kind, why they should thus receive
the apostle.  We have wronged no man, (8tLKr-auEv,) we have
treated no one unjustly. The expression is perfectly general.
It may refer either to his conduct as a man, or to the exercise
of his apostolical authority. There is nothing to limit it, or
to determine the kind of injustice which had been laid to his
charge, or which he here had specially in -view. We have corrupted no man. The word 03adpw, rendered to corrupt, means
to injure or destroy, either in a moral or physical sense. It is
used in a moral sense, 11, 3. 1 Cor. 15, 33. Eph. 4, 22, and in
1 Cor. 3, 17; it is used first in the one sense and then in the
other. "If any defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy."  Which sense should be adopted here is uncertain.
Paul may mean to say that he had corrupted no one's morals
by his example or arts of seduction; or that he had corrupted
no man's faith by his false teaching; or that he had ruined no
man as to his estate. The only reason for preferring the latter interpretation is that the other words with which it is associated express external injuries. There is no ground for the
assumption that Paul refers to his former letter and intends to
vindicate himself from the charge of injustice or undue severity in his treatment of the incestuous person. That matter he
has not yet adverted to; and the expressions here used are
too general, and the last (" we have defrauded no man ") is
inapplicable to that case. By defrauding he probably means
acting unfairly in pecuniary affairs. The word 7rXEovEKTEW, in
the New Testament, means either to have or take advantage of any one, 2, 11, or, to make gain of, to defraud. The
usage of the word and of its cognates is in favour of the
latter sense. 12, 17. 18. 1 Cor. 5, 10. 6, 10. Paul was specially careful to avoid all occasion of suspicion as to the disposition of the money which lie raised firom the churches for the
8*




176        II. CORINTHIANS 7, 3.4.
relief of the poor. 8, 19. 20, and no doubt his enemies were
ready enough to insinuate that he appropriated the money to
his own use. He had therefore occasion to show that he had
never made gain of them, that he had defrauded no man.
3. I speak not (this) to condemn (you): for I have
said before, that ye are in our hearts to die and live
with (you).
I speak not this to condemn you; i. e. In defending myself I do not mean to condemn you. This may mean either,'In saying that I have wronged no man, I do not intend to
imply that you have wronged me;' or,'I do not mean to imply that you think of me so unjustly as to suppose that I have
wronged, injured or defrauded any one.' In other words,'I
do not mean to question your love.' For. What follows assigns the reason or proof that he had no unkind feeling towards
them which would lead him to condemn them. I said before,
viz., in 6, 12, that ye are in our hearts. That is, that I love
you. He had said that his heart was enlarged towards them,
which was proof enough that he did not now mean to upbraid
them.  To die and live with you, Ei TO crvva7wroaveiv Kat o'rvv,
so as to die and live together. That is,'Ye are so rooted in
my heart that I would gladly live and die with you,' or,'so
that neither death nor life can separate us.' As remarked
above, Paul's love for the Corinthians seems to have been extraordinary, having something of the nature of a passion, being more ardent than either their good qualities or their
conduct towards him could account for. This is often the
case in men of warm and generous feeling, who have frequently to say,'The more abundantly we love, the less we are
loved.'
4. Great (is) my boldness of speech toward yol,
great (is) my glorying of you: I am filled with comfort, I am exceeding joyful in all our tribulation.
So far from having any disposition to upbraid or to re
criminate, his heart was overflowing with far different feelings.
He had not only confidence in them, he was proud of them;
he was not only comforted, he was filled with exceeding joy.




II. CORINTHIANS  7, 4.                  177
There is a climax here, as Calvin says: Gradatim  procedit
amplificando: plus enim est gloriari, quam securo et quieto
esse animo: liberari vero a moerore ex multis afflictionibus
concepto, utroque majus. His boasting of them was more
than having confidence in them; and his rejoicing in the midst
of his afflictions was more than being comforted. Great is
my boldness of speech towards you. The word is -ra~prLpqia,
which here, as in many other places, Eph. 3, 12. Heb. 3, 6.
1 John 2, 28. 3, 21. 4, 17. 5, 14, instead of its primary sense
of freedom of speech, expresses the idea of joyful confidence;
i. e. the state of mind from which freedom of utterance, or
boldness of speech, flows. Paul means to say that so far from
wishing to condemn the Corinthians he had joyful confidence
in them. And not only that, he adds, but, Great is my glorying of you, (Kav'Xl7-ts,) i. e. my boasting over you. The accounts which the apostle had just received of the state of
things at Corinth, and especially of the effect produced by his
former letter, had not only obliterated his feelings of anxiety
and doubt concerning them, but made him boast of them.
He gloried on their account. He was disposed to tell every
one how well his dear Corinthians had behaved. He thus, as
it were, unconsciously lays bare the throbbings of his warm
and generous heart. I arm filled  ith comfort, literally,' with
the comfort,' i. e. the comfort to which he afterwards refers;
or the comfort which his situation specially demanded. Such
was the apostle's anxiety about the effect of his former letter
that, as he says, 2, 12, "he had no rest in his spirit," and
therefore left Troas and hastened into Macedonia that he
might meet Titus on his way back from Corinth. This anxiety was now all gone. His mind was at rest. He was full of
consolation. I ant exceedingly joyful, (vrcp7TrEpto-o-cvoLal ri'
Xapa,) Irmore than abound in joy, or the joy. Comp. Rol.
5, 20. He was more than merely comforted, he was overflowinig with joy, and that too in spite of all the troubles which
still pressed upon him, for he adds, il all our tribulation.
The favourable accounts which Paul had received from Corinth, although they had removed some of the causes of his
anxiety and suffering, left others in their full force. So that
even when he wrote he was in great trouble. He therefore
uses the present tense.'I am overflowing with joy in the
midst of tribulation.' Another proof that joy and sorrow may
coexist in the mind. The martyr at the stake, in the midst
of his agony, has often been filled with ecstatic joy.




178        II. CORINTHIANS  7, 5. 6.
5. For, when we were come into Macedonia, our
flesh had no rest,,but we were troubled on every side;
without (were) fightings, within (were) fears.
The connection is with the last clause of the preceding
verse. I was comforted in tribulation, for also (Kal yap) having come into.Macedonia, our Jlesh had no rest. Paul did
not leave his troubles behind him in Troas, 2, 12, but also
in Macedonia his flesh had no rest. By flesh he does not
mean his body, for the sufferings, which he immediately
specifies, were not corporeal, but mental. It stands for his
whole sensitive nature considered as frail. It is equivalent
to saying,'my feeble nature had no rest.' The same idea is
expressed in 2, 12 by saying, "I had no rest in my spirit."
But, so far from having rest, we were troubled (XLfo'epvot,
either' te3a is to be supplied, or a slight departure' from the
regular construction is to be assumed) on every side, Ev 7ravr,
in every way. This is amplified and explained by saying,
without (were) fightings, within fears. Calvin and many
other commentators understand within and without to mean
within and without the church. Paul's troubles were partly
from his contentions with the Jews and heathen, and partly
from his anxieties about the conduct and welfare of Christians.
It is more common and natural to understand the distinction
to be between inward and outward troubles. He had to contend with all kinds of outward difficulties, and was oppressed
with an inward load of anxieties. -Fears, painful apprehensions lest his labours should be vain, lest his enemies should at
last prevail, lest his disciples should apostatize and perish, or
the peace and purity of the church be disturbed.
6. Nevertheless God, that comforteth those that
are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus.
The order of the words is inverted in the English version.
In the Greek the order is, He who comforteth those who are
cast down, comforted us, even God, by the coming of Titus.
The fact that it is the characteristic work of God, or, so to
speak, his office, to comfort the dejected, is thus made more
prominent. All the miserable are thus encouraged, because
they are miserable, to look to that God who proclaims himself
as the comforter. It is to be remarked that the objects of his
compassion, those who call forth the exercise of his power as




II. CORINTHIANS  7, 7.                  179
a consoler, are described not by a term expressive of moral
excellence, but by a word which simply designates them as
sufferers. The ra7rELVot are properly simply the low, those who
are in depressed circumstances. As, however, it is the tendency of such circumstances to render men fearful, or meek,
or humble, the word often expresses one or the other of these
states of mind. In 10, 1 it means timid as opposed to bold;
in 1 Pet. 5, 5, it is the opposite of proud. Here, however, it
has its simple, proper sense-those who are low, i. e. cast
down by suffering so as to be the proper objects of compassion.
Luke 1, 52. James 1, 9. Ps. 18, 27. Paul says God comforted
him by the coming of Titus, whom he had sent to Corinth to
know the state of the church there.
7. And not by his coming only, but by the consolation wherewith he was comforted in you, when he
told us your earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind toward me; so that I rejoiced the more.
It was not the pleasure of seeing Titus, so much as the intelligence which he brought, which comforted the apostle.
By the consolation wherewith he was comforted in you, (E'q'
VfLLV,) in reference to, or, as concerns you. The fact that Titus was comforted in Corinth was a great consolation to the
apostle, and he was made to share in the comfort which Titus
had experienced, as the latter reported to him (avayyeXXEtv, to
bring back word, to recount, Acts 14, 27. 16, 38,) your earnest
desire, i. e. either your earnest desire to see me and to secure
my approbation; or, your earnest desire to correct the evils
existing among you. The former is to be preferred, both on
account of the context and the signification of the word 7rt7r63-Srts, which means strong affection.  Your mourning, (0svp/os0) i. e. wailing, lamentation, Matt. 2, 18,) either, mourning
on account of their sins, or on account of having offended and
pained the apostle. The latter is the more probable on account of what follows.  Your fervent mind toward me, (tXos.rrep ~4oi,) zeal for me, i. e. the great interest which you took
in me.  Gal. 4, 17. 18.  As the zeal of which the apostle
speaks is expressly said to be a zeal of which he was the object, it is probable that the preceding words (earnest desire
and mourning) express their feeling and conduct in reference
to him. What was so specially gratifying to him was that in




180         II. CORINTHIANS  7, 8.
a church in which he had met with so much opposition, and
in which the false teachers had exerted so great and so evil an
influence, the mass of the people proved themselves devoted
to him. Devotion to Paul, however, involved devotion to the
truth and holiness, just as zeal for the false teachers involved
the opposite. So that I rejoiced the more, i. e. I had more
joy than the mere coming of Titus and the satisfaction which
he experienced in Corinth were able to impart.
8. For though I made you sorry with a letter, I
do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive
that the same epistle hath made jou sorry, though (it
were) but for a season.
This and the following verses assign the reason why he
rejoiced. It was because the letter which he had written
them, although it made them sorry, yet did them good.
Though I made you sorry (i. e. caused you grief) with a letter,
rather, by the letter, i. e. the letter which related to the incestlous person. I do not repent, though I did repent. That is,
he regretted writing as he had done until he learned through
Titus the good effect his letter had produced. Calvin says
the word cETraEkXojat must not be taken here to express repentance, for that would imply that his former letter was
written under the influence of human feeling, and not by the
direction of the Holy Spirit. He thinks that all Paul meant
to say is, that he was grieved at having given the Corinthians
pain. This, however, is not the meaning of the word. See
Miatt. 21, 29. 32. We must accommodate our theory of inspiration to the phenomena of Scripture, and not the phenornena to our theory. Inspiration simply rendered its subject infallible in writing and speaking as the messenger of God. Paul
might doubt whether he had in a given instance made a wise
use of his infallibility, as he might doubt whether he had wisely exercised his power of working miracles. He never doubted as to the truth of what he had written. There is another
thing to be taken into consideration. Inspiration did not reveal itself in the consciousness. It is perfectly conceivable
that a man might be inspired without knowing it. Paul was
no doubt impelled by the Spirit to write his formler epistle as
well as divinely guided in writing; but all he was conscious
of was his own thoughts and feelings. The bieliever is not




II. CORINTHIANS  7, 8.                  181
conscious of the operations of grace, neither were the apostles
conscious of inspiration. As the believer, however, may know
that he is the subject of divine influence, so the apostles knew
that they were inspired. But as the believer may doubt the
wisdom of some of his holiest acts, so the apostles might
doubt the wisdom of acts done under divine guidance. Such
acts are always wise, but the agent may not always see their
wisdom.
_For Iperceive that the same epistle made you sorry. This
gives the reason why he at first regretted having written. lIe
knew that his letter had excited much feeling in Corinth, and
until he learned the nature and effects of that feeling, he repented having written.  Though but for a season. That is,
although the sorrow which he had occasioned was only temporary, yet it made him regret his former letter. This interpretation supposes a different punctuation of the passage from
that found either in the common editions of the Greek text,
or in the English version. It supposes that the proper place
for the period or colon is after "I did not repent," and not
after the following clause, " I did repent.'"  In this latter case
the whole sense is different, and the latter clause of the verse
(3XEaow?ap) is connected with the first clause, and is intended
to give the reason why he said he had made them sorry, and
not the reason why he regretted having done so. The sense
of the whole would then be,'I made you sorry.....for I
perceive fiom what I hear from Titus, that my former letter
did, although only for a while, grieve you.' The next verse
then begins a new sentence. But this is an unnatural construction; it requires the verse to be paraphrased in order to
bring out the sense; and after all it amounts to little to say,'I made you sorry, for I see I made you sorry.' The construction is simpler and the sense better if we put a colon or
semi-colon after "I do not repent," and make v. 9 a part of
the same sentence.'Though I made you sorry I do not repent: although I did repent, (for I see that my letter made
you sorry, though only for a time,) I now rejoice.' The
meaning is,'Though I did repent, I now rejoice.' Thus the
passage is printed in the Greek of STIER and THIELE'S Polyglott, and, so far as the pointing is concerned, (omitting the
marks of parenthesis,) in Tischendorf's Greek Testament. In
the Vulgate the same sense is expressed. "Quoniam etsi
contristavi vos in epistola, non me pcenitet; et si pceniteret,




182        II. CORINTHIANS  7, 9. 10.
videns quod epistola illa (etsi ad horam) vos contristavit, nunG
gaudeo, &c." So also Luther.
9. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but
that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage
by us in nothing.
He rejoiced, not in their grief, but that their grief led them
to repentance. A parent, when he sees a child mourning over
his sins, sincerely rejoices, however much he sympathizes in
his grief.  Sorrowed unto repentance, (eI pErTa&voLav,) i. e.
change of mind, sometimes in the restricted sense of the word
mind, (or purpose,) as in Heb. 12, 17; generally, in the comprehensive sense of the word as including the principles and
affections, the whole soul, or inward life. Matt. 3, 8. Luke 5,
32. Acts 5, 31. Repentance, therefore, in its religious sense,
is not merely a change of purpose, but includes a change of
heart which leads to a turning fiom sin with grief and hatred
thereof'unto God. Such is the repentance here intended, as
appears from what follows. For (this shows they sorrowed
unto repentance) they were made sorry (they grieved) after a
godly sort, (Kara CEo'v,) i. e. in a manner agreeable to the mind
and will of God; so that God approved of their sorrow. Ile
saw that it arose from right views of their past conduct.
That, (Lva, in order that,) as expressing the design of God in
making their sorrow a sorrow unto repentance. Ye might
receive damage by us in nothing. God had so ordered that
Paul's letter, instead of producing any injury, had resulted in
the greatest spiritual good.
10. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of; but the sorrow of the
world worketh death.
The connection is with the last clause.' Ye were not injured by us, for the sorrow we occasioned worked repentance.' Sorrow in itself is not repentance; neither is remorse,
nor self-condemnation, nor self-loathing, nor external reformation. These all are its attendants or consequences; but re.
pentance itself (,uErTavoa) is a turning fi'ro  sin to holiness, from
a state of sin to a holy state. It is a real change of heart. It




II. CORINTHIANS  7, 10.                  183
is a change of views, feelings and purposes, resulting in a
change of life. Godly sorrow worketh repentance, i. e. that
sorrow on account of sin, which arises from proper apprehensions of God and of our relation to him, necessarily leads to
that entire change in the inward life which is expressed by
the word repentance, and which is connected with salvation.
It is not the ground of our salvation; but it is a part of it and
a necessary condition of it. Those who repent are saved; the
impenitent perish. Repentance therefore is unto salvation.
Comp. Acts 11, 18. It is that inward change in which salvation largely consists. Never to be repented of. This may belong either to the repentance or to salvation. If to the latter,
the word a.LEraEX7rTOs may be taken in the sense of unchangeable. See Rom. 11, 29. So the Vulgate explains it, ad salutem
stabilem; or it may mean not to be regretted. Repentance
leads to a salvation which no one ever will regret. So Luther
and many of the moderns. The position of the words is in
favour of connecting "not to be repented of" with " salvation."  Had Paul intended the other connection, he would
have probably said ELs JLETavoLaV ov aETavojTrov, and not have
chosen (a/Erap1Ta/xTov) a word of an entirely different root.
Still, as " not to be repented of" seems to be an unsuitable epithet when applied to salvation, the majority of commentators
prefer the other connection, and consider the apostle as designating true repentance as that which no one will regret notwithstanding the sorrow with which it is attended. But the
sorrow qf the world worketh death. By the sorrow of the
world is not meant worldly sorrow, i. e. sorrow arising out of
worldly considerations, but the sorrow of men of the world.
In other words, KOO/_LOV is the genitive of the subject, not a
qualifying genitive. "The world" means men, the imass of
mankind as distinguished from the church. 1 C'or. 1, 20. Gal.
4, 3. John 7, 7. 14, 7. &c. What therefore the apostle means
is the sorrow of unrenewed men, the sorrow of the unsanctified
heart. Of this sorrow, as opposed to godly sorrow, he says,
it works death, not physical death, nor specifically eternal
death as opposed to salvation, but evil in the general sense
of the word. The effects of godly sorrow are salutary; the
effects of worldly sorrow (the sorrow of worldly men) are evil.
It is a great mistake to suppose that the natural tendency of
pain and sorrow is to good. They tend rather to excite rebellion against God and all evil feelings. It is only when they
are sanctified, i. e. when they are experienced by the holy, and




184         II. CORINTHIANS  7, 11.
are made by the Spirit of God to call into exercise the resig
nation, patience and faith of the sufferer, that they bring forth
fruit unto righteousness. The natural element of holiness is
happiness, and misery is the natural element of sin. They
stand severally in the relation both of cause and effect. The
more miserable you make a bad man, the worse you make
him. The wicked are said to curse God while they gnaw
their tongues with pain, and they repent not of their deeds.
Rev. 16, 10. 11.
11. For behold this self-same thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought
in you, yea, (what) clearing of yourselves, yea, (what)
indignation, yea, (what) fear, yea, (what) vehement desire, yea, (what) zeal, yea, (what) revenge!  In  all
(things) ye have approved  yourselves to be clear in
this matter.
The question lmay be asked whether Paul means here to
describe the uniforin effects of genuine repentance, so as to
furnish a rule by which each one may judge of his own experience. This, to say the least, is not the primary design of
the passage. If it affords such a rule it is only incidentally.
The passage is historical. It describes the effects which godly
sorrow produced in the Corinthian church. It shows how
the church felt and acted in reference to a specific offence,
when. roused to a sense of its enormity. For, behold! TI'he
connection is with what precedes.' Godly sorrow is salutary,
for, see what effects it wrought for you.' Tihis self-same
thing, i. e. this very thing, viz., being sorry after a godly
sort.  What carefulness it wrought in you (~Vu'v, for you, for
your advantage). Carefulness, (acrov$r v,) literally, haste; then
the inward feeling which leads to haste; then any outward
manifestation of that earnestness of feeling. Here it means
earnest solicitude as opposed both to indifference and neglect.
The Corinthians had strangely allowed a grievous sin, committed by a church-member, to pass unnoticed, as a matter
of no importance. The first effect or manifestation of their
godly sorrow was an earnest solicitude on the subject, and a
desire to have the evil corrected; the very opposite of their
former indifference. It is so in all cases of repentance. Sins




II. CORINTHIANS  7, 11.                  185
which had been regarded as of little account, are apprehended
in their true character; and deep feeling takes the place of
unconcern.  Yea, what clearing of yourselves. The particle
aaXX is here and through the verse rendered yea. It is used,
as in 1, 9, to indicate a gradation-still more.'Not only solicitude, but moreover clearing of yourselves,' (azroXoytav.)
Their sorrow led them  earnestly to apologize for the sin
which they had committed. Not to extenuate their guilt, but
to acknowledge it and to seek forgiveness. The apology for
sin to which repentance leads, includes acknowledgment and
deprecation. This apology was addressed to the apostle.
They endeavoured to regain his good opinion. Moreover,
indignation, either at the offence or at themselves that such
an offence should have been allowed. They felt angry at
themselves for their past misconduct. This is one of the most
marked experiences of every sincere penitent. The unreasonableness, the meanness, the wickedness of his conduct rouse
his indignation; he desires to seek vengeance on himself.
Bengel says the word aJyavaKTTqcTL is chosen with special propriety, as it denotes a pain of which a man has the cause in
himself. W/hatfear. Whether fearful apprehension of God's
displeasure, or fear of the apostle, depends on the context.
The idea is expressed indefinitely. Their repentance was attended by fear of punishment. Doubtless the two sentiments
were mingled in the minds of the Corinthians. They had a
fear of the wrath of God, and at the same time a fear of the
apostle's coming among them displeased and armed with the
spiritual power which belonged to his office. The context is
in favour of making the latter the prominent idea. What vehement desire, either for the correction of the evil complained
of; or for the apostle's presence and approbation. In the latter case this clause is a modification of the preceding. It was
not so much fear of the apostle as an earnest and affectionate
desire towards and for him, that their godly sorrow had produced. As in v. 7 Titus had repeated to the apostle the
earnest desire (TrtrOS3Vcrtv, the same word as here) of the Corinthians for him, it is probable that the same is here meant.
What zeal. In v. 7 the zeal spoken of is limited or explained
by the words (;TrEp 4Lov) for me. Without that addition they
may be so understood here; zeal or zealous interest in behalf
of the apostle manifested by their taking sides with him. The
connection, however, with what follows favours the assumnption that here the zeal meant is that of which the offender was




186        II. CORINTHIANS  7, 12.
the object. Zeal for his reformation or punishment  TWVat
revenge, (EK&'Kt'c0t,) vindictivejustice.  One of the sentiments
which, godly sorrow had aroused in them was the sense of
justice, the moral judgment that sin ought to be punished.
This is an instinctive feeling, one belonging to our moral constitution, and therefore a revelation of the nature and will of
God. The ground of the punishment of sin is not expediency,
nor is it primarily the benefit of the offender, but the satisfaction of justice, or the inherent evil of sin which from its own
nature, and apart from the evil consequences of impunity, deserves punishment.  Of the six particulars introduced by
(a!XX) yea in this verse, according to Bengel, Meyer and
others, "clearing of yourselves" and "indignation" 1 relate to
the feelings of the Corinthians towards themselves; " fear" and
" vehement desire" to their feelings towards the apostle; and
" zeal" and " revenge " to their feelings towards the offender.
According to Olshausen, the " apology " relates to their conduct; the "indignation" to their feelings ill view of the crime
which had been committed; the "fear" to God's displeasure;
the "desire" and "zeal" to their feelings towards the apostle,
and "revenge" the consequence of all the preceding.
In all things, (iv 7ravT',) in every respect, or, in every
point of view.  Ye thave proved yourselves, (o-vvE-T-'SCrarE,) yOU
have set yourselves forth, shown yourselves to be (Gal. 2, 18)
clear, (ayvov',) pure, free from guilt. In this matter, or, (wvithout the Ev, which the older MSS. omit,) as to the matter. The
Corinthians proved themselves to be free from the sin of approving or in any way countenancing the crime in question.
Their sin consisted in not more promptly excluding the of:
fender from their communion. This whole passage, however,
is instructive as presenting a clear exhibition of the'intimate
nature of church fellowship. One member committed an of
fence. The whole church repents. The godly sorrow which
the apostle describes was the soi'row of the church. The effects which that sorrow wrought were common to the church
as such. That believers are one body in Christ Jesus, and
" every one members one of another," so that " if one member
suffers all the members suffer with it," is matter of actual
experience.
12. Wherefore, though I wrote unto you, (I did it)
not for his cause that had docle the wrong, nor for' his




II. CORINTHIANS  7, 12.                  187
cause that suffered wrong, but that our care for you in
the sight of God might appear unto you.
Wherefore. That is, because my letter has produced such
results. The effects produced by his letter was the end he
had in view in writing it.  Though I wrote to you, i. e. although I interfered with your affairs. IIis motive in writing
he states first negatively and then positively. It was neither
for the sake of him who did wrong, nor for him who suffered
wrong. His primary object was neither to have the offender
punished, nor to secure justice being done to the injured
party, viz., the father whose wife the son had married. This
is the common and natural interpretation. As, however,
nothing is elsewhere said of the father, and as the form of expression in 1 Cor. 5, 1, (yvvaLKa ('XELv, to marry,) seems to imply that the father of the offender was dead, since otherwise,
it is said, there could have been no marriage in the case, various other explanations of this passage have been proposed.
Some say that he " who suffered wrong " was the apostle himself; others, as Bengel, say it was the Corinthians, the singular being taken for the plural. Others, as Neander, Billroth,
&c., say that J8t&KqEVTO  is neuter, the wrong deed; so that
the meaning is,'Neither for the offender nor for the offence.'
But these explanations are all unnatural and unnecessary.
The ordinary interpretation is the only one which the words
suggest, and what is said in 1 Cor. 5 is perfectly consistent
with the assumption that the father of the offender was still
alive. The positive statement of his object in writing is that
our care fbr you in the sight of God might appear unto you.
The first question concerning this clause relates to the text.
Instead of r{5y//v (our), Lachmann, Meyer and others read v/UWv
(your). This latter reading is followed by Calvin and Luther
as well as by many of the modern commentators. As the external authorities are nearly equally divided, the decision rests
mainly on internal evidence. In favour of the common text
is first, the consideration that the manifestation of his love or
care for them is elsewhere said to have been his motive in
writing his former letter, 2, 4; and, secondly, the words 7rp0S
vans are more easily explained.'Our care for you might appear unto you,' is plain. But if vp/v is read these words give
difficulty. They must be rendered (apud vos) "with you."
(Your care for us might be manifest with (i. e. among) you.'
That is, that the zeal which you have for us might be brought




188         II. CORINTHIANS  7, 13.
out so as to be known by yourselves. This, however, would
be more naturally expressed by Ev 6v'v or Ev  vTrots, among
yourselves. Besides, the words "before God," as involving
an appeal to the divine omniscience, are more in place if he is
speaking of his own zeal, than if speaking of theirs. The immediate context, it must be admitted, is in favour of this latter reading. The apostle had been describing the effects of
his letter, dwelling with great satisfaction on the feelings
towards himself which that letter had called forth. It was
natural for him therefore to say that his object in writing was
to bring out this manifestation, and thus reveal themselves to
themselves as well as to him. With this also agrees what he
says in 4, 9, " To this end also did I write, that I might know
the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things." Still
on the whole the common text gives the better sense. In
either case the words 7rpos vas depend on /avepyoJvaL, " might
be manifest towards (or among) you."  So also do the words
EvMTrLoV TOO 3coV, "that our care for you might be manifested
before God," i. e. in his sight, as what he could approve of.
In our version these words are connected with our care.
" Our care for you in the sight of God." The same sense is
expressed by the Vulgate; "ad manifestandam sollicitudinem
nostram, quwe habelnus pro vobis coram Deo." According to
the Greek the natural construction is, "To manifest in the
sight of God our care for you."
13. Therefore we were comforted in your comfort:
yea, and exceedingly the more joyed we for the joy of
Titus, because his spirit was refreshed by you all.
Therefore, i. e. because his letter had led them to repentance. We were comforted in your comfort, (erl Fry 7rapaKXj'eTL
~vJv,) on account of your consolation. This, however, does
not suit the state of the case. Paul was comforted by their
repentance, not by their consolation. To meet this difficulty
some make viuv the genitive of the source; so that the sense
would be,' We were comforted with the consolation derived
from you.' The great majority of modern editors read Slarv
instead of Re&tv, and put a stop after 7rapaKcKKX4e3a. This
gives a far better sense.'Therefore we have been comforted:
and besides (Era') our consolation, we have rejoiced exceedingly in the joy of Titus.' Paul had not only the consolation de



II. CORINTHIANS  7, 14. 15.               189
rived from their repentance, but in addition to that, he was
delighted to find Titus so full of joy. Compare v. 7. The
Vulgate has the same reading and pointing. Ideo consolati
sumus. In consolatione autem nostra abundantius magis gavisi sumus super gaudio Titi. Because his' spirit was refreshed by you all. This is the reason of his joy. Titus
rejoiced because his spirit was refreshed, (ava7rEravTaL,) derived
rest, according to the comprehensive scriptural sense of the
word "rest."
14. For if I have boasted any thing to him of you,
I am not ashamed; but as we spake all things to you
in truth, even so our boasting, which (I made) before
Titus, is found a truth.
This is the reason why Paul was so rejoiced that Titus was
satisfied with what he saw in Corinth. Paul had boasted to
him of the Corinthians. He had predicted that he would find
them obedient, and ready to correct the evils adverted to in
his former letter. Had these predictions proved false, he
would have been mortified,-ashamed, as he says; but as they
were more than fulfilled, he naturally rejoiced. But as we
spake all things to you in truth. No doubt in allusion to the
charge of want of adherence to the truth made against him
by the false teachers, to which he refers above, 1, 17. 18. As
he spoke the truth to the Corinthians, so he spoke the truth
of them. We spake in truth, (&v aXde/aa,) truly.  So our
boasting before Titus (r E&7rL T'Tov) is found a truth, (aX-getL
EyEvrwriq,) has become truth. Though it is done incidentally,
yet the revelation to the Corinthians that Paul had spoken of
them in terms of commendation must have convinced them
of his love. This was one of the objects, as appears from the
whole epistle, he had much at heart.
15. And his inward affection is more abundant
toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of
you all, how with fear and trembling ye received
him.
A continuation of the sentence begun in the former verse,
Paul informs the Corinthians that Titus's love for them was




190         II. CORINTHIANS  7, 16.
greater now than when he was with them. The recollection
of their good conduct warmed his heart towards them. His
inward afection, literally, his bowels, which in the Scriptures
is a figurative expression for love, compassion, or any other
tender affection.  Whilst he remnembereth, literally, remembering, i. e. because he remembers. Your obedience, viz., towards
him, as appears from what follows. How with fear and tremrbling ye received him. " Fear and trembling " is a common
scriptural expression for reverence, or solicitous anxiety lest
we should fail in doing all that is required of us. 1 Cor. 2, 3
Eph. 6, 5.
16. I rejoice, therefore, that I have confidence in
you in all (things).
This is the conclusion of the whole matter. The first seven
chapters of the epistle are intimately connected. They all relate to the state of the congregation at Corinth and to Paul's
relation to the people there. The eighth and ninth chapters
form a distinct division of the epistle. Here, therefore, we
have the conclusion of the whole preceding discussion. The
result of the long conflict of feeling in reference to the Corinthians as a church, was the full restoration of confidence. I
rejoice that I have confidence in you in all things, (Ev ravnr, in
every thing). I have confidence in you, (3ap& Ev  i Zv,) I have
good courage, am full of hope and confidence. 5, 6. Heb. 13, 6.
As SappEo is not elsewhere constructed with iv, Meyer says
the meaning is,' I am of good courage, through you.' If this
objection to the common explanation be considered of weight,
iv had better be rendered before.'I stand full of confidence
before you, i. e. in your presence.' 1 Cor. 14, 11. The sense,
however, expressed by the common interpretation is better.




II. CORINTHIANS 8.                       191
CHAPTER VIII.
The extraordinary liberality of the Macedonians, vs. 1-6. Exhortation to
the Corinthians to follow the example of their Macedonian brethren, vs.
7-16. Commendation of Titus for his zeal in promoting the collection
of contributions for the poor, and of the other brethren who were to
accompany him to Corinth, vs, 17-24.
Exhortation to liberality to the poor.
To this subject the apostle devotes this and the following
chapter. He begins by setting before the Corinthians the
liberality of the churches in Macedonia. They, in the midst
of great affliction and of extreme poverty, had exceeded their
ability in the contributions which they had made for the
saints, vs. 1-3. And this not by constraint or in obedience to
earnest entreaties on the part of the apostle; but on the contrary, it was they who besought him to receive and take
charge of their alms, v. 4. Liberality to the poor was only a
part of what they did; they devoted themselves to the Lord,
v. 5. The conduct of the Macedonians led the apostle to exhort Titus, as he had already begun the work, to carry it on
to completion in Corinth, v. 6.
He begs them, therefore, to add this to all their other
graces, v. 7. This was a matter of advice, not of command.
lIe was induced to give this exhortation because others had
evinced so much zeal in this matter, and because he desired
them to prove the sincerity of their love. What was all they
could do for others, compared to what Christ had done for
them, vs. 8. 9. The exercise of liberality was a good to them,
provided their feelings found expression in corresponding
acts, vs. 10. 11. The disposition, not the amount of their contributions, was the main thing, v. 12. What the apostle
wished was that there might be some approximation to
equality among Christians, that the abundance of one may
supply the wants of another, vs. 13-15.
He thanks God who had inspired Titus with so much zeal
on this subject, vs. 16. 17. With him he had sent a brother
who had not only the approbation of the churches, but had
been chosen for the very purpose of taking charge of the contributions in connection with the apostle, vs. 18. 19. Paul was
determined to avoid all occasion of reproach, and therefore he
associated others with himself in the charge of the money in



192        II. CORINTHIANS  8, 1. 2.
trusted to him, vs. 20. 21. With those already mentioned he
sent another brother of approved character and great zeal, v.
22. Therefore if any one inquired who Titus was, they might
answer, He was Paul's companion and fellow-labourer; or who
those brethren were, they might say, They were the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ. Let the church
therefore prove their love and justify his boasting of them,
vs. 23. 24.
1. Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the
grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia.
lMoreover (8E) marks the transition to a new subject. We
do you to wit, (yvwp'oo/Ecv,)'we cause you to know.' The
word to wit, (Anglo-Saxon,  fitan; German, Tissen,) to
know, and the cognate words, IVis and Wot, are nearly obsolete, although they occur frequently in our version. The
grace of God, the divine favour. The liberality of the Corinthians was due to the operation of the grace of God. The
sacred writers constantly recognize the fact that the freest
and most spontaneous acts of men, their inward states and
the outward manifestations of those states, when good, are
due to the secret influence of the Spirit of God, which
eludes our consciousness. The believer is most truly self-determined, when determined by the grace of God. -Bestowed
on, (8soE8oXEvv iv,) " given in," i. e. given so that it is in. See
1, 22. " Given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."  In v.
16 of this chapter, &8tsOt ('v is rendered "put into."  The
churches of Mlacedonia. Under the Romans Macedonia included the whole of the northern provinces of Greece. The
churches of that region founded by the apostle were those of
Philippi, Thessalonica, and Bercea. Of the extraordinary
liberality of those churches the epistles of Paul firnish numerous intimations. 11, 9. Phil. 2, 25. 4, 15. 18.
2. How that, in a great trial of affliction, the abundance of their joy, and their deep poverty, abounded
unto the riches of their liberality.
A somewhat condensed sentence, meaning, as some say,
that in the midst of their afflictions their joy, and in the midst
of their poverty, their liberality abounded. But this brings
into view two graces, joy in affliction, and liberality in poverty,




II. CORINTIIIANS  8, 2.                   193
whereas the context calls for only one. The meaning rather
is, that notwithstanding their afflictions, their joy and their
poverty abounded to their liberality. This the grammatical
structure of the passage requires.  Hfow that (oTL); the connection is with the verb in the preceding verse,'I cause you
to know that, &c.' In a great trial of affliction, i. e. in afflictions which were a great trial (8OKLt,), i. e. a test of their sincerity and devotion.  These afflictions were either those
which they shared in common with their fellow-citizens, arising out of their social condition, or they were peculiar to them
as Christians, arising from persecution. In writing to the
Thessalonians, Paul reminds them that they had received the
word in much affliction. 1, 6. 2, 14. Comp. Acts 16, 20. 17, 5.
The abundance of their joy; i. e. the joy arising from  the
pardon of their sins and the favour of God, which in 1 Thess.
1, 6, he calls the joy of the Holy Ghost, was abundant. That
is, it rose above their sorrows, and produced in them the effect of which he afterwards speaks. And their deep poverty,
(a KaTa,/3aovg 7rrmXta,) their abject poverty, or poverty down
to the depth. Abounded unto, i. e. manifested itself as abundant in relation to. The same verb (E'rEpL'G'evO-Ev) belongs to
both the preceding nouns, " joy"' and "poverty," but in a
somewhat different sense. Their joy abounded unto their
liberality, because it produced it. The effect proved the joy
to be abundant. Their poverty abounded unto their liberality, because it was seen to be great in relation to it. Their
liberality made their poverty, by contrast, appear the greater.
Unto the riches, (rXogros,) a favourite word with Paul, which
he often uses in the sense of abundance. Rom. 2, 4, "Riches
of his goodness," for abundant goodness. Eph. 1, 7, "Riches
of his grace," for his abundant grace; 1, 18, "Riches of his
glory," for abundant glory, &c.  Of their liberality, aTrkor's,
which is properly the opposite of duplicity, or double-mindedness, and, therefore, singleness of heart, simplicity, sincerity.
Eph. 6, 5. Col. 3, 22. The Scriptures, however, often use a
generic term for a specific one, as glory for wisdom, or mercy,
or power, which are different forms of the divine glory. So
here the general term for right-mindedness is put for liberality, which is a specific form or manifestation of the generic
virtue.  Comp. 9, 11. Rom. 12, 8. In reference to the poverty of the Macedonian churches, Mr. Stanley, in his Commentary on this Epistle, appropriately quotes a passage from Dr.
Arnold's Roman Commonwealth, in which he says, "The




194        II. CORINTHIANS  8, 3-5.
condition of Greece in the time of Augustus was one of deso.
lation and distress. It had suffered severely by being the
seat of the successive civil wars between Caesar and Pompey,
between the Triumvirs and Brutus and Cassius, and lastly,
between Augustus and Antonius. Besides, the country had
never recovered from the long series of miseries which had
succeeded and accompanied its conquest by the Romans; and
between those times and the civil contest between Pompey
and Coesar, it had been again exposed to all the evils of war
when Sylla was disputing the possession of it with the general
of Mithridates.... The provinces of Macedonia and Achaia,
when they petitioned for a diminution of their burdens, in the
reign of Tiberius, were considered so deserving of compassion
that they were transferred for a time from the urisdiction of
the Senate to that of the Emperor, (as involving less heavy
taxation.) "
3-5. For to (their) power, I bear record, yea, and
beyond (their) power, (they were) willing of themselves;
praying us with much entreaty, that we would receive
the gift, and (take upon us) the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. And (this they did,) not as we
hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and
unto us by the will of God.
These verses must be taken together on account of the
grammatical construction. Wherever the reader of the English version sees the frequent use of words in Italics, he may
conclude there is some difficulty or obscurity in the original,
which the translators endeavour to explain by additions to the
text. In these verses there are no less than five such interpolations; three of which materially affect the sense, viz., the
words, they were, take upon us, and, this they did. The first
point is to determine the text. The words saoJato' aL tea  are
omitted in the great majority of the MSS. versions and
Fathers, and seem very much like an explanatory gloss, or an
interpolation analogous to the explanations in Italics so common in our version. They are, therefore, rejected by Griesbach, and by almost all editors since his time. Their insertion
alters the sense materially. If these words are read, Paul
represents the Macedonian Christians as begging him to re



II. CORINTHIANS  8, 3-5.                   195
ceive their contributions and to take upon him the distribution
of them. If they are omitted, the sense is, they begged to
be permitted to contribute. Granting, however, that these
words should be omitted, the construction of the passage is
doubtful. Stanley says it is " a sentence which has been entirely shattered in passing through the apostle's mind." lIe
proposes to reduce it to order in the same way that Bengel
does, who, however, thinks that, so far from the sentence being shattered, every thing is smooth and easy. He says the
word "&OJKaV sustains the structure of the whole passage;
a~acp~E~oL and EoLEFevoL are its nominatives; XdpLv, KOLVOVLav  and
&avTrov are its objects. The sense then is,' Of their own accord, beyond their ability and with many prayers they gave
not their gifts only as a contribution to the saints, but themselves to the Lord and to us.' Any one, however, who looks
at the Greek sees that it is very unnatural to make XapLv depend on 8WoKav; it belongs to SeOcevoL. The construction,
therefore, adopted by Fritzsche, Billroth, Meyer and others is,
at least as to that point, to be preferred.  Meyer says that to
8o3WKav there are four limiting or qualifying clauses attached.
They gave, 1. Beyond their power; 2. Of their own motion;
3. Praying to be allowed to give; and 4. Not as we expected,
but themselves.  De Wette and many others relieve the
harshness of this construction so far as the last clause is concerned by making the sentence end with the fourth verse, and
supplying'8oJKav in v. 3. "They gave beyond their power,
of their own accord, begging to be allowed to take part in
the contribution to the saints. And beyond our expectation
they gave themselves to the Lord."
As to the connection, oTL is evidently equivalent to yap, as
these verses are the proof of what is said in v. 2. The liberality of the lMacedonian churches was great, for to their
power, (Kara UZvaytv,) according to their ability, I bear testimony, and beyond their power (LprEp in the common text, in
the critical editions rapa Sv'Valtv). Here the word E'8WKav is
implied.'They gave beyond their ability,' av'aLpE'ot, selfmoved, i. e. spontaneously, without any suggestion or excitement from me.' From 9, 2, it appears that Paul had boasted
to the Macedonians that Achaia (the Corinthians) was ready
a year ago, and that this had excited their zeal. These two
representations are perfectly consistent. In detailing the suc
cess of the gospel in Corinth the apostle would naturally refer
to the liberality of the disciples. It was the simple mention




196         II. CORINTHIANS  8, 3-5.
of this fact which led the Macedonians, without any exhorta
tion from the apostle, but of their own accord, to make the
contribution of which he here speaks. Our translators by the
insertion of the words they were alter the sense of this verse.
They make the apostle say,'They were willing beyond their
power.' Whereas what he says is,'They gave spontaneously
beyond their power.' The word ~&JKav, they gave, though
not expressed until the end of the passage, is clearly implied
from the beginning.
Praying us with much entreaty. The thing for which the
Macedonians so earnestly prayed was, according to the received text and our version, that the apostle would receive
their alms and take upon him the distribution of them. But
by common consent the words 846a$a t'aL pas (that we would
receive) should be omitted, and there is nothing in the Greek
to answer to the interpolated words take upon uts.  The
words are, 3E0/uEvoL tj7&Vt v V Xpt Kat Tiv KoWvovlav, begging of
us the favour and fellowship, (or participation,) i. e. the favour
of a participation. The latter word explains the former; the
favour they asked was that of taking part in the ministry to
the saints. The word &taKov/a, ministry, service, is often used
in the sense of aid or relief. 9, 1. 13. Acts 6, 1. 11, 29. Here,
according to some, the sentence ends.  The more common
interpretation supposes Kai  ov Ka3Us -qw'7rXalwev to be a new
modification of the principal idea, "and not as we expected,"
i. e. a moderate contribution, but they first gave their own
selves to the Lord acd to us. This does not mean that they
gave themselves before they gave their alms; but they gave
themselves first to the Lord, then to us; Vpkj-ov belongs to
KvpiU and not to'3WKav..First does not mean first in time,
but in importance and order. Compare Acts 15, 28. Exodus 14, 31.  The offering was immediately and directly
to Christ, and subordinately to the apostle.  By giving
themselves to the Lord the apostle means that not content with giving their money they had given themselves;
made an entire dedication of all they had and all they were
to their divine Master. This was far beyond his expec.
tations. To understand this expression as indicating that
devotion to Christ was the motive which determined their
liberality is inconsistent with the context. Their inward devotion to Christ was not a thing to take the apostle by surprise; that was involved in their profession of the gospel.
What surpassed his expectations was, that their liberality led




II. CORINTHIANS  8, 6.                 197
to the gift not of their money only but of themselves. Some
say that this means that they offered themselves to go to Cor.
inth or elsewhere to collect money for the poor. But the
sense is fuller and simpler as above explained. By the will
of God. That is, the will of God was the cause of their giving themselves to the Lord, &c. It is (SLa 3EXkEtaros, not KaTa
&Xytrca) by, not according to, the will of God.
6. Insomuch that we desired Titus, that as he had
begun, so he would also finish in you the same grace
also.
Insomuch (aEIs r 7rapaKaX.) so that we were induced to exhort Titus. Paul, 1 Cor. 16, 1, had urged the Corinthians to
make collections for the poor saints. Titus visited Corinth
after that letter was written and made a beginning in this
work. When Paul came to Macedonia and found how liberally
the churches there had contributed, he urged Titus to return
to Corinth and complete what he had so successfully begun.
The exhortation therefore addressed to Titus, of which the
apostle here speaks, was not the exhortation given him before
the visit from which he had just returned, but that which he
gave him in reference to a renewed visit yet to be made.
Instead therefore of the rendering, I desired Titus, it would
would be plainer to translate, I have desired him.  That (ova,
not in order that, according to the usual force of the particle,
but that, as expressing the contents of the request), as he had
begun, (7rpoEvpStaTo, a word which occurs nowhere but in this
chapter,) had begunz before. This may mean,'had already
begun,' i. e. begun before the time of Paul's writing; or, had
begun before the Macedonians made their collections. The
latter is the more probable meaning, since, as appears from
v. 10, the Corinthians had commenced this work before the
Macedonian churches had moved in the business. So he
would also finish, i. e. either in the sense of bringing a given
work to an end, Heb. 9, 6, or of perfecting an inward grace,
7, 1. In you, Eis Vt~ags, in relation to, or, for you. Matt. 10, 10,
This grace also; XapLv may here mean either good work, or,
grace, in the ordinary sense of the word. The connection
with the following verse is in favour of understanding it in
the latter sense. It was a disposition of the mind that Titus
was exhorted to bring into full exercise among the Corinthi



198         II. CORINTHIANS  8, 7.
ans. The grace spoken of was something which belongs to
the same category with faith, knowledge, and love.
7. Therefore, as ye abound in every (thing, in)
faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and (in) all diligence, and (in) your love to us, (see) that ye abound in
this grace also.
From this verse onward to v. 16 the apostle urges on the
Corinthians the duty of liberality. 1. Because it was necessary to the completeness and harmony of their Christian character; 2. Because it would be a proof of their sincerity; 3. Because Christ had become poor for their sake; 4. Because it
would redound to their own advantage, inasmuch as consistency required that having manifested the disposition, they
should carry it out in action; and 5. Because what was
required of them was perfectly reasonable. They were asked
to give only according to their means; and what they were
called upon to do for others, others under like circumstances
would be required to do for them. Therefore is not a proper
translation of aXXa (but). The word is often used to mark a
transition to a new subject, and specially where what follows
is an exhortation or command. Mlark 16, 7. Acts 9, 6. 10, 20.
As ye abound, i. e. have in abundance, or, have more than
others, i. e. excel. In every thing, (Ev rravr',) limited of course
by the context, and explained by what follows,'every gift
and grace.' The same testimony is borne in favour of the
Corinthians, 1 Cor. 1, 5. 7.  That the apostle sometimes
speaks so favourably, and sometimes so unfavourably of the
church in Corinth, is to be accounted for by the fact that
some of the people were very good, probably the majority,
and some, especially among the teachers, very much the reverse. In faith. To abound in faith is to have a strong,
constant, operative faith, sustaining and controlling the whole
inward and outward life. In utterance and knowledge, (X6dyp
Kal yvOEt,) the same combination as in 1 Cor. 1, 5. Here and
there our translators have rendered Xoyos utterance; in both
cases it may mean doctrine, as it does in so many passages,
especially in such cases as "word of truth," "word of salvation," "word of righteousness," "word of Christ."  The
meaning, therefore, is either that they were enriched with the
gifts of utterance and knowledge, or doctrine and knowledge.




II. CORINTHIANS  8, 8.                   199
Aoyos is the Christian truth as preached, yvwats that truth as
apprehended or understood. In diligence, (arrovsr,) earnestness, a general term for the energy or vigour of their spiritual
life, of which their love was one manifestation. In your love
to us. The expression in Greek is peculiar, r.E i''lpv  v q lex,
aya7r, the love which is of you in us, i. e. your love (to us)
which we cherish in our hearts. That is, which we so highly
estimate. Or, simply, amore a vobis profecto et in me collato.
That ye may abound. The tva arEptcrS. is most naturally explained by supplying some word as in our version, ASee that
ye abound. Compare Gal. 2, 10. In this grace also, i. e. the
grace of liberality. Others here as in the preceding verse
make XapLs mean good work. But this is not so consistent
with the context. Faith, knowledge, and love are not good
works so much as divine gifts, and so also is liberality.
8. I speak not by commnandment, but by occasion
of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity
of your love.
The apostle, agreeably to his usual manner, states first
negatively, and then affirmatively, his object in what he had
said. It was not of the nature of a command. It was not
obedience, but spontaneous liberality he desired. The latter
may be excited by the exhibition of appropriate motives, but
it cannot be yielded to authority. Almsgiving in obedience
to a command, or to satisfy conscience, is not an act of liberality. What is not spontaneous is not liberal. Paul, therefore, would not coerce them by a command. His object was
to put the genuineness of their love to the test. The nature
of the test was suggested by the zeal of the Macedonians. So
it was by the occasion of the forwardness of others he was
led to put their love to that trial.  The real test of the
genuineness of any inward affection is not so much the character of the feeling as it reveals itself in our consciousness, as
the course of action to which it leads. Many persons, if they
judged themselves by their feelings, would regard themselves
as truly compassionate; but a judgment founded on their acts
would lead to the opposite conclusion. So many suppose they
really love God because they are conscious of feelings which
they dignify with that name; yet they do not obey him. It
is thereby by the fruits of feeling we must judge of its genuhieness both in ourselves and others.
9*




200         II. CORINTHIANS  8, 9.
9. For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became
poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.
This verse is a parenthesis, the sentence begun in v. 8 being continued in v. 10. Still the connection between this and
the preceding verse is intimate and immediate. There are
two things indicated and intended in this verse. That selfsacrifice is the proper test of love. And second, that the
example of Christ, and the obligation under which we lie to
him, should lead us to do good to others. The apostle evidently combines these two thoughts.'I desire,' he says,'to
put your love to the test of self:sacrifice, for ye know that
Christ's love was thus manifested;' and,' You may well be
expected to sacrifice yourselves for others, since Christ gave
himself for you.) It is not only the example of Christ which
is held up for our imitation; but gratitude to Christ for the
infinite blessings we receive from him is presented as the motive to liberality. lFor ye know. The fact referred to including the highest mystery of the gospel, viz., the incarnation of
the Son of God, or, the manifestation of God in the flesh, and
the love therein manifested, is assumed to be known and
acknowledged by all who called themselves Christians. Ye
know, says Paul, as all Christians must know, the grace, i. e.
the unmerited, spontaneous love of our Lord Jesus Christ.
A combination of the most endearing and exalted appellations. Our Lord, i. e. the supreme and absolute Lord whom
we acknowledge to be our rightful sovereign and possessor,
and who is ours, belongs to us, in so far as the care, protection, and support of his almighty power are by his love
pledged to us. Jesus Christ. He who is our Lord is our
Saviour and the Christ, God's anointed, invested by Him with
supreme dominion. What belongs of right to the Logos in
virtue of his divinity, is constantly represented as given to the
Theanthropos. See Heb. 1, 2. That though, &c. This clause
is explanatory of the former.'Ye know the grace of our
Lord Jdsus,' that is,'Ye know that though he was rich, &c.'
The grace consisted in, or was manifested by his becoming
poor for our sakes. Being rich, 7rXovz'too Tiv, that is, either,
as in our version, Though he was rich, in the possession of the
glory which he had with the Father befbre the world was,
John 17, 5; or, Being rich in the actual and constant possession of all divine p)rerogatives. In the latter case, the idea is




II. CORINTHIANS  8, 10.                  201
that our blessed Lord while here on earth, although he had
within himself the fulness of the Godhead and the right and
power of possession over all things, yet was poor. He did
not avail himself of his right and power to make himself rich,
but vollmtarily submitted to all the privations of poverty.
The former interpretation is commonly and properly preferred.
The reference in E7rrTXEV0Ec, he became poor, is not to what our
Lord did while he was on earth, but to what he did when he
came into the world. The passage is parallel to Phil. 2, 6.
"Being in the form of God, and equal to God, he emptied
(EKEvW-E) himself."  That is, he so far laid aside the glory of
his divine majesty, that he was to all appearance a man, and
even a servant, so that men refused to recognise him as God,
but despised, persecuted, and at last crucified him, as a mait.
He who was rich in the plenitude of all divine attributes and
prerogatives thus became poor, 81 /as, on your account, out
of love to you. The end to be accomplished by this humiliation of the Son of God, was that, you through his poverty
might be rich. Believers are made rich in the possession of
that glory which Christ laid aside, or concealed. They are
made partakers of the divine nature, 2 Pet. 1, 4. That is, of
the divine holiness, exaltation and blessedness. This is divine
not only because of its source as coming from God, but because of its nature. So that our Lord says, " The glory which
thou gavest me, I have given them," John 17, 22. Hence
believers are said to be glorified with Christ and to reign with
him. Roln. 8, 17. The price of this exaltation and everlasting
blessedness of his people was his own poverty. It is by his
poverty that we are made rich. Unless he had submitted to
all the humiliation of his incarnation and death, we should forever have remained poor, destitute of all holiness, happiness
and glory. It should be observed that moral duties, such as
almsgiving, are in the New Testament enforced not so much
onl moral grounds as on grounds peculiarly Christian. No
man can enter into the meaning of this verse or feel its power,
without being thereby made swilling to sacrifice himself for
others. And the apostle teaches here, what St. John also
teaches, 1 John 3, 17, that it is vain for any man to profess or
to imagine that he loves Christ, if he does not love the brethren and is not liberal in relieving their wants.
10. And herein I give (my) advice: for this is ex



202         II. CORINTHIANS  8, 8.
pedient for you, who have begun before, not only to
do, but also to be forward a year ago.
The connection is with v. 8.'I do not command, I, in
this matter, viz., in making collections for the poor, give my
mind;' 7yv4ruv, in the sense of opinion. Comp. 1 Cor. 7, 6.
For this is expedient for you. This admits of two interpretations.'I advise you to make the collection, for this giving to
the poor is profitable to you. It not only promotes your own
moral growth, but it is demanded by consistency. Having
begun this work it would be an injury to yourselves to leave
it unfinished.' This is the common, and on the whole the
preferable explanation. It satisfies all the demands of the
context; and it makes iv rorvT  and TOrTO refer to the same
thing.'In this matter (of giving) I express my opinion, for
this (giving) is profitable to you.' Meyer, Billroth and many
others make To7VT refer to the immediately preceding words.'I give my advice, for advising is better than commanding in
your case, seeing ye were willing a year ago.' This, however,
is not demanded by the context, and lowers the sense. The
former interpretation brings out a higher truth than the
second. It is for our own good to do good. Who, otrTvWE,
(being such as those who.)' It is expedient for you, because
ye began before not only to do (To 7rotorat), but to be forward
(TO 8EXctv) a year ago. As the will precedes the deed, many
commentators assume an inversion in these words, and reverse
their order.'Ye began not only to will, but to do.' This is
arbitrary and unnecessary.  Others, as do our translators,
take the word.cXEav in an emphatic sense, to be zealous in
doing. Luke 20, 46. John 8, 44.'Ye began not only to do,
but to do with zeal.' This, however, does not agree with the
following verse, where 8kELtv is used in its ordinary sense.
Others again understand iroLOuaL of the beginning of the work,
and the'XEwLv of the purpose to do more. But this requires
much to be supplied which is not in the text. Besides it does
not agree with the qualifying clause' a year ago.' According to
this explanation the AXEtLV does not express what had occurred
a year ago, but to the state of mind now assumed to exist and
subsequent to the doing begun the year before. De Wette,
Winer, and Meyer give a much more natural interpretation.
The word rpoev p ao',E, as in v. 6, refers to the Macedonian
churches.'You anticipated the MIacedonians not only in the
work but in the purpose.' That is, before they had begun to




II. CORINTHIANS  8, 11. 12.               203
make a collection for the poor saints, you had begun; and
before they thought of it, you had determined to do it.'Having thus been beforehand with them it would be to your disadvantage to leave your work half done, seeing that the mere
mention of your purpose, 9, 2, roused them to such self-denying liberality.'  A  year ago, (a&ro 7rEpvo-t.) This does not
imply that a whole year had intervened, but is analogous to
our popular expression last year. If Paul, according to the
Jewish reckoning, began the year in October, he could properly speak, when writing in November, of an event which
happened in the spring, as having occurred last year. An interval of little more than six months, according to this view,
from spring to fall, intervened between the date of the first
and second epistles of Paul to the Corinthians.
11. Now therefore perform the doing (of it): that
as (there was) a readiness to will, so (there may be) a
performance also out of that which ye have.
Now therefore, i. e. as there has been the purpose and the
commencement, let there be also the completion of the work.
Literally, complete ye also the doing.  That, (07roW, in order
that,) as the readiness to will, so also the completion. Consistency required them to carry out their good intentions
openly expressed.  Out of that which ye have, (K TOV EXELV, according to (your) property. The preposition (K is not here to
be rendered out of, but it expresses the rule or standard.
Compare John 3, 34. The apostle was not desirous to urge
them either beyond their inclination, or beyond their ability.
What they gave, he wished them to give freely, and with due
regard to their resources.
12. For if there be first a willing mind, (it is) accepted according to that a man hath, (and) not according to that he hath not.
The connection is evidently with the last words of v. 11.
They were to give according to their property, for the standard of judgment with God is the disposition, not the amount
given. The same doctrine is taught by our Lord, Mark 12,
42. If there be first, literally, if there be present; TrpOKEmra
does not mean prius adest, but simply adest.  A  willing




204         II. CORINTHIANS  8, 13.
mind, v irpoS9vtLa, the readiness, or, disposition.  It is; that
is, the rrpoSv'da (the disposition) is accepted, EVrp'O38EKTO~, acceptable. It is often used in reference to offerings made to
God. Rom. 15, 16. 1 Pet. 2, 5. Some of the ancient MSS.
introduce the indefinite pronoun Tnt, as the subject of the
verbs'Xn and E'Xt, so our translators insert man,'according
to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.'
The grammatical subject, however, of all the verbs in the
verse is ~rpofSvt'a, which Paul, according to his custom, personifies, and therefore says, It is acceptable according to that
it may have, (tav eXac,) be it more or less; not according to
that it hath not. This does not mean that the disposition is
not acceptable when it exceeds the ability to give, or leads to
extravagant gifts. This may be true, but it is not the idea
here intended. The meaning is simply that the disposition is
what God regards, and that disposition will be judged of according to the resources at its command. A small gift may
manifest in one case much greater willingness to give, than a
much larger gift in another.
13. For (I mean) not that other men be eased, and
you burdened.
The reason why he did not wish them to exceed their
ability in giving, is here stated negatively. The positive
statement follows in the next verse. The apostle did not
wish to throw an unequal burden upon the Corinthians. He
did not desire that others should be released from all obligation to give, and they oppressed by it. Not to others avELts
(relief), and to you 3Xt+s (oppression), is his concise expression. According to this view, by JXAAoL, others, we are to
understand other churches or Christians; and by avELts, relief
from the obligation to give. But this is consistent neither
with what precedes nor with what follows. The equality
which he aims at, is not the equality of the churches in giving,
but that which arises from the deficiency of one class being
made up by the abundance of another. By others, therefbre,
we must understand the poor, and in this case, the poor saints
at Jerusalem, and by GvEcLs release from  the pressure of
poverty, and by SXILts the burden of indigence. The meaning therefore is, that Paul did not desire that the Corinthians
should go beyond their ability in giving, for he had no wish
that others should be enriched, and they impoverished. It is




II. CORINTHIANS  8, 14.                  205
not obligatory on the rich to make themselves poor in order
that the poor may be rich. That is not the rule.
14. But by an equality, (that) now  at this time
your abundance (may be a supply) for their want, that
their abundance also may be (a supply) for your want:
that there may be equality.
The word aro'Tas means here neither reciprocity nor equity,
but equality, as the illustration in v. 15 shows. The &K, as in
V. 11, (  TO E'XELv,) expresses the rule or standard in giving.
That rule is equality; we must give so as to produce, or that
there may be, equality. This is not agrarianism, nor community of goods. The New Testament teaches on this subject,
1. That all giving is voluntary. A man's property is his own.
It is in his own power to retain or to give away; and if he
gives, it is his- prerogative to decide whether it shall be much
or little. Acts 5, 4. This is the doctrine taught in this whole
connection. Giving must be voluntary. It is the fruit of
love. It is of' course obligatory as a moral duty, and the indisposition to give is proof of the absence of the love of God.
1 John 3, 17. Still it is one of those duties the performance
of which others cannot enforce as a right belonging to them.
It must remain at our own discretion. 2. That the end to be
accomplished by giving is relieving the necessities of the poor.
The equality, therefore, aimed at, or intended, is not all
equality as to the amount of property, but equal relief from
the burden of want. This is taught in the remainder of this
verse.'At the present time,' says the apostle,'let your
abundance be to (TyEvVqTat Ek, extend to, be imparted to, Gal.
3, 14,) their want, in order that their abundance may be to
your want, that there may be equality;' that is, an equal
relief from want or destitution.  3. A third scriptural principle on this subject is, that while all men are brethren, and the
poor as poor, whether Christians or not, are the proper objects
of charity, yet there is a special obligation resting on the
members of Christ to relieve the wants of their fellow-believers. We are to do good to all men, says the apostle, specially to those who are of the household of faith. Gal. 6, 10. All
the directions in this and the following chapter have reference
to the duty of Christians to their fellow-believers. There are
two reasons for this. The one is the common relation of be



206       II. CORINTHIANS  8, 15. 16.
lievers to Christ as members of his body, so that what is done
to them is done to him; and their consequent intimate relation
to each other as being one body in Christ Jesus. The other
is, the assurance that the good done to them is pure good.
There is no apprehension that the alms bestowed will encourage idleness or vice. 3. A fourth rule is designed to prevent
any abuse of the brotherhood of Christians. The poor have
no right to depend on the benefactions of the rich because
they are brethren. This same apostle says, "This we commanded you, that if any man would not work, neither should
he eat," 2 Thess. 3, 10. Thus do the Scriptures avoid, on the
one hand, the injustice and destructive evils of agrarian communism, by recognising the right of property and making all
almsgiving optional; and on the other, the heartless disregard
of the poor by inculcating the universal brotherhood of believers, and the consequent duty of each to contribute of his
abundance to relieve the necessities of the poor. At the same
time they inculcate on the poor the duty of self-support to the
extent of their ability. They are commanded " with quietness
to work, and to eat their own bread." Could these principles
be carried out there would be among Christians neither idleness nor want.
15. As it is written, He that (had gathered) much
had nothing over; and he that (had gathered) little
had no lack.
The moral lesson taught in Exodus 16, 18, is that which
the apostle had just inculcated. There it is recorded that the
people, by the command of God, gathered of the manna an
omer for each person. Those who gathered more retained
only the allotted portion; and those who gathered less had
their portion increased to the given standard. There was as
to the matter of necessary food an equality. If any one attempted to hoard his portion, it spoiled upon his hands. The
lesson therefore taught in Exodus and by Paul is, that, among
the people of God, the superabundance of one should be employed in relieving the necessities of others; and that any attempt to countervail this law will result in shame and loss.
Property is like manna, it will not bear hoarding.
16. But thanks (be) to God, which put. the same
earnest care into the heart of Titus for you.




II. CORINTHIANS  8, 17.                  207
From  this verse to the end of the chapter the apostle
commends to the confidence of the Corinthians Titus and the
two brethren who were to accompany him on his return to
Corinth. The object of Titus's first visit was to ascertain the
state of the church, and specially the effect of Paul's former
epistle. The object of this mission was to bring to an end
the collection for the poor which the Corinthians had so long
under consideration. Titus had as much zeal in this matter
as Paul, and therefore the apostle thanks God whichput into
the heart of Titus; C &SOVTrT E'V,'Thanks to God giving in,
i. e. giving to be in, the heart of Titus.' The same earnest
care for you; TrV aVTr'v r-7rov8i/v, the same zeal, i. e. the same
zeal which I have for you. Titus felt the same interest in the
spiritual welfare of the Corinthians, and the same solicitude
that they should act consistently, that Paul had so warmly
expressed in the foregoing verses. Often, as the occasion of:
fers, it is still well to notice how uniformly the Scriptures take
for granted two great fundamental truths which human philosophy finds it hard to comprehend or to admit. The one is
that God can and does control the inward acts and feelings of
men without interfering either with their liberty or responsibility. The zeal of Titus was the spontaneous effusion of his
own heart and was an index and element of his character.
Yet God put that zeal into his heart. This is not a figure of
speech. It was a simple and serious truth, a ground of solemn
thanksgiving to God. The other great truth is that the believer is dependent on God for the continuance and exercise
of spiritual life. The Holy Spirit does not regenerate the soul
by implanting in it a new principle of life, and then leave that
principle to struggle in its own strength for existence and
growth. On the contrary, the new birth is the beginning of
a constant indwelling of God in the soul, so that both the
continuance and exercise of this new life are due to his presence. Yet so congenial and congruous is this divine influence
that the life of God in us is in the highest sense our own life.
17. For indeed he accepted the exhortation; but
being more forward, of his own accord he went unto
you.
This is the proof of the zeal of Titus. Some commentators
assume that /Lv and 8E are here used instead of o' uo'vov —iXX,'Not only did he listen to our exhortation, but fulfilled it with




208       II. CORINTHIANS 8, 18. 19.
greater zeal as he went forth willingly.' But Meyer gives a
better explanation.'He accepted indeed our exhortation,
i. e. he modestly submitted himself to my direction, but being
too zealous (o7rovaLo'TEpo0) to need an exhortation, he went of
his own accord.' He did not require to be urged to go, although in this, as in other matters, he was willing to do as I
wished. Hfe went unto you. Titus was no doubt the bearer
of this epistle, and was with the apostle when it was written.
He had not yet gone forth. In epistolary style the writer
may use the tense suited to his own position, or to that of his
readers. Paul here, and in the following verses, uses the past
tense, because when his epistle came to hand the events referred to would be past.
18. And we have sent with him the brother, whose
praise (is) in the gospel throughout all the churches.
We have sent. The time is from the stand-point of the
reader, as before.  VWe send with him the brother. As the
name is not given, and as no data are furnished by which to
determine who the brother here mentioned was, it is useless
to conjecture. It was some one subordinate to Titus sent
with him as a companion, some one well known throughout
the churches, and who had especially the confidence of the
Macedonian Christians, v. 19. But these conditions meet in
so many of the persons mentioned in the Acts or Paul's epistles that they lead to no certain conclusion. Whether, therefore, it was Luke, Mark, Trophinmus, or some one else, must be
left undecided. The question is hardly worth the tiouble
which commentators have devoted to it.  This brother's
praise is said to have been in the gospel. He was distinguished by his efforts in that sphere; that is, by his zeal and
labour in promoting the gospel.  Through all the churches.
If this be taken with the limitation of all the churches of.Macedonia, it still is evidence that the brother referred to was
specially entitled to the confidence of the Corinthians.
19. And not (that) only, but who was also chosen
of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which
is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord,
and (declaration of) your ready mind.




II. CORINTHIANS  8, 19.                   209
This brother was entitled to confidence, and might safely
be intrusted with the contributions of the Corinthians, not
only on the ground of his general reputation, but also because
he had been elected for the very purpose of taking charge,
together with Paul, of the money collected for the saints.
Chosen, XEporovqEU's, literally, chosen by the stretching out
the hand, therefore popularly. The word, however, is constantly used for selection or appointment without reference to
the mode. Thus Josephus speaks of the king as having been
v7ro ToZ 3EOV KEXEtLPOTov/oEV0os. Ant. vi. 4. 2. See Wetstein.  Of
the churches, probably by the churches of Macedonia.  To
travel with us, OVVdKr8YTLOs %LV,) i. e. elected our travelling companion. Acts 19, 29.  With this grace. The word XapLt means
either the disposition, or that which is its expression or manifestation, i. e. either kindness or a kindness. Any free gift is
therefore a grace. Here the grace intended is the alms collected for the poor. FWhich is ministered by us, i. e. of which
we are the administrators. Paul had undertaken to administer the benefactions of the Gentile Christians among the
brethren at Jerusalem, and the brother referred to had been
chosen to travel with him and assist him in this service or
ministry.  To the glory of the same Lord, i. e. of our common
Lord. The natural construction of this clause is with the immediately preceding words.'This gift is administered by us
to the glory of the Lord.' The only objection to this is that
it requires the preposition 7rpo's to be taken as expressing different relations in the same sentence.'Administered rrpos
&6~'av.... KaL 7rpoSvpldav gLzv (or, Shiv), i. e. to promote the
glory of the Lord and to prove your readiness.' Meyer and
others therefore refer the clause to XEP0OTO3V-TE&;'chosen that
by his co-operation Christ may be honoured and my (j/iuv)
readiness to labour in the gospel, unincumbered by such cares,
may have free scope.' But this is unnatural, and supposes too
much to be supplied to make out the sense. If the common
text, which reads vpxtv, be retained, the sense is plain as expressed in our version.'The ministration of this gift is for
the manifestation of the glory of Christ and of your readiness
or alacrity (in giving).' The oldest manuscripts as well as
the ancient versions, however, read,/jpv, which almost all the
modern editors adopt. The sense then is, that the gift served
to promote the glory of Christ and to prove the apostle's willingness to serve the poor.




210       II. CORINTHIANS  8, 20-22.
20. Avoiding this, that no man should blame us in
this abundance which is administered by us.
The participle O-TEXXOEVOt depends on the verb o-VvE7rE'/1~IaLEcV
of the verse 18.'We sent the brother with Titus, avoiding
this;' that is, in order to avoid. It was not, however, merely
the appointment of a brother to accompany Titus, but also
the designation of that brother to take part in the distribution
of the alms of the churches that Paul had determined upon in
order to prevent misrepresentation. The reference is therefore to the whole preceding sentence. The word (rrEXXEtv,
literally, to place, means also to set in order, to prepare, a
sense which some adopt here.'Preparing for, taking care
with regard to, this.' The word also means to withdraw, to
contract, and hence to avoid, which best suits this place as
well as 2 Thess. 3, 6, where the word also occurs. Lest any
one should blame us. He was determined not to give any
one the opportunity to call his integrity into question. In.
this abundance which is administered by us; i. e. in the disposition of the large sums of money committed to his charge.
The word A8poriTs means ripeness, fulness, and then abundance;
the nature of which is of course determined by the context.
21. Providing for honest things, not only in the
sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.
This gives the reason for the precaution just mentioned.
It was not enough for the apostle to do right, he recognised
the importance of appearing right. It is a foolish pride which
leads to a disregard of public opinion. We are bound to act
in such a way that not only God, who sees the heart and
knows all things, may approve our conduct, but also so that
men may be constrained to recognise our integrity. It is a
general principle regulating his whole life which the apostle
here announces. IIpovoov'/Evos, providing for in one's own behalf. The apostle says, He took care beforehand that men as
well as God should see that he was honest. Compare Romn
12, 17, and Prov. 3, 4, in the LXX.
22. And we have sent with them our brother,
whom we have oftentimes proved diligent in many




II. CORINTHIANS  8, 23.                  211
things, but now much more diligent, upon the great
confidence which (I have) in you.
Who this second brother was whom Paul sent to accompany Titus and his fellow-traveller, there is no means of determining. The apostle had proved him to be cr7rov&aZov, earnest
or diligent, Ev iroXXotZ 7ro-XXKtL, in many things many times.
But now, i. e. on this occasion, much more diligent or earnest.
His zeal and alacrity was greatly excited by the confidence
which he has in regard to you. He was so assured of success
that he entered on his mission with the greatest earnestness.
This interpretation, which most commentators adopt, and
which in our English Bibles is suggested in the margin, is
more natural than that preferred by Calvin, Beza and others.
They connect the word 7rE7roLEo-Et with rvvErEjua/Ev,plev'We
sent the brother with them;... on account of the confidence
we have in you.' This, however, was not the reason for the
mission; nor does it suit the context to say,'we sent him with
confidence.' The position of the words is in favour of the
explanation first mentioned.
23. Whether (any do inquire) of Titus, (he is) my
partner and fellow-helper concerning you: or our brethren (be inquired of, they are) the messengers of the
churches, (and) the glory of Christ.
This is a recapitulation, or summary commendation. The
language in the original is very concise.  Whether concerning
Titus, i. e. whether I speak of Titus; or, Whether any do inquire concerning Titus; or, without supplying any thing,'As
to Titus.' Hfe is my partner, KOtLVO6S9, my associate, one who
has a part with me in a common ministry. And, specially,
as concerns you my fellow-laborer (crvvEpyo').  Whether our
brethren, (they are) the messengers (a7rro0XkoL) of the churches.
The word apostle is here obviously used in its literal, and not
in its official sense. These men were surely not apostles in
the sense in which Paul was. In like manner, in Phil. 2, 25,
Epaphroditus is called the apostle of the Philippians, because
he was their messenger sent to minister to Paul at Rome.
Both the brethren, therefore, above mentioned, and not only
the one of whom it is said specially that he was chosen by the
churches, were delegated by the people. They are further
said to be the glory of Christ. As Christ alone, says Calvin,




212           II. CORINTHIANS 9.
is the glory of believers, so he is glorified by them. They
reflect his glory. They by their holiness lead men to see the
excellence of Christ whose image they bear.
24. Wherefore shew  ye to them, and before the
churches, the proof of your love, and of our boasting
on your behalf.
In conclusion the apostle exhorts the Corinthians to prove
to these messengers so worthy of their confidence their love,
and the truth of the favourable testimony which he had borne
to their liberality.  Show the proof (r7v EVSE$LV.. Ev8Elt$aoE)
of your love. This may mean,' your love to me;' or,'your
Christian love;' or, as is most natural,'your love to them.'
Give them evidence of your love, i. e. receive them with affectionate confidence; and let them see that my boasting of you
was true. Before the churches; that is, so that the churches,
by whom these brethren were sent, may see the proof of your
love. Instead of the received text, which has the imperative
EvSetaao'e, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer and others, after
the older MSS., read EvSELKvvflevoL.'Exhibiting the evidence
of your love, &c., (do it) in the presence of the churches.'
This whole chapter proves how intimately the early Christians
were bound together, not only from the intercourse here
shown to exist between the several churches, but from the
influence which they exerted over each other, from their
brotherly love and sympathy, and from the responsibility
which each is assumed to owe to the judgment of the others.
CHAPTER IX.
An exhortation to the Corinthians not to falsify his boasting of their-liberality, vs. 1-5. An exhortation to give not only liberally but cheerfully,
vs. 6-15.
Continuation of the discourse in the preceding chapter on
making collections for the saints.
ALTHOUGH aware of their readiness, the apostle sent tile
brethren to bring the collection for the poor to an end, lest
when the Macedonians who were to accompany him to Cor



II. CORINTHIANS  9, 1.                   213
inth arrived, they should find them unprepared, not so much
to their disgrace, as to his mortification, vs. 1-4. -le sent the
brethren, therefore, that every thing they intended to do
might be done in time, and be done cheerfully, v. 5. It was
not only liberality, but cheerfulness in giving that the Lord
required, vs. 6. 7. God who commanded them to give could
and would supply their wants, and increase their graces.
They would be the richer and the better for what they gave,
vs. 8-10. What he had at heart was not so much that the
temporal sufferings of the poor should be relieved, as that God
might be glorified by the gratitude and mutual love of believers, and by the exhibition of their Christian graces, vs. i0-14.
What are our gifts to the poor compared to the gift of Christ
to us? v. 15.
1. For as touching the ministering to the saints, it
is superfluous for me to write to you.
This is not a new paragraph, much less, as some have conjectured, a separate writing. It is intimately connected with
the preceding. In the last verse of chapter 8, he exhorted them
to receive the brethren with confidence, for indeed it is superfluous to write about the collection. He exhorted them to
show their love to the brethren who were to visit them, for
they needed no exhortation to liberality. This is another of
those exhibitions of urbanity and rhetorical skill with which
the epistles of Paul abounds. The E' answering to the  E'v of
this verse is by some said to be found in verse 3.' It is not
necessary indeed to write, but I send, &c.' Or, if the connection between vs. 2 and 3 forbid this, the Re'v may be taken as
standing alone, as in 1 Cor. 5, 3. 11, 18. So De Wette. Concerning the ministering (7rept rq &8LaKovlas.) The word is often
used not only for the ministry of the word, but also for the
service rendered in the collection and distribution of alms.
Acts 6, 1. 12, 25. Rom. 15, 31..To the saints. All believers
are called ayLot in the sense of sacred, i. e. separated from the
world and consecrated to God, and as inwardly renewed and
purified by the Holy Spirit. 8, 4. Acts 9, 13. Rom. 1, 7. 8, 27.
The saints referred to were of course the poor believers in
Jerusalem for whose benefit Paul instituted this collection in
the several churches which he had founded. 1 Cor. 16, 1-3.
It is superfluous for me (repLco-dv [toL sTol) to write (TO ypda'ov,
the infinitive has the article because it is the subject of the




214         II. CORINTHIANS  9, 2.
sentence) unto you. Paul had written and was about to write
still further on the subject; so that this is to be understood as
only a polite intimation that his writing, so far as they were
concerned, was not necessary. They did not need urging.
2. For I know the forwardness of your mind, for
which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia
was ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked
very many.
The reason why it was superfluous to write to them was
that they were disposed to act spontaneously. The apostle
says he knew their forwardness of mind, (lrpo.vuliav,) their
readiness or disposition to give. For which I boast (r6v KavXIlat, see 11, 30 for the same construction) of you (6vr'p 2uv,
for you, to your advantage). Tlteir readiness to give was a
matter of which Paul at that time boasted to the Macedonians
among whom he then was. This does not imply that the
apostle regarded their liberal disposition an honour to himselft
as though it owed its existence to his agency. We are said
to boast of the good qualities of a friend when we proclaim
them to his honour and not our own.  That Achaia was
ready a year ago. This was Paul's boast, All the Christians
in Achaia belonged to the church in Corinth, although they
did not all reside in that city. See 1, 1. Was ready, i. e. to
take part in a collection for the saints. He does not mean
that the collection had already been completed, so that nothing
remained to be done. The context does not justify the disparaging supposition that Paul, to excite the emulation of the
Macedonian Christians, had overstated the fact as to the Corinthians, representing them as having already a year ago made
their collection. ThNe readiness to which he here refers is the
readiness of purpose. They were fully prepared to take part
in the work. Others say the apostle had told the Macedonians that the Corinthians had made their collection and were
ready to hand over the money. Those who have sufficient
respect for themselves not to speak disrespectfully of the
apostle, say that he truly believed this to be the fact, and was
now solicitous that the Corinthians should not falsify his assertion by being unprepared. Others, however, as Riickert, (and
in a measure De Wette,) represent the apostle as dishonestly
telling to the Macedonians that the Corinthians had made




II. CORINTHIANS  9, 3.                  215
their collection, and now to save his credit, he begged the
latter to finish the work before he and his Macedonian friends
arrived. The whole body of Paul's epistles is a refutation of
this interpretation. No man who is capable of receiving the
true impress of his exalted character can suppose him guilty
of false statement or duplicity. What he told the Macedonians was simply that the Corinthians were prepared. What
preparation is meant is plain from the context. It consisted
in their 1rpo-Svua, their alacrity of mind to take part in the
work. A year ago, 8, 10. And your zeal, i. e. your -rpo3vpla,
alacrity, in this business. The words are O E' evupv 6Xos, where
the eK may be considered redundant, as our translators have
assumed it to be; or, it may be omitted from the text, as by
Lachmann; or, the meaning is, the zeal which emanated from
you. This last is to be preferred. Hath provoked. The
word EpeSgttELV means to excite, whether the feeling called into
exercise be good or bad. In Col. 3, 21, fathers are cautioned
not to provoke their children. Here the meaning is that the
zeal of the Corinthians had excited the zeal of others. Very
many, TOs 7rXEtovas;, the majority, the greater number. Acts
19, 32. It was not every individual of the Macedonian Christians, but the majority of them, whom the zeal of the Corilthians had excited.
3. Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting
of you should be in vain in this behalf; that, as I said,
ye may be ready.
If the connection is with v. 1, the 8E here answers to the!Ev there.'There is no need to write, but I send, &c.' The
reference, however, may be to v. 2.'I boasted of your preparation, but lest my boasting be falsified, I send, &c.' The
brethren, viz., Titus and his two companions, who were about
to proceed to Corinth to attend to this matter. Lest our
boasting of you be in vain, KEVMoSj, be proved unfounded,
1 Cor. 9, 15, i. e. shown to be an empty boast. In this behalf.
Paul did not fear that the good account which he had given
of the Corinthians in other matters should be contradicted by
the facts, but only in this one affair of the collection for the
poor.  That, as I said, ye may be ready. This clause is parallel with the preceding.'I sent the brethren that my boasting be not found vain, i. e. I sent them that ye may be ready.'
Io




216         II. CORINTIIIANS 9, 4.
It appears from 8, 10 that the Corinthians had avowed the
purpose to make a collection for the poor at Jerusalem, and
had actually begun the work a year ago. Paul had mentioned
this fact to the Macedonians, telling them that the Corinthians were ready to do their part in this business. He now
sends Titus and the brethren that the work may at once be
completed, and his boasting of them prove to be true. It is
plain that he could not have told the 3Macedonians that the
collection at Corinth had already been made, because he not
only knew that such was not the fact, but he in this very passage refers to the work as yet to be accomplished. IIe could
hardly say,'I told the Macedonians you had made your collection a year ago and had the money all ready to hand over,'
at the very moment he was urging them to collect it. The
simple fact is that he had said the Corinthians were ready to
do their part in this business, and he begged them to do at
once what they intended to do, lest his boasting of their
readiness (7rpo3vuda) should prove to have been unfounded.
There is nothing in this inconsistent with perfect truthfulness
and open-hearted fairness.
4. Lest haply if they of Macedonia conie with me,
and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye)
should be ashamed in this same confident boasting.
Paul was attended from city to city by travelling companions, who conducted him on his way and ministered to
him. 1 Cor. 16, 6. Rom. 15, 24. Acts 17, 14. 15. &c. As he
was now in Macedonia it was in accordance with the usual
custom  that Macedonians should attend him to Corinth.
If they come with me, av,EX3o-Lv, s/hall have come, i. e.'Lest
when they come and find you unprepared, i. e. unprepared to
do what a year ago you professed your readiness to do, we
(that we say not, you) should be ashamed. The failure would
indeed be a cause of shame to the Corinthians, but he delicate.
ly substitutes himself. He appeals to their better feelings
when he calls upon them to save him from mortification, instead of exhorting them to save themselves from disgrace.
In this same confident boasting. The words Trs KaVXTGEOJs are
omitted by almost all the recent editors from Griesbach down.
They are not found in the MISS. B, C, D, F, G, or the ancient
versions. They probably were added by a transcriber from




II. CORINTHIANS  9, 5.                   217
11, 17. These words being omitted, the text stands, &v r-j;-roo1OrEL'ra"rS, in this confidence, i. e. ashamed in relation to this
confidence. Comp. Heb. 3, 14. 11, 1. Others take the word
in the sense of negotium, "in this thing," which is not only
unnecessary, but contrary to usage.
5. Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the
brethren, that they would go before unto you, and
make up beforehand your bounty, whereof ye had notice before, that the same might be ready, as (a matter
of) bounty, aind not as (of) covetousness.
Therefore, i. e. in order to avoid the mortification of his
boasting being proved vain. I thought it necessary to exhort
the brethren, (Titus and his companions,) that they would go
before; (7rapaKaXcratL-Lva,   as in 8, 6, and often elsewhere, tva
is used after verbs signifying to ask, exhort, &c., in the sense
of aot.)  Would go before, i. e. before Paul and his Macedonian companions. And make up beforehand, wpoKarapTo'(ort a
word not found in the Greek writers, and occurring in the
New Testament only in this passage. The simple verb means,
to put fully in order, to complete. This the brethren were to
do in reference to the collection, before Paul's arrival. Your
bounty, TrIv EXooyl'av {vp v, your blessing. The word is used
in the sense both of benediction and benefaction. The latter
is clearly its meaning here, as perhaps also in Rom. 15, 29;
see also Eph. 1, 3, and in the LXX. Gen. 33, 11. Judges 1, 15.
1 Sam. 25, 27, &c. So in English, a blessing is either a prayer
for good, or the good itself.  WVhereof ye had notice before.
Here the reading is doubtful. The common text has 7rpoKarr)yYyEkXiEVrqv, announced beforehand.  iNot, however, as our
translation has it, announced to you, but to others. The
benefaction before spoken of, i. e. of which so much has been
said. Almost all the critical editions read 7rpoE7rly/yeX/XE'VV,
promised beforehand,'your promised benefaction.' And this
gives a better sense, as the apostle was urging them to do
what they had promised.  That the same might be ready as a
matter of bounty; ovrwTo Uc  EXoylav, so as a blessing, i. e. as
something worthy of the name. This may mean,' worthy of
the name because the fruit of love;' or, because given freely;
or, because rich, abundant. This last is to be preferred because of the antithesis between EvXoy7a and wXEovYeta, because




218          II. CORINTHIANS 9, 6.
of the explanation in v. 6, and because cheerfulness in giving
is afterwards enforced. And not as of covetousness; literally,
not as covetousness, i. e. not such a gift as betrays the avarice
of the giver.
6. But this (I say), He which soweth sparingly,
shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully, shall reap also bountifully.
The words rovro 8E, but this, are commonly and most naturally explained by supplying some such words as I say, or,
consider. Others take them as the accusative absolute;'as
to this, however.' Meyer unnaturally makes rovro the object
of -7retp(ov,'He who sows this sparingly, &c.' That is, in other cases it may be different, but in this spiritual sowing, in
this seed of good deeds, the rule always holds good. Our
version gives a simple and suitable sense. The only question
of doubt in the verse is the meaning of the words &r' E3XoytaLt,
which our translators have rendered adverbially, bountifully.'He that sows bountifully, shall reap also bountifully.' This
undoubtedly is the meaning as determined by the antithesis,'He that sows 4bEtoOeoVWS  sparingly, and he that sows E' EVXOyt~aL bountifully.' But the question is how to get that sense
out of the words, which literally mean with blessings.'He
that sows with blessings, shall reap with blessings.' The force
of the preposition  rgL with the dative in this place may be explained after the analogy of such passages as Rom. 4, 18.
1 Cor. 9, 10; &rr XkrTXL, with hope, as expressing the condition
under which any thing is done; or after the analogy of such
places as Rom. 5, 14, lrrl TrW 6OLOLWLaLt, after the similitude, as
expressing the rule according to which it is done. In either
case the preposition and noun may express an adverbial qualification. In this case therefore, Er' EvXoyL'av, ad normam beneficiorum, as Wahl translates it, may, as the context requires,
mean kindly, freely, or bountifully. Here, as just stated, the
antithesis with /ELt8&Ovw requires the last, viz., bountifully;
The sentiment here expressed is the same as in Prov. 11, 24,
" There is that scattereth and yet increaseth; and there is that
withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty."
It is comprehended also in the wider truth taught in Gal. 6, 7.
Our Lord teaches the same doctrine, Luke 6, 38, "' Give and it
shall be given unto you, &c."  Matt. 10, 41, and often else



II. CORINTHIANS  9, 7.                  219
where. It is edifying to notice the difference between the
divine wisdom and the wisdom of men. As the proper motive
to acts of benevolence is a desire for the happiness of others
and a regard to the will of God, human wisdom says it is
wrong to. appeal to any selfish motive. The wisdom of God,
while teaching the entire abnegation of self, and requiring a
man even to hate his own life when in conflict with the glory
of God, tells all who thus deny themselves that they thereby
most effectually promote their own interests. He that loses
his life shall save it. He that does not seek his own, shall best
secure his own. He that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
There can, however, be no hypocrisy in this matter. It is not
the man who pretends to deny himself, to humble himself, or
to seek the good of others rather than his own, while he acts
from a regard to self, who is to be thus rewarded. It is only
those who sincerely postpone themselves to others, who shall
be preferred before them.  WVe may thence learn that it is
right to present to men the divinely ordained consequences of
their actions as motives to control their conduct. It is right
to tell men that obedience to God, devotion to his glory and
the good of others, will effectually promote their own welfare.
7. Every man according as he purposeth in his
heart, (so let him give;) not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
Though he wished them to give bountifully, he desired
them to do it freely. Let each one give as he purposes in his
heart, i. e. as he cordially, or with the consent of the heart,
determines. This stands opposed to what follows, and, therefbre, is explained by it. NVot grudgingly, EK XVrrn,, not out of
sorrow; i. e. let not the gift proceed out of a reluctant state
of mind, grieving after what is given as so much lost. Or of
necessity, i. e. constrained by circumstances to give, when you
prefer not to do it. Many gifts are thus given sorrowfully,
where the giver is induced to give by a regard to public
opinion, or by stress of conscience. This reluctance spoils the
gift. It loses all its fragrance when the incense of a free and
joyful spirit is wanting. For God loveth a cheerful giver;
tXapov 0rwTv, a joyful giver, one to whom giving is a delight,
who does it with hilarity. The passage is quoted from Prov.
22, 9, where the Hebrew  means, "A  good eye shall be




220          II. CORINTHIANS  9, 8.
blessed."  The LXX. renders the words quoad sensum, avSplu
tXapov Kai SOrT'v EvXOyE~ i.%o's; a version which Paul adopts for
substance. God blesses, loves, delights in, the joyous giver.
Let not, therefore, those who give reluctantly, or from stress
of circumstances, or to secure merit, imagine that mere giving
is acceptable to God. Unless we feel it is an honour and a
joy to give, God does not accept the offering.
S. And God (is) able to make all grace abound
toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in
all (things), may abound to every good work.
From this verse to the 11th, the apostle assures them that
the liberal and cheerful giver will always have something to
give.  God is able. The sacred writers often appeal to the
power of God as a ground of confidence to his people.  rom.
16, 25. Eph. 3, 20. Jude 24.  This is done especially when
we are called upon to believe something which is contrary to
the natural course of things. Giving is, to the natural eye,
the way to lessen our store, not to increase it. The Bible
says it is the way to increase it. To believe this it is only
necessary to believe in the power, providence, and promise
of' God. God is able to make the paradox, "he that scattereth, increaseth," prove true.  God is able to make all grace
abound; Xaptv, favour, gift, whether temporal or spiritual, or
both, depends on the context. Here the reference is clearly
to earthly good; that kind of good or favour is intended
which enables those who receive it to give abundantly. The
idea, therefore, obviously is,'God is able to increase your
wealth.'  That ye, having all sufficiency in all things. The
expression here is striking, iv 7ravTr 7TrCVTore 7racraV, in all things,
always, all. God is able so to enrich you that you shall have
in every respect, at all times, all kinds of sufficiency. The
word is a'cTLpKctav, which everywhere else means contentment.
This sense Grotius, Meyer and others retain here.' That having full contentment,' i. e. being fully satisfied and not craving
more, you may, &c. This, however, is not so well suited to
the context, and especially to the qualifying words, Ev bravT.
It is'a competency in every thing' of which the apostle
speaks.  That ye may abound, ZrEptL —cE&VTE, may have abundcance. Phil. 4, 18. The word is used transitively in the first
clause of the verse and intransitivelv in the last.'God is able




II. CORINTHIANS  9, 9.                   221
to cause your riches to abound, that ye may have abundance
to every good workc;';E 7rarv pyov Jyyao'v, in reference to, sc
as to be able to perform every good work. The logical connection is not with the intermediate participial clause,'that
having sufficiency, ye may have abundance'  but with the first
clause,'God is able to cause your resources to abound, that
ye may have abundance.'  The participial clause expresses
simply what, notwithstanding their liberality, would be the
result. Having (i. e. still having) a competency for yourselves,
ye will have abundance for every good work. There is another interpretation of this passage which the English version
naturally suggests.'That ye may abound in every good
work.' But this the Greek will not admit; because it is cib
Rav, K.T.X., and not Ev 7raVTL, K.T.X. See 1 Cot'. 15, 58. Besides,
the other interpretation is better suited to the context.
9. As it is written, Ile hath dispersed abroad; he
hath given to the poor: his righteousness relnaineth
forever.
The connection is with the last clause of the preceding
verse. Paul had said that he who gives shall have abundance
to give. This is precisely what is said in Psalm 112. Of the
man who fears God it is there said, "Wealth and riches shall
be in his house."  "He showeth favour, and lendeth."  "He
hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor; his righteousness
endureth forever."  The main idea the apostle designs to present as having the sanction of the word of God is, that he who
is liberal, who disperses, scatters abroad his gifts with fieehanded generosity, as a man scatters seed, shall always have
abundance. And this the Psalmist expressly asserts. It may
be said that this is not in accordance with experience. We
do not always see liberality attended by riches. This is a
difficulty not peculiar to this case. The Bible is full of declarations concerning the blessedness of the righteous, and of the
providential favours which attend their lot. This Psalm says,
"Wealth and riches," or, as the LXX. and Vulgate have it,
"Glory and riches shall be in their house;" and our Lord
says, that those who forsake all for him shall in this life receive an hundred-fold, houses, lands, &c. Mark 10, 30. These
passages were not designed to be taken literally or applied
universally. They teach three things.  1st. The tendency of
things. It is the tendency of righteousness to produce bless



222         II. CORINTHIANS  9, 10.
edness, as it is the tendency of evil to produce misery. 2d
The general course of divine providence. God in his providence does as a general rule prosper the diligent and bless
the righteous. Honesty is the best policy, is a maxim even
of worldly wisdom. 3d. Even in this life righteousness produces a hundred-fold more good than unrighteousness does.
A righteous man is a hundred-fold more happy than a wicked
man, other things being equal. A good man is a hundred-fold
more happy in sickness, in poverty, in bereavement, than a
wicked man in the same circumstances. It is, therefore, according to Scripture, a general law, that he that scattereth,
increaseth; he that gives shall have wherewith to give.
Hits righteousness (i. e. the righteousness of' the man who
gives to the poor) enchdreth, forever. The word &LKaLoOrvv7,
righteousness, in Scripture, is often used in a comprehensive
sense, including all moral excellence; and often in a restricted
sense for rectitude or justice. When used in the comprehensive sense, it depends on the context what particular folrm of
goodness is intended. To return a poor man's pledge is an
act of 8LKatoa-v-, Deut. 24, 13; so is giving alms, Matt. 6, 1
(where the true reading is 8LKaLto0r(Vv, and not EXEOo-V'-vr/r).
In like manner the " glory of God " may mean the sum of his.
divine perfections, or his wisdom, power, or mercy, as special
forms of his glory, as the context requires. In this passage it
is plain that righteousness means general excellence or virtue,
as manifested in beneficence. And when it is said that his
beneficence shall continue forever, the implication is that he
shall always have wherewith to be beneficent. And this is
here the main idea. IHe shall always be prosperous; or, as it
is expressed at the close of v. 8, he shall have abundance for
every good work. Forever is equivalent to always, as Est rov
allva is often used for indefinite duration.  Whether the
duration be absolutely without limit, or whether the limit be
unknown or undetermined, depends in each case on the nature
of the thing spoken of, and on the analogy of Scripture.
10. Now, he that ministereth seed to the sower,
both minister bread for (your) food, and multiply your
seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness.
Nrow; e is continuative. God is able to give you abuand



II. CORINTHIANS  9, 10.                    223
ance, and he will do it. This verse is a declaration, and not a
wish. Our translation, which makes it a prayer, is founded
on the Elzevir, or common text, which reads Xop(y7at, rrX-/v%vaL, avocrat in the optative, instead of the futures Xopqy-rpEt,
-rX9qvvJE, av$erEl, which are supported by a great preponderance of authorities, and are adopted by Griesbach, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, and by the great majority of editors. The sense
expressed by the future forms is also better suited to the context. Paul's desire was to produce the conviction in the
minds of the Corinthians, which he himself so strongly felt,
that no man is the poorer for being liberal. The ground of
this conviction was twofold; the explicit promise of God, and
his character and general mode of dealing with men. He that
ministereth seed to the sower; o 7rtLXopvy'?v, he whose prerogative and wont it is to supply seed to the sower. Such being
the character and, so to speak, the office of God, Paul was
sure he would supply the necessities of his giving people.
The words Kat apTov ES 3p wl&tv our translators, after Calvin and
others, connect with the following clause, and render Kat both.
"Shall both minister bread for fobod, and multiply, &c." The
obviously natural construction is with the preceding clause,'He that ministereth seed to the sower, and bread fbr eating.'
(The word is Spo-tLs, eating, and not /3pne~a,food.) This connection is also in accordance with the passage in Is. 55, 10, which
was evidently in the apostle's mind, and where the words are,
" Seed to the sower, and bread to the eater." This bountiful
God wid give and increase your seed. Your seed means your
resources, your wealth, that which you canll scatter abroad in
acts of beneficence, as a sower scatters seed. He who furnishes the husbandman seed for his harvest, will abundantly
supply you with seed for your harvest. And increase the
fruits of your righteousness. This is parallel with the preceding clause, and means the same thing.' The fruits of your
righteousness,' are not the rewards of your righteousness,
either here or hereafter. But' your works of righteousness,'
i. e. of beneficence; the word &KatLoav'vy having the same sense
here as in the preceding clause. As in v. 9, the words "his
righteousness remaineth forever " mean that the righteous
shall always have the means of being beneficent; so here to
increase "the fruits of your righteousness," means,'will increase your means of doing good.' This sense the context
demands, and the words, in their scriptural sense, readily admit. The other interplrctation, however, according to which
10*




224       II. CORINTHIANS  9, 11. 12.
" the fruits of your righteousness " mean the reward of your
righteousness, amounts substantially to the same thing; for
the reward of beneficence is, according to the context, the increase of the means wherewith to be beneficent.
11. Being enriched in every thing to all bountifulness, which causeth through us thanksgiving to God.
In our version vs. 9 and 10 are regarded as a parenthesis,
and this verse is connected with v. 8. "That ye may have
abundance for every good work-being enriched, &c." But
this is unnecessary and forbidden by the regular connection
of vs. 9 and 10 with v. 8. Others supply the substantive verb
"ye shall be enriched."  Almost all the modern commentators assume the irregular construction of the participle of
which so many examples occur both in the New Testament
and in the classics. See Eph. 4, 2. 3, 17. Col. 2, 2. 3, 16.
Acts 15, 22, &c. The connection is therefore with what immediately precedes.'God will increase the fruits of your
righteousness, (i. e. your resources,) being enriched, i. e. so
that you shall be enriched, &c.' The reference is not to inward or spiritual riches, but, as the whole context demands,
to worldly riches.'If you are liberal, God will give you
abundance, so that you shall be rich to all bountifulness, dEi
7rarav aTrXdTnTa. The preposition (Ets) expresses the design or
end for which they shall be enriched. Bountifulness or liberality; the word is a&rXoTrsq, which means sincerity, rightmindedness. Another example of a general term used in a specific
sense. See 8, 2. Rom. 15, 12. Which causes through us, i. e.
by our ministry. Paul had been instrumental in exciting the
liberality of the Corinthians and in effecting the contribution
for the poor in Jerusalem, and therefore he could say that the
thanksgiving to God which was thus called forth was through
him. The good effect of the liberality of Christians was not
limited to the relief of the temporal necessities of their brethren; it had the higher effect of promoting gratitude to God.
On this idea the apostle enlarges in the following verses.
12. For the administration of this service not only
supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant also
by many thanksgivings unto God.
Your liberality produces gratitude, fbor (;ort), because, the




II. CORINTHIANS  9, 13.                    225
administration of this service,  L8taKovta rg XELtrolpytias TavTr?.
This may mean,'The administration by me of this service of
yours, i. e. this benefaction of yours, which is a service rendered to God and his people.' It is a XELTovpyla; properly a
public service, but always in the New Testament (except per.
haps Phil. 2, 30) a religious service such as was rendered by
the priests in the temple, Luke 1, 23. Heb. 8, 6. 9, 21; or by
the Christian ministry, Phil. 2, 17. Comp. Rom. 1, 9. Or, it
nmay mean,' The service which you render by this benefaction.'
The 8LaKoKLa, ministry, or service, consisted ill the XELTovPyta,
the contribution. This suits better with v. 13, where 8taKorova
is used for what the Corinthians did, not for what Paul did.
Not only supplieth. The Greek is somewhat peculiar;'rTt'rpo-ravarrwXpoucra, it is not only fhlly compensatory... but it is
(wEpt-re-evovoa) overflowing; the participles being used as adjectives expressing the quality of the thing spoken of.  The
want of the saints.  Their necessities are not only supplied,
but your service overflows, or is abundantly productive of
good; by means of many thanksgivings to God; rT 3hwE depending on EvXapL-TtLv as in verse 11.
13. While by the experiment of this ministration
they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the
gospel of Christ, and for (your) liberal distribution unto
them, and unto all (men).
There is the same irregularity of grammnatical construction
in this verse as in v. 11; the participle 8oeadOVTeg here referring
to 7woXXv, as there 7rAovwL~o'EvoL to ~v/Iv. The sense is,'Many
thank God, glorifying him (ta reT7p COKELS/%  TVtS &aKO~Valg TCV'TrV)
on the occasion of the evidence offered by this service.' The
preposition 8ta here expresses the occasional, not the instrumental, or rational cause. It is neither through, nor, on account of, but simply by, i. e. occasioned by. The simplest
explanation of 8OKLqU, ill this passage, is proof, or evidence;
and the genitive, 8taKovlaS, is the genitive of apposition. The
service was the proof. The thing proved by the service rendered by the Corinthians to their poor brethren, is what is
mentioned in the sequel, viz., their obedience and their fellowship with the saints.  Meyer makes SOKir/l  mean indoles spectata, the nature, or internal character.  "From the nature of
this service," whereby it proved itself to be genuine, or what




226         II. CORINTHIANS  9, 13.
the Christian spirit demanded. Calvin's explanation is, Speci.
men idoneum probanda3 Corinthiorum caritati, quod erga frfatres procul remotos tam liberales erant; which amounts very
much to what is implied in the first interpretation mentioned.
They glorify God for your professed subjection. The words
are, e rro 71 vrooraa rr  6  okoyL'a pev; on account of obedience
to your confession.'OpoXoyla is always in the New Testament
used for the profession, or confession, of Christianity. 1 Tim.
6,12. Heb. 3,1. 4,14. 10, 23.  Beza, whom our translators
follow, gives the genitive the force of the participle, professed
obedience, i. e. obedience which you profess. Others make it
the genitive of the source, "the obedience which flows from
your confession;" others again make it the genitive of the
object, "obedience to your confession."  This gives the best
sense, and agrees best with the analogous expression, "obedience of Christ," 10, 5.  To the gospel of Christ, Ebl Eovay.
These words, it is said, cannot properly be constructed either
with ~Vro7ra7-  or with  toXkoylas, because neither wroTarouaw nor
ouoXo7yEo is followed by dEI. On this account Meyer connects
the clause in question with 8o0aSovTE%,'they praise God-in
reference to the gospel.' But this is forced, and does not
agree with the following clause; as there, E's vradvas, if connected with 8o0$aovTEs, gives no definite sense.  De Wette
connects dEs Evay. with what precedes,' Your confession-as it
concerns the gospel.' And for your liberal distribution unto
them, and unto all. This is the second ground of praise to
God. The words are &rX6Or1Tt T-.S KOLVWVtaS, the sincerity of
your fellowship. These general terms may, if the context required, be taken in the specific sense, "liberality of your contribution," as is done by our translators; or they may be
understood in their wider and more natural sense.  The
ground on which the saints at Jerusalem would praise God
was the manifestation of the Christian fellowship which the
Corinthians cherished not only for them, but for all believers.
It was the consciousness of the communion of saints-the assurance that believers, however separated, or however distinguished as Jews and Gentiles, bond or free, are one body in
Christ, that called forth their praise to God. And, therefore;
the apostle says it was the (KoLvwvla) fellowship of the Corinthians not only towards them, (the saints in Jerusalem,) but
towards all believers, that was the ground of their praise.
See Phil. 1, 5, for an example of Kcowvota followed by EsL, as it
is in this verse.




II. CORINTHIANS  9, 14.15.                227
14. And by their prayer for you, which long after
you, for the exceeding grace of God in you.
This verse admits of a threefold construction. It may be
connected with v. 12, &ETaEL being parallel with 8aL 7roXXWv EX.'Your liberality is abundant, or overflowing, (7rEpLcrer-ov(ra,)
through many thanksgivings-and by their prayer for you.'
That is, our liberality is productive of abundant good, not
only by calling forth thanksgiving to God, but also by leading
the objects of your kindness to pray for you. This is a full
compensation. The prayers and blessings of the poor are
their benefactions to the rich, descending on them as the dew
on Hermon. Or the connection may be with o80aCovTe9 in v.
13.'They glorify God for your obedience,... and by their
prayer.' But in this case, the natural meaning would be,
(3eaTELa being co-ordinate with  rorTa7y),'They glorify God for
your subjection —and for their prayer.' This does not give a
good sense. Believers do not glorify God for their prayers.
Others, as Meyer, take avrrv E7rtro~o9vrwv together as the
genitive absolute, and KCU, not as and, but also.'You (Corinthians) manifest your fellowship for them-they also with
prayer for you earnestly longing for you.' This gives a pertinent sense. The first mentioned explanation is, however,
generally preferred. For the exceeding grace of God in you.
That is, on account of; (LT 7jV XptV,) the surpassing grace, or
favour of God manifested towards or upon you (ik' 1^~tv); in
that he had rendered them so liberal, and so filled them with
a Christian spir'it.
15. Thanks (be) unto God for his unspeakable
gift.
According to Calvin, and perhaps the majority of commentators, the gift to which Paul refers, is that spoken of in
the context, viz., the grace bestowed on the Corinthians, or
the good effect anticipated from their liberality. Confident
that the Corinthians would be liberal, and that their liberality
would excite the gratitude of their suffering brethren, and
cement the union between the Jewish and Gentile converts,
the apostle breaks forth in this expression of thanksgiving to
God, for bringing about so happy a consummation. But the
language is too strong for this. God's unspeakable gift is his
Son. This, according to the analogy of Scripture, is that one




228            II. CORINTHIANS 10.
great, supreme, all-comprehending gift, which is here intended. This is the more natural, because it is Paul's wont, when
speaking either of the feeble love, or trivial gifts of believers,
one to another, to refer in contrast to the infinite love and
unspeakable gift of God in Christ to us. 8, 9. Eph. 5, 1. It is
his habit also to introduce ejaculations of adoration or thanks.
giving into the midst, or at the close of his teachings or exhortations. Rom. 1, 25. 9, 5. 1 Cor. 15, 17. 1 Tim. 1, 17. The
passage, therefore, ought to stand, as we doubt not the vast
majority of the readers of'the Bible understand it, as an outburst of gratitude to God for the gift of his Son.
CHAPTER X.
Paul deprecates the necessity of asserting his authority and of exercising his
power to punish the disobedient, vs. 1-6. He confronts his opposers
with the assertion of divinely derived power, vs. 9-11. He shows that
he claims authority only over those who were committed to his care,
vs. 12-18.
Paul's assertion of his authority and vindication of his
apostolic prerogatives.
THE remarkable change in the whole tone and style of this
portion of the epistle, fiom the beginning of the 10th chapter
to near the end of the 13th, has attracted the attention of
every careful reader. The contrast between this and the preceding portions of the epistle is so great, that some have concluded that they are separate letters, written at different
times and under different circumstances. There is no external authority for this conjecture, and it is not only unneces.
sary, but inconsistent with the facts of the case. The same
topics are presented, and there is in 12, 18 reference to the
mission of Titus, spoken of in the earlier chapters. It is an
adequate explanation of the change in question, that in chs.
1-9, Paul had in his mind, and was really addressing, the
faithful and obedient portion of the church, whereas he has
here in view the unreasonable and wicked false teachers and
their adherents, who not only made light of his authority, but




II. CORINTHIANS  10, 1.                 229
corrupted the gospel, which he was appointed to propagate
and defend. He therefore naturally assumes a tone of authority and severity. Satisfied of his divine mission, and conscious
of supernatural power, he cautioned them not to rely too much
on his forbearance. He was indeed as a man humble, and, if
they chose, insignificant; but there was slumbering in his arm
an energy which they would do well not to provoke. He had
no desire to exercise in Corinth the authority with which
Christ had invested him for the purpose of bringing down all
opposition. HIe would give them a fair trial, and wait to see
how far they would be obedient, before he punished their disobedience, vs. 1-6. They should not judge by appearance,
or set themselves up on the ground of their fancied advantages, because whatever they had, he had in larger measure,
vs. 7. 8. He had no intention to frighten them by his epistles
-which they said were written in a tone he would not dare
to assume when present —for they would find that, when occasion called for it, he could be as bold when present as when
he was absent, vs. 9-11. They were subject to his apostolic
authority. IIe usurped nothing in exercising the powers of
his office over the churches which he had himself founded.
He did not interfere with the jurisdiction of the other apostles, or undertake the special oversight of churches founded
by others. Macedonia and Achaia were within the sphere of
his operations, and he hoped to preach the gospel far beyond
those limits in regions where it had never been heard, vs.
12-16. His confidence was not self-confidence, but confidence
in God. His self-commendation amounted to nothing, unless
the Lord commended him. Paul constantly felt that in himself he could do nothing, but in the Lord he could do all
things, vs. 17.18.
1. Now I Paul myself beseech you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence (am)
base among you, but being absent am bold toward
you.
He enters without any preamble or circumlocution on his
new subject, and places himself face to face with his unscrupulous opponents. He says, I Paul myself. He usually emlplovs the first person plural when speaking of himself' Here,
and throughout this context, he makes his individuality promi



230         II. CORINTHIANS  10, 1.
nent, in saying I. This is rendered the more emphatic by the
addition of the word myself; anrTs 0y-, Imyself, the man whom
you so despise and calumniate. Comp. Gal. 5, 2. Eph. 3, 1.
Philemon, 19. In this case the expression is so emphatic that
many suppose that Paul here began to write with his own
hand; as though he were so excited, that he seized the pen
from his amanuensis, and says,'I Paul myself now write to
you.' This, however, is unnecessary, and unsustained by any
thing in the context. Beseech youz by the meekness and gentleness of Christ. That is, the meekness and gentleness which
belonged to Christ, and which, therefore, his disciples are
bound to imitate. To beseech by (&a), is to beseech on account of; or out of regard to. The request is enforced by a
reference to the obligation of Christians to be meek and gentle as was their Lord. Matt. 11, 29. Is. 42, 2. In Rom. 12, 1,
we have a similar expression, "I beseech you by the mercies
of God."  See Phil. 2, 1. The words -rpa&Tis and rrtLEfKeLa dif.
fer very much as our words meekness and gentleness do; the
former referring more to the inward virtue, the latter to its
outward expression. As Christians are bound to be meek and
gentle, Paul begged the Corinthians not to force him to be
severe. He describes himself as his opposers described him,
as craven when present, and a braggart when absent. W/ho
in presence am base among you. In presence, Kara 7rpOcOW7rov,
coram, before, towards the face of any one, here opposed to
a7rwv, absent. The word TararotvJ, literally, low; then lowly,
humble. It is commonly used in a good sense. Our Lord
says of himself that he was, TareLtvs T KapSta, lowly in hea~rt,
and his followers are always described as the lowly. But tlie
word also means downcast, as in 7, 6, and thence it sometimes
expresses depression when it is the effect of the want of courage. This is its meaning here. -But being absent am bold
towards you. Bold, in the sense opposite to base, or craven.
This word also (Paplpt'w) is commonly used in a good sense,
5, 6. It is only the context which gives it a different shade
of meaning. Paul was regarded by his enemies as in heart a
coward, and his boldness as merely assumed when there was
no danger to confront. No one (except Wiickert) now believes this. True heroism was never more fully exemplified
than in the life of this apostle, who against numbers, wealth
and power, always was true to his convictions; who encountered all manner of dangers and sufferings in the service of
Christ, and whose whole conduct showed that he was ready




'II. CORINTHIANS  10, 2.                 231
not only to be bound, but to die for the name of the Lord
Jesus. Acts 21, 13.
2. But I beseech (you), that I may not be bold
when I am  present with that confidence, wherewith I
think to be bold against some, which think of us as if
we walked according to the flesh.
The particle (u8), but, serves to resume the exhortation in
the first clause of v. 1. There it is (7rapaKaX&o luas) I exhort
you, here it is (oE'oat) I beseech. This shows that' /s and
not,SEOV is to be supplied as the object of the verb. The
sense is,'I beseech you,' not,'I pray God.' What Paul beseeches of them is, that they would not force him to have
recourse to severity. This he expresses by saying, 7T E17 wrap(iv
Saocruat, that I may not be bold when present. The article
(ro) serves to render the object of the verb more prominent;
and 7rapow is in the nominative because the subject of both
verbs is the same. To be bold, i. e. to act with decision and
courage; to exhibit the character which the opponents of the
apostle said he assumed only when absent. With the confidence, i. e. with the conviction of his right to exercise the authority which he claimed, and with the consciousness of power
to carry his decisions into effect. VWherewith I think; Xoy[Zo/uat, which means to reckon, to reason, and then, as here, to
purpose. Paul had determined in his own mind that if persuasion failed to bring his opponents to a right state of mind,
he would resort to that pnwer with which God had armed
him to put down all opposition. The Vulgate gives the word
XoytgoEuat a passive sense, qua existimor,'which I am thought,
or supposed to assume.' So Luther, "die man mir zalmisset,"
which men ascribe to me. Bengel and many other commlentators adopt the same interpretation. This has the advantage
of giving Xoy40oi/at and the following participle XoyL/otLEvoOv
tlhe same sense. But it is objected to this interpretation that
it would require a7rov to be used.' The confidence wherewith
I am thought when absent to assume.' The common interpretation, therefore, is to be preferred.  To be bold. The word
is here not  4appfcaut as before, but ToX!rraL, to dare; to act
without fear and without regard to consequences. Paul had
determined, if forced to it, to set his opponents at de-filanee
and to act with utter disregard of all they could say or do.




232         II. CORINTHIANS  10, 3.
The persons against whom he had determined to exercise this
severity, were those who think of uts, he says, as if we walked
according to the flesh. The word flesh sometimes means the
body, sometimes it expresses the secondary idea of weakness,
sometimes, and most fiequently in Paul's epistles, our corrupt
nature. Beza gives it here the second of these meanings.
He understands Paul as describing his opponents as those who
regarded him as weak and cowardly, or, as invested with
nothingT more than human powers (non alio prtesidio freti,
quam quod proe nobis ferimus), so that, as Bengel says, "they
may despise us with impunity." But this is not only inconsistent with the scriptural use of the word "to walk," which,
in its figurative sense, refers to moral deportment, but also
with the familiar use of the phrase (Ka-& cra-apKa), after theflesh.
See the next verse, and Rom. 8, 1. 4. 5. 13. The persons refeirred to were those who regarded the apostle not only as an
ordinary man, but as acting under the control of his corrupt
nature, governed by selfish or malicious feelings, and relying
on himself.
3. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war
after the flesh.
There is here, so to speak, a play on the word flesh, which
is used in somewhat different senses. Paul did indeed walk
in the flesh, he was a man, and a mere man, not only invested
with a body, but subject to all the infirmities of human nature;
but he did not war after the flesh. What was human and
worldly neither determined his conduct, nor was the ground
of his confidence. The phrase to be in the flesh has various meanings according to the connection in which it is used.
In 1 Tim. 3, 16, it is said, " God was manifested in the flesh,"
i. e. in human nature. In Rom. 8, 8. 9, to be "in the flesb,"
means to be in an unrenewed state. In Phil. 1, 22. 24, "to
live," or, "to abide in the flesh," means to live, or abide, in
the body. Here the phrase has substantially, the same meaning, but with the accessory idea of weakness and exposure to
temptation.'Though he was a man, and therefore compassed
with the infirmities incident to humanity, yet, &c.' "Hic,"
says Calvin, " Ambulare in carne significat in mundo versari:
quod alibi dicit, habitare in corpore (supra 5, 6). Erat enimn
inclusus in corporis sui ergastulo: sed hoc non impediebat




II. CORINTHIANS 10, 4.                    233
quominus Spiritus sancti virtus mirifice se exsereret in ejus
infirmitate."
Instead of the general expression " to walk," Paul uses, in
the second clause, the more specific term, "to war."  We war
ot t; o0 aoTpaToEVoEL3a. 1TpaTev'0 means, to go to war, to make
a campaign; GTpaT-Evotat means, to serve as a soldier, to fight.
The war here referred to, is that which the apostle waged
against error and every thing opposed to the gospel. This
war, he says, he did not conduct (Kara& oapKca) after the flesh;
that is, governed by the flesh, or relying on it. He was not
guided by the principles of ordinary men, who act under the
influence of their corrupt nature; neither did he depend for
success on any thing the flesh (i. e. human nature) could afford.
He was governed by the Spirit and relied upon the Spirit.
" What Paul says of himself, is true of all the faithful ministers
of Christ. They bear about an incomparable treasure in
earthen vessels.  Therefore, although they are compassed
with infirmities, nevertheless the spiritual power of God is
resplendent in them."-CALvIN.  The connection of this
verse, as indicated by the particle yap (for), is either with
the middle clause of the preceding verse,'I am determined
to be bold towards the opponents of the truth, for though I
walk in the flesh, I do not war after the flesh;' or, as is often
the case in Paul's epistles, the 7yap refers to a thought omitted.'Some think that I walk after the flesh-that is not true-for
though I walk in the flesh, I do not war after it.' The latter
seems the more natural and forcible.
4. (For the weapons of our warfare (are) not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of
strong holds).
This proves that the main idea intended by warring after
the flesh, is warring with human weapons, relying on human
resources. In the war in which Paul was engaged, his confi.
dence was not in himself, not in. human reason, not in the
power of argument or eloquence, not in the resources of cunning or management, but simply and only in the supernatural
power of God.'We war not after the flesh, for our weapons
are not carnal.' That is, such as the flesh, or human nature,
furnishes, and which therefore in their own nature are carnal,
or human.  By weapons is, of course, to be understood all the




234         II. CORINTHIANS  10, 5.
means which the apostle employed in the defence and propa.
gation of the truth.  Those means, he says, were mighty
through God. The words are &vva-ra T(5 ~Q), which are variously explained. Some, as Beza, Grotius and others, give the
dative the force of the ablative-mighty by God —affatu _Det,
as Erasmus expresses it. Others regard the expression as a
Hebraic superlative. Others say the meaning is, mighty for
God, i. e. for his use, weapons which are powerful in his hand.
The common explanation is,' mighty to God,' i. e. such means
as even God himself regards as mighty; mighty in his estimation.  Of Nineveh it is said it was, -r6Xots/ fEqaAX   6 #Eb, a city
great to God, a version which strictly answers to the Hebrew.
Reference is also made to Acts 7, 20, where Moses is said to
have been JacTEos o SE3, beautiful to God, i. e. in his sight;
and 2 Peter 3, 14. These weapons were divinely powerful to
the pulling down of strong holds, 7rp0s KaatlpEo-tv  Xvp cx'v.
The last word is most appropriately rendered strong holds, as
it is from 3Xvpo's (fiom E'X(o), haltbar, what may be held, what
is secure from assault. The opposers of the gospel felt that
they were so entrenched, so protected by the fortresses which
they occupied, that they despised the ministers of Christ and
derided their efforts. What these strong-holds were the
apostle tells us in what follows.  This verse is properly
marked as a parenthesis, not only in our version, but in almost all the critical editions of the Greek Testament, because
the grammatical construction of v. 5 connects it immediately
with v. 3.
5. Casting down imaginations, and every high thing
that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and
bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience
of Christ.
As just intimated, the participle  Ka3atporvT-Es  (pulling
down) depends on the verb o-TpaTEiVopaE3  at the end of v. 3.' We war-pulling down, &c.' According to this view v. 3 is
parenthetical. Riickert, De Wette and others, however, on
the ground that v. 4 contains the main idea, which is carried
out in v. 8, prefer considering the construction of the passago
as irregular, the participle being used here as in 9, 11. 13.
They therefore connect this verse with what immediately precedes.'Our weapons are mighty-in that we pull down, &c.'




II. CORINTHIANS  10, 5.                 235
What the apostle was thus confident he could cast down were
irnmaginations (XoytLo-ov;s), thoughts, i. e. the opinions, or convictions of those who set themselves and the deductions of
their own reason against the truth of God. Compare 1 Cor.
1, 17-31, and Rom. 1, 21-23. And every high thing (vqo/pa),
every tower, or fortress; the same as 3Xvpo/La in v. 4. Not
persons, but thoughts, are intended by this figure. It is every
thing which the pride of human reason exalts against the
knowledge of God; i. e. that revelation of himself which God
has made in the gospel. I Cor. 3, 18-20. The conflict to
which the apostle here refers is that between truth and error,
between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of the world.
When the gospel was first proclaimed it found itself in conflict
with all the forms of religion and philosophy then prevailing
among men. To the wise of this world the gospel appeared
as foolishness. It was, however, the wisdom and power of
God. The conflict then begun has continued ever since, and
is now as deadly as at any former period. Men of science
and philosophers are as confident in their conclusions, and as
much disposed to exalt themselves, or their opinions against
the knowledge of God as ever. There is no doubt as to the
issue of this contest. It is a contest between God and man,
in which, of course, God must prevail. The instructive lesson
which the apostle designs here to inculcate is, that this warfare must not be conducted on the part of the advocates of
the gospel, with carnal weapons. They must not rely upon
their own resources and attempt to overcome their enemies
by argument. They must not become philosophers and turn
the gospel into a philosophy. This would be to make it a human conflict on both sides. It would be human reason against
human reason, the intellect of one man against the intellect of
another man. Paul told the Corinthians in his former epistle,
that he did not appear among them as a philosopher, but as a
witness; he came not with the words of man's wisdom; he
did not rely for success on his powers of argument or of persuasion, but on the demonstration of' the Spirit. The faith,
which he laboured to secure, was not to be founded on the
wisdom of men, but on the power of God; not on arguments
addressed to the understanding, but on the testimony of God.
That testimony has the same effect which intuition has. It
reveals the truth to the mind and conscience as self-evident;
and therefore it cannot be resisted. A rationalistic Christian,
a philosophizing theologian, therefore, lays aside the divine




236         II. CORINTHIANS  10, 6.
for the human, the wisdom of God for the wisdom of men,
the infinite and infallible for the finite and fallible. The success of the gospel depends on its being presented, not as the
word of man, but as the word of God; not as something to
be proved, but as something to be believed. It was on this
principle Paul acted, and hence he was in no degree intimidated by the number, the authority, the ability, or the learning of his opponents. He was confident that he could cast
down all their proud imaginations, because he relied not on
himself but on God whose messenger he was.
And bringing into captivity every thought, 7rrv vo'-ia.
This word means either thought, or the mind, that which
thinks. 3, 14. 4, 4. Phil. 4, 7. Hence it may be translated
thought, as it is in our version; or as in the Vulgate, " omnem
intellectum," every understandigng, and by Luther, "alle Vernunft." Although the modern commentators make an outcry
against this latter translation, it really differs little from the
former. It does not matter much whether we say that human
reason must be subjected, or that all the products of human
reason (every thought) must be subjected. It amounts to the
same thing. Both forms of statement are equally true. It is
the indispensable condition of salvation that our understanding should be brought into captivity, led submissive, as though
bound, into the obedience of Christ, ELt rT7v V7raKoC'v Tro XptLrTrov.
Agireeably to the figure ill the context, the obedience of Christ
is conceived of as a place, or fortress, into which the captive
is led. The sense is the same as the dative, 7 v7raKo) Troy XpLroTog, would have expressed. We must renounce dependence
on our own understanding and submit implicitly, as obedient
children, to the teaching of Christ. He who would be wise,
must become a fool. 1 Cor. 3, 18.
6. And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled,
And having in a readiness;, v EToL~t EXOVTE, holding ourselves ready, i. e. being ready. He had the ability and the
determination to do what he declares he would do. Compare 1Eo[TiO0  EXW, 12,14. The participle EXOVTrE  is connected
by Kal with Ka3aLpoVVTre of the preceding verse.'We warcasting down all that opposes itself-and ready, &c.'  To
avenge all disobedience; &K&LK3aL, to maintain, or to exact
justice, or satisfaction, to punish. All disobedience, i. e. every




II. CORINTHIANS  10, 7.                 237
case of disobedience. The gospel, being the word of God, is
divinely efficacious, and is certain ultimately to triumph over
all opposition. This, however, does not imply that all will
obey it. In the apostolic churches, there were those who corrupted the word of God, Judaizing or philosophizing teachers
and their followers, who refused to obey the truth. Such
persons Paul announced his ability and his determination to
punish. They were in the church, for what, he said in his
former epistle, have I to do to judge them that are without?
1 Cor. 5, 12. They had voluntarily submitted themselves to
his jurisdiction, and he therefore had a legitimate authority
over them. What was the nature of the punishment which
he threatened, he does not intimate. It may be that he purposed nothing more than excommunication. The fact, however, that the apostles were armed with supernatural power,
that they exercised that power for the punishment of offenders, 1 Cor. 5, 5. 1 Tim. 1, 20, and the whole tone of the passage are in favour of the assumption that Paul was determined
to use all the means at his command to suppress the insolence,
and to destroy the power of the corrupters of the truth in
Corinth. He gives what he had said a special application by
adding, wlhen your obedience is fulfilled. That is, he would
not resort to severity until all other means had failed, and until it had become fully manifest who among the Corinthians
would submit to God, and who would persist in their disobedience.
7. Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's,
let him  of himself think this again, that, as he (is)
Christ's, even so (are) we Christ's.
Abrupt transitions are characteristic of this epistle. Paul
having in the preceding verses so strongly asserted his apostolic authority and supernatural power, turns to those who
denied the validity of his claims, and calls upon them to give
a reason for skepticism. He was thus led to vindicate his
title to the apostolic office and to his special jurisdiction over
the church of Corinth. This vindication extends to 12, 18.
After which he resumes the subject broached in the preceding
verses of this chapter, viz., what he purposed to do when he
again visited Corinth,




238         II. CORINTHIANS 10, 7.
Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? Ta
KaTa 7rpoaworov iXETreTE. This clause may be taken interrogatively, as by most commentators, or imperatively, or declaratively. If interrogatively, the sense may be,'Do ye regard,
or take into view, only what is external?  Do you judge of
me from my personal appearance, manner, and speech?' It
would seem that a judgment founded on such grounds as
these, led the false teachers to regard the apostle with contempt. Or, the meaning is,'Do you regard only external
advantages?  Such as being a minister of Christ, being a Hebrew, an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, &c.' 11, 22. In
favour of this view is the use of 7rp-owrrov in this epistle, 5, 12.
11, 1. See also IMatt. 22, 16. Mlark 12, 14; the parallel passage
in 11, 18 (where KaTa Trir (TapKa answers to Kayr a-poaorov here);
and the context, which goes to show that the things which
Paul's opponents regarded, and on which they prided themselves, were their supposed external advantages. Those who
take PXhE7rETe as imperative - understand the passage thus:' Look at what is before your eyes, i. e. at what is evident to
all. If you are thus and so, so am I.' Calvin and others take
the verb as in the indicative.' Ye do regard what is external
-and therefore despise me.' The first interpretation, for the
reasons stated, is to be preferred.  If any man trust to himself: The use of Ls[s (any one), in this passage, uld of the
singular number in vs. 10 and 11, and in 11, 4, has led to the
conjecture that there was in Corinth one particular opponent
of the apostle to whom in this whole context he refers. But
it is evident from the general drift of the epistle that it was a
whole class of persons who had arrayed themselves against
Paul's authority.  Trust to himself, r7r5oLEv &aVTw, is persuaded concerning himself, that he is Christ's.  What that means
is somewhat doubtfil.  It may be taken in the most general
sense,'If any thinks that he is a Christian,' i. e. belongs to
Christ as every believer does; or,'If any man thinks that he
is a minister of Christ;' or,'If any man thinks that he stands
in a peculiar relation to Christ.' It is probable from 1 Cor.
1, 10 that there were certain persons in Corinth who said,' WVe are of Christ,' as claiming some nearer connection with
him than that which belonged to other believers or to other
ministers. Whether this claim rested on their having seen
Christ in the flesh, or on relationship to his kinsmen, is mere
matter of conjecture. Still as the claim existed, it is most
likely referred to here. Let him of himself, i. e. without its




II. CORINTHIANS  10, 8.                 239
being suggested by others. The fact was so plain that it
needed not to be asserted. Let him think this again, i. e. let
him consider the matter again. The last reflection will convince him that as he is Christ's, so are we. There was no relationship which these false teachers could rightfully claim to
Christ to which Paul was not equally entitled. They were in
no resplect his superiors. They had no advantage which did
not belong equally to him.
8. For though I should boast somewhat more of
our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be
ashamed.
Paul might have said much more than he had said in what
precedes. He was not only all that his opponents claimed to
be, but more. He had an authority and power to which they
could make no pretensions. He therefore here says that if he
had set forth higher claims, he should not be ashamed-facts
would not prove those claims to be unfounded. For though,
IEv rE yap KaL for even in case, &c. The connection is with
the words "we are Christ's." W'Ve are Christ's, in all the
senses in which you call claim to be, for we have received
more from him.' The greater includes the less. Somewhat
more, 7rCept0er'pov 1V, i. e. somewhat more than was claimed in
vs. 3-6, or more than'being in Christ,' which might be said
of others as well as of the apostle. Paul had an authority
which extended beyond the limits of any claim which he had
yet advanced. Etovo-ra includes the ideas of power and authority. The apostle had authority (i. e. the right to rule)
and he had ability, inherent power, to enforce that authority.
TWhich the Lord hath given (or rather, gave) to us. The authority in question was given when he was constituted an
apostle, with not only a commission to exercise dominion, but
a grace, or inward gift of the Spirit, rendering him infallible
as a teacher and investing him with supernatural power. The
giver of this authority and power was the Lord, i. e. Christ.
Christ, therefore, as the author of supernatural gifts, is a divine person, for to give such gifts is a prerogative of God.
The design for which Paul was not endowed, was not his own
exaltation, not the accomplishment of any worldly end, not,
as he says, "for your destruction," i. e. not that he might be
II




240         II. CORINTHIANS  10, 9.
able to put down his personal enemies, but for edification,
i. e. the building up of the church in holiness and peace.
Power in the church comes not from the civil magistrate, nor
from the people, but from Christ only. He is, as Calvin says,
Solus Dominus et Magister. And this power can be legitimately exercised only for the edification of the church.
When exercised for other objects, or for the destruction of
the church, then it should be disowned and resisted. Even
an apostle, or an angel from heaven, who should preach any
other gospel-teach or require any thing contrary to the word
of God-would be accursed. And of this contrariety, from
the necessity of the case, and from the authority of Scripture,
the people, i. e. those who are required to believe and obey,
are (at their peril) to be the judges. If they reject a true
apostle, their sin is as great as if they gave ear to false teachers. Having the inward teaching of the Spirit, they know
of the doctrine whether it be of God.
9. That I may not seem as if I would terrify you
by letters.
The connection of this clause (Eva   80 &oKco) is somewhat
doubtful. If it belongs immediately to the preceding words,
the sense is,'I should not be ashamed-in order that I should
seem,' i. e. God would so order it that I should not appear as
an empty boaster. But this is evidently unnatural. The design of God in sustaining the apostle, and giving him a victory
over the enemies of the truth, was something higher than preserving him from being regarded as a boaster. A very large
number of commentators connect this verse with the l1th,
throwing the 10th into a parenthesis.'That I may not seem
to terrify you —let such an one think, &c.' But neither in
this way is the connection natural or logical; and v. 11 evidently refers to v. 10, and would not be intelligible if that
verse were omitted; verse 11, therefore, is not a parenthesis.
A clause with Zva, as we have seen before in this epistle, (comnpare also Gal. 2, 10,) often depends on some word or words
omitted but easily supplied from the context. In this case we
may supply,' This I say.''This I say in order that I may
not appear, &c.' So Luther (" Das sage ich aber "), Beza, and
many others. As if I would terrify, us av K~O/3deV. This is
the only instance in the New Testament where av after a conjunction is used with the infinitive, Winer resolves it 4htQ




II. CORINTHIANS  10, 10.                  241
sv av &KiOPO/tL v/Ls, tanquam velin, vos terrere, which agrees
with our translation. These particles serve to soften the expression, and are equivalent to as if perhaps, or, so to speak.
There is evident allusion to the false representations made by
the false teachers, that Paul wrote in the authoritative tone
which he assumed merely to frighten his readers, having
neither the power nor the purpose to carry his threats into
execution. -By letters, or, by the letters, i. e. the letters which
he had already written or intended to write.
10. For (his) letters, say they, (are) weighty and
powerful; but (his) bodily presence (is) weak, and (his)
speech contemptible.
There was reason for his not wishing to appear as assuming a tone of threatening in his letters, for this was the very
reproach cast upon him. His letters, they say, (ro-crq, here, as
often, used impersonally, I one says,' sagt man,) are weighty
(/3apEZat, i. e, impressive) and powerful, (iCXvpa4,) including the
ideas of vigour, authority and severity. But his bodily presence is weak. This passage, probably more than any other,
has given rise to the impression, in accordance with a tradition neither very ancient nor well sustained, that Paul was
small in stature, weak and unattractive in his personal appearance. The words here used, however, even supposing that
this language of his enemies expressed the truth, do not necessarily imply this. The phrase' 7rapovor'a rTov rultaTos probably
refers not to his personal appearance, but to his deportment.
He wrote boldly, but acted feebly. There was not that energy and decision in his acts which one would expect from his
language. This was the representation of his enemies; the
truth of which, however, the apostle denies. The same remark applies to the next clause, his speech contemptible. This
does not refer to feebleness of voice, but to the impression
made by his oral instructions and addresses. He dared not
assume any such authority in speaking to the people that he
did in writing to them. The whole history of the apostle, his
unceasing labours, his constant journeyings, his innumerable
sufferings which he sustained so heroically, prove that he was
not physically a man of feeble constitution. And his own
declarations, as well as his clearly revealed character, prove
that there was no such want of correspondence between his




242      II. CORINTHIANS  10, 11. 12.
letters and his actions as the false teachers in Corinth, to whom
he was probably personally unknown, endeavoured to make
the people believe.
11. Let such an one think this, that such as we are
in word by letters when we are absent, such (will we
be) also in deed when we are present.
Let such an one, i. e. any one, not necessarily implying
that there was only one person who had set himself up in opposition to the apostle.  That such as we are in word, &c.
it was admitted that his letters were energetic. Ite assures
them that, when present, his deeds would correspond to his
words. His denunciations would not prove idle threats.
12. For we dare not make ourselves of the number,
or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they, measuring themselves by themselves,
and comparing themselves among themselves, are not
wise.
In confirmation of his declaration that his acts would be
found to correspond with his words, he adds,'For I am not
like those, who having nothing to recommend them, commend
themselves.'  TVe dare not (o~ T-OX/yw.Lev, we cannot bring ourselves to, or, we cannot prevail on ourselves to. Rom. 5, 7.
1 Cor. 6, 1) make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves; (EyKpCvact iq crv7KptvaL, enrol ourselves among, or place
ourselves by,) some who commend themselves, The reference
is obviously to the false teachers, whose only reliance was selflaudation. So far this verse is plain. The latter part of the
passage is exceedingly difficult, and has been very variously
explained. There are three classes of interpretation, two of
which proceed on the assumption of the correctness of the
common text, and the third is founded on a different reading.
According to the first general view, the arol refers to the
apostle himself. He is assumed to contrast himself, in this
verse, with his opponents. The sense, according to some
then is,'They commend themselves, but we, measuring ourselves by ourselves, (i. e. we do not overestimate ourselves,
but determine our importance by our performances,) and




II. CORINTHIANS  10, 12.                    243
comparing ourselves with ourselves, not with these wise men.'
According to this view, Grvvto 0tV, at the end of the verse, is a
participle, and is used ironically in reference to the false teachers. To this interpretation it is objected, 1. That o-vvto-wtv
would require the article in order to express the meaning
given to it; and 2. That it is plainly inconsistent with the,utEts 8E of the next verse, which are antithetical to the avrTol
of this verse.'They do so-but we do so.'  Others, who
make the latter part of this verse refer to the apostle, refer
aovvlo-tv also to him.'We measure ourselves by ourselves,
and compare ourselves with ourselves, we who, as they say,
are unwise.' Then the  yLe&rs E' of verse 13th refers to this last
clause.'They say we are unwise, but we, &c.' This, however, is liable to the same objections, and gives a sense unsuited to the context.  According to the second interpretation, a;iro  in this verse refers to the fhlse teachers, with whom,
in the next verse, Paul contrasts himself; (/Xets dE,) and crvvtoow-tv is the third person plural, as fionm the verb  -vvdE`, as in
MIatt. 13, 13.'They measuring themselves by themselves,
and comparing themselves with themselves, are not wise; but
we, &c.' This is the view of the passage adopted by our
translators, after Chrysostom, Calvin, and Luther.  It is also
sanctioned by De WVette, Meyer, and Rackert, and many others. These false teachers commended themselves, confined
their views to themselves, despised or disregarded all others,
intruding into other men's labours.  Paul, on the contrary,
boasted not of himself; he relied only on God and his grace,
and he kept himself within his own limits, not appropriating
to himself the fruits of the labours of' other men. The third
mode of interpreting this passage assumes that the text afforded by the Western, as distinguished fiom the Eastern manu-.
scripts, is correct.  Those authorities omit or orvvrtovt, tuLE   8e,
so that a;cro (,a~EZs) is the nominative to KavXroFLLE3a in v. 13,
if that verb be retained.'They commend themselves; but
we, measuring ourselves by ourselves, and comparing ourselves with ourselves, will not boast as to things beyond our
measure.' Fritsche and Billroth, on the authority of the Codex Clarom., omit also KavXJqcTEo/,Ea, and connect the participles
IUETromVres and OrvyKpLvoVTES with KavXleEvot of v. 15, thus bringing out substantially the same sense, but rendering the sentence longer and more complicated.  The meaning afforded
by this new reading is simple and pertinent.  Since, however,
the critical authorities by which it is supported are compara.



244         II. CORINTHIANS  10, 13.
tively few and of a secondary class, the great body of editors
adhere to the common text. If that text is correct, then the
interpretation given in our English version is the most natural
and suitable. Calvin applies this whole passage, with his
usual vigour, to the monks of his day. Hujus loci expositio
non aliunde petenda est quam  a monachis: nam quum  sint
omnes fere indoctissimi asini, et tamnen oblongm vestis et cuculli causa docti censeantur: si quis tenuem modo gustum elegantioris literaturae habeat, plumas suas instar pavonis fastuose
extendit: spargitur de eo mirabilis fama, adoratur inter
sodales. At si seposita cuculli larva ventum fuerit ad justum
examen, deprehenditur vanitas. Cur hoc? Verum quidem,
est vetus proverbium: Audax inscitia: sed inde praecipue
monachalis insolentissimus ille fastus, quod se metiuntur ex se
ipsis: nam quum in eorum claustris nihil sit praeter barbariem, illic nihil mirum, si regnet luscus inter cincos.
13. But we will not boast of things without (our)
measure, but according to the measure of the rule
which God hath  distributed to us, a measure to reach
even unto you.
The words Els Ta al/Jpepa may be taken adverbially, equivalent to  /rE'Tps3, immocderately, beyond what is proper; or,
since in the latter part of the verse E/LETpOV is used literally, they
may be explained as in our version, in reference to things b)eyond our measure, i. e. beyond the limits of my apostolic labours. This idea is clearly presented in the following verses;
but here the contrast with the preceding verse favours the
former explanation. The false teachers set no limits to their
boasting-self conceit and not facts determined the character
and amount of their assumptions, and therefore their claims
were inordinate. Paul expresses his determination to limit
his claims to his actual gifts and labours. According to the
measure of the rule, Kam To&  I /tETpoV Tvo KavOvos, i. e. according
to the measure determined by the rule, or line, that is, the
measure allotted to him. The Kavo'v is the rule, or measuring
line, which, so to speak, God used in determining the apostle's
gifts and sphere of activity. Paul's boasting, therefore, was
not immoderate, but confined to just limits. According to
Beza KaVrWv is used metonymically for that which is measured;
certuln et definitum spatium; the district or diocese measured




II. CORINTHIANS  10, 13.                   245
off to him. But this is not consistent with tile ordinary meaning of the word, or with the context.  TWVhich God hath distributed to us; o01 E/IEpLoEv'jitV  o 3E  IE TpOv, for i&pov O6 lE'dptcrev o EoEs, by attraction. This clause is in apposition with
itavovos, and explains what was the rule or line which determined the sphere of his activity.  It was not something selfassumed, or selftapplied, but something which  God  had
appointed; a measure, he adds, to reach ecen unto you. It is
agreeable to Paul's manner to include two or more related
ideas in the same form of expression.  To boast according to
the measure assigned him, may mean to regulate his boasting
according to his gifts; or, to boast in reference to what was
done within -the limits assigned him in preaching the gospel.
Both ideas are here united. In opposition to the false teacherls, who not only boasted of gifts Nwhich they did not possess,
l.ut appropriated to themselves the fruits of other men's labours by intruding into churches which they had not founded,
Paul says he did neither one nor the other. His boasting was
neither immoderate, nor was it founded on what others had
done. He invaded no man's sphere of labour. It was his settled purpose to preach the gospel where Christ had not been
named, and not to build on another man's foundation. Rtom.
15, 20. Acting on this principle he had the right to regard
Corinth as legitimately within his field. IIis assigned limit of
labour reached at least that far. HIe had founded the church
in that city; others had built thereon.  I Cor. 3, 10.  The
Corinthians were his work in the Lord. 1 Cor. 9, 1. Over
them, therefore, if over no others, he had the authority of an
apostle. It is plain, on the one hand, from the New Testament that the apostles had a general agreement among themseives as to their several fields of labour. Paul was to go to
the Gentiles; Peter, James and John to the Jews. Gal. 2, 9.
But it is no less plain that they were not confined to any prescribed limits. They had not, as modern bishops or pastors,
each his particular diocese or parish. As their authority did
not arise from their election or appointment to a particular
church or district, but fiom their plenary knowledge, infallibility, and supernatural power, it was the same everywhere,
and in relation to all churches. Hence we find Paul writing
to the church in Rome which he had never visited, as well as
to others who had never seen his face in the flesh, with the
same authority with which he addressed churches which lhe
had himlself' planted. Peter addressed his epistles to churches




246       II. CORINTHIANS 10, 14. 15.
within Paul's sphere of labour; and, according to all tradition,
St. John presided during the latter years of his life over the
churches in Asia Minor, founded by the apostle to the Gentiles. Still it was a matter of courtesy that one apostle should
not intrude unnecessarily upon the sphere already occupied by
another. Paul, at least, determined that he would not build
upon another man's foundation.
14. For we stretch not ourselves beyond (our
measure), as though we reached not unto you; for
we are come as far as to you also in (preaching) the
gospel of Christ.
This verse is generally regarded as a parenthesis, although
some commentators make it the beginning of a new sentence.
It is logically connected with the last clause of v. 13.'God
assigned us a measure extending to you, for not, as not reaching to you, do we unduly stretch ourselves out; ) V7rEpPKTE[O-?/Ev EavroTV, do twe overstretch ourselves. The present tense is
used, because the reference is to the sphere of the apostle's
authority. For we have come as far cts you, (E3(To-raEv.)'Our authority extends to you, for we have come to you in
preaching the gospel.' That is, Corinth was included in the
region throughout which he had been the first to preach
Christ. The word 3a3vow properly means, to come, or be, beforehand; to anticipate; and then, in the aorist, to have come
already. See Matt. 12, 28. Phil. 3, 16. 1 Thess. 2, 16. This
sense may be retained here.'IWe have already come even
unto you.' He had already reached them and expected soon
to reach beyond them; see v. 16.
15. Not boasting of things without (our) measure,
(that is), of other men's labours; but having hope,
when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged
by you, according to our rule abundantly.
If verse 14 is parenthetical, then this verse is connected
with the 13th.'We will boast according to our measure —
not boasting immoderately.'  Of other men's labours. This
is explanatory of the Els ra aa'ETpa. He did not boast of what
other men had done. If the connection is with the 14th verse,
the participle KavX/LuEvoL most naturally depends on o UT7rEpEK



II. CORINTHIANS  10, 15.                  247
7ElVolEV.'We do not stretch ourselves unduly —not boasting,
&c.' The reproach to the false teachers here implied is of
course obvious. They had done what Paul refused to do.
They came to Corinth after the church had been gathered,
assumed an authority to which they were not entitled, and
endeavoured to destroy the influence of the apostle to whom
the church owed its existence, and the people their hope of
salvation. Jam, says Calvin, liberius pungit pseudo-apostolos,
qui quum in alienam  messem  manus intulissent, audebant
tamen iis obtrectare, qui sudore ac industria locum illis paraverant.
But having hope, when your faith is increased. This
clause the Vulgate renders,'Habentes spem crescentis fidei
vestrye.' This interpretation the words aV&avoytvrq'3q r7TWcrrTE
(your faith being increased) do not admit. Corinth was not
the limit which Paul had fixed for his field of labour. He had
the purpose, as soon as the state of the Corinthians would
allow of his leaving them, to press forward to preach the gospel in regions beyond them.  That we shall be enlarged by
you, Ev utvtv ~EyaXvv&'vat. Luther, Calvin, Beza, and others,
connect'v  tiv with the preceding clause-' Your faith being
increased among you.' Beza says this is required by the opposite clause, as the advantage was mutual. They were to
grow in faith among themselves, he was to enlarge his boundaries.  But in this case the words Ev uZv are redundant.
They belong to the following word, and are to be rendered
either by you, or, among you. This depends on the sense
given to /EyaXvv37vat. This word is used either literally, as in
Matt. 23, 5, "They make broad their phylacteries;;" or figuratively, as in Luke 1, 58, "The Lord hath made great his
mercy toward her." In every other case where it occurs in
the New Testament it means to praise, to declare great.
Luke 1, 46, "My soul doth magnify the Lord."  So in Acts
5, 13. 10, 46. 19, 17. Phil. 1, 20. This meaning of the word
is very commonly retained here.'I hope to be honoured by
you abundantly.' But the object of the apostle's hope was
neither to be glorified by them, nor among them. Besides,
the following clause (' according to our rule') does not agree
with this interpretation. The word, therefore, is to be taken
in its more literal sense-' He hoped to be enlarged abundantly (e', 7repwr-creav) according to his rule.' That is, he hoped to
p)reach the gospel far beyond Corinth, agreeably to the line
of' action marked out f  linrm. Ti'he v,f, Iv may then be ren11*




248       II. CORINTHIANS  10, 16-18.
dered, vobis adjuvantibus. They would aid Paul in his future
labours. The same idea is brought out by rendering the
clause thus,'To become great among you as to that which is
beyond.'
16. To preach the gospel in the (regions) beyond
you, (and) not to boast in another man's line of things
made ready to our hand.
This infinitive (to preach) is either exegetical,'We hope
to be enlarged, that is, we hope to preach beyond you;' or it
is the infinitive of the object,'We hope to become great
among you, in order to preach, &c.' The choice between
these explanations depends on the interpretation of the preceding verse. To preach the gospel in the regions beyond
you; E19 VrEpEKELva (an adverb, beyond), parts beyond, and
with vWv, parts beyond you. E1s is not here for &v, but means
unto, as expressing the extent to which. Not to boast in another man's line; &v JXXorply KavvtL, within another's line.
That is, within the field of labour occupied by another man.
MIade ready to our hand. This is not a literal translation of
eLs Ta E'rotLa.  These words belong to KavX'o-ao-atL,'Not to
boast in reference to things prepared.' The sense is plain;
he would not appropriate to himself the fruits of other men's
labours.
17. 18. But he that glorieth, let him glory in the
Lord. For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.'To glory in the Lord,' is either to regard God as the
ground of confidence and source of all good, and to ascribe
every thing we have, are, and hope to his grace; or, it is to
exult in his approbation.  Instead of comforting ourselves
with our own high estimate of our attainments and efficiency,
or allowing ourselves to be inflated by the applause of men,
we should be satisfied with nothing short of the divine approbation. The connection is here in favour of the latter view.'He that glories should glory in the Lord, i. e. he that rejoices should rejoice in the approbation of God, (not in his
own good opinion of himself; nor in the praises of others,) Jor
not he who commendeth himself is approved, i. e. is reallyW




II. CORINTHIANS 11.                      249
worthy of approbation, but he whom the Lord commendeth.'
Paul did not commend himself; his claims were not founded
on the suggestions of self-conceit; neither did he rely on the
commendation of others, his eye was fixed on God. If he
could secure his favour, it was to him a small matter to be
judged by man's judgment.  1 Cor. 4, 3.
CHAPTER XI.
The apostle apologizes for the self-commendation which was forced'upon
him, vs. 1-15. lie contrasts himself and his labours with the assumptions of the false teachers, vs. 15-33.
JReasons for his self-comnacn)cdatioin, vs. 1-15.
HIE had just condemned all self-commendation, yet he was
fobrced to do what had the appearance of selflaudation. The
Corinthians were in danger of being turned away from Christ
by having their confidence in Palll undermined by the misre)presentations of his enemies. It was therefore necessary
for him to present the grounds which he had for claiming authority over them, and for asserting his superiority over his
opponents. Yet so repugnant was this task to his feelings,
that he not only humbly apologizes for thus speaking of himself, but he finds it difficult to do what he felt must be done.
He over and over begins what lhe calls his boasting, and imimediately turns aside to something else. He begs them to
bear with him while he proceeds to praise himlself, v. 1, for
his doing so sprang from the purest motive, love for them and
anxiety for their welfare, vs. 2. 3. An1 anxiety justified by
the readiness with which they bore with those who preached
another gospel, v. 4. He thus spoke because he was on a par
with the chief apostles, and not behind those who among
them  claimed to be his superiors, v. 5. They might have
higher pretensions as orators, but in knowledge and in every
thing that really pertained to the apostolic office he was
abundantly manifest among them, v. 6. His refusal to avail
himself of his right to be supported by those to whom he
preached was no offence to them, and no renunciation of his




250        II. CORINTHIANS  11, 1.2.
apostleship, vs. 7-9. He was determined to refuse any pecuniary aid from the Christians in Achaia, not because he did
not love them, but because he wished to cut off all occasion
to question his sincerity from those who sought such occasion,
and because he desired to put the false teachers to the same
test of disinterestedness, vs. 10-12. These teachers claimed
to be apostles, though they had no more right to the office,
than Satan had to be regarded as an angel of light, vs. 13-15
1. Would to God ye could bear with me a little in
(my) folly: and indeed bear with me.
The self-commendation of the false teachers was the fruit
of conceit and vanity; with the apostle it was self-vindication.
Although so different in character and design, they had one
element in common.  Both included self-laudation. Both,
therefore, are designated by the same word, boasting; and
both, therefore, he calls Japoo-iv', a want of sense.  Wrould to
God, in the Greek simply, o5EXov, oh that, I would. In fact,
however, every such exclamation is, in the pious mind, a
prayer; and, therefore, the rendering,'I would to God,' is
neither irreverent nor inaccurate. Oh that ye could bear wvith
me, (avElXccrEE, Hellenistic form, instead of,vElXcor3E.) The
pronoun pov properly belongs to the verb, and not to the b1lowing LLKpO'V TL, as if the sense were, a little of my folly. The
meaning is,' Bear with me (UtKpo'V Tt apoov'nv), as to a little
of folly.' This reading is, on the authority of the majority of MISS., adopted by the later editors. Knapp and others
read, LCLLKPOV'Tj b pouoV, a little as to folly; which amounts to
the same thing. And indeed bear with me. So Calvin, Beza,
and many others, who take aVEXE-3E as the imperative. This
clause is then a repetition of the first, only more vehemently
expressed. The former is a wish, the latter a supplication or
demand. But the context does not require this vehemence.
A more appropriate sense is afforded by taking the word in
the indicative,'But indeed ye do bear with me;' i. e. the
request is not necessary, I know you are disposed to suffer
me to speak as I see fit.
2. For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy:
for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may
present (you as) a chaste virgin to Christ.




II. CORINTHIANS  11, 2.                  251
This is the reason either why they should bear with him,
or why he was assured that they would do so. That is, the
connection is either with the first and principal clause of v. 1,
or with the latter clause. It makes but little difference. The
sense is better if the connection is with the first clause.' Bear
with my folly-for I am jealous over you.' ZrXi& y/ap Laps.
The word bVXow may mean, I ardently love, or more specifically, I am jealous. The latter, as the figure of marriage is
used, is probably the sense in which the apostle uses the word.
With godly jealousy; jXoo S3ovo may mean a zeal of which
God is the object, as in Rom. 10, 2; comp. John 2, 17. In
that case Paul intends to say that the feeling which he had
for the Corinthians was a pious feeling. It was no selfish or
mercenary interest, but such as arose fiom his desire to promote the honour of God. Or, the meaning is, a zeal of which
God is the author; or, a zeal which God approves; or, the
zeal which God has. As the people of God are so often rep.
resented in the Bible as standing to God in a relation analogous to that of a wife to a husband, so God is represented as
being jealous, i. e. moved to deep displeasure when they transfir their love to another object.  Is. 54, 5. 62, 5. Ez. 16.
Hos. 2. In this view, the apostle means to say, that he shares
in the feeling which God is represented as entertaining
towards his church. The translation given in the English
version includes all the meanings above mentioned; fbr a
godly jealousy (or zeal) is a pious zeal, it is a zeal of which
God is both the object and the author, and it is such a zeal as
he has. For Ihave espoused you to one husband. It was
natural for the apostle to feel this jealousy over them, for he
stood in a most intimate relation to-them. Their union with
Christ was his work. I Cor. 4, 15. 9, 1. He may compare
himself in this verse to a father who gives his daughter to
the bridegroom. To this it is objected that Paul became the
father of the Corinthians by their conversion; whereas the
relation here referred to subsisted before their conversion or
espousal to Christ. It is commonly assumed that the allusion
is to the office of " the friend of the bridegroom," John 3, 29,
(7rapavv' Los,) whose business it was to select the bride, to be
responsible for her conduct, and to present her to the bridegroom. In this sense Moses was called -7rapavvy'ltog by the
Rabbis, as it was through him the people entered into covenant with God. In either way the sense is the same. Paul's
relation was so intimate with the Corinthians as the author of




252         II. CORINTHIANS  11, 3.
their espousals to Christ, that he could not fail to feel the
deepest interest in their fidelity. I have espoused you. The
verb Jap/o't in the active voice is used of the father who betroths his daughter; in the passive of the bride who is betrothed; in the middle voice it is generally used of the man
who pledges himself to a woman. The middle form, however,
is sometimes used, as in this verse, (rpmooa-crv,) in the active
sense.  To one husband. The marriage relation from its nature is exclusive. It can be sustained only to one man. So
the relation of the church, or of the believer, to Christ is in
like manner exclusive. We can have but one God and Saviour. Love to him of necessity excludes all love of the same
kind to every other being. Hence the apostle says he had
espoused (betrothed) them to one man. This was done in
order, ill due time, to present then as a chaste virgin unto
Christ. As in Eph. 5, 27, this presentation of the church to
Christ as his bride, is said to take place at his second coming,
this passage is commonly understood to refer to that event.
Paul's desire was that the Corinthians should remain faithful
to their vows, so as to be presented to Christ a glorious
church, without spot or wrinkle, on that great day. He
dreaded lest they should, in that day, be rejected and con.
temned as a woman unfaithful to her vows.
3. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent
beguiled  Eve through his subtilty, so your minds
should be corrupted froim the simplicity that is in
Christ.
The apostle adheres to his figure. Though they were betrothed to Christ, he feared that their affections might be seduced from him and fixed on some other object. MIen are
not jealous until their apprehensions are excited. They must
have some reason, either real or imaginary, for suspecting the
fidelity of those they love. The ground of the apostle's jealousy was his fear. He feared (oJ,7rww) lest peradventure. They
had not yet turned aside, but there was great danger that they
might yield to the seductions to which they were exposed.
There was one standing example and warning both of the inconstancy of the human heart, and of the fearful consequences
of forsaking God. Eve was created holy, she stood in paradise
in the perfection of her nature, with every conceivable motive




II. CORINTHIANS  11, 4.                  253
to secure her fidelity. Yet by the subtilty of Satan she fell.
What reason then have we to fear who are exposed to the
machinations of the same great seducer. As the serpent beguiled Eve; i. e. Satan ill the form of a serpent.  The serpent,
i. e. the well-known serpent of which MIoses speaks. The
New Testament writers thus assume, and thereby sanction,
the historical verity of the Old Testament record. The account of the temptation as recorded in Genesis is regarded by
the inspired writers of the New Testament not as a myth, or
as an allegory, but as a true history. Comp. 1 Tim. 2, 14.
Rev. 12, 9. 15. Beguiled, e7I-aTrrCrev, thoroughly deceived.
All seduction is by means of deception. Sin is in its nature
deceit. The imagination is filled with false images, and the
foolish heart is darkened. Eve was thus deceived by the subtilty of Satan. She was made to disbelieve what was true, and
to believe what was false. Man's belief, in a very large sphere,
is determinea by his feelings. The heart controls the understanding.  The good believe the true; the evil believe the
untrue. This is the reason why men are accountable for their
faith, and why the wicked are led captive by Satan into all
manner of error. Eve was deceived by exciting unholy feelillgs in her heart. Paul's apprehension was lest the Corinthians, surrounded by false teachers, the ministers of Satan,
should in like manner be beguiled. What he feared was that
their minds should be corrupted. It was a moral perversion,
or corruption, that he apprehended.  Your minds, a- vo-?paTa
4Gev. The word vod-lka means first thought; then that which
thinks, the understanding; and then, the affections or dispositions. Phil. 4, 7. Our translation, " your minds," as including the idea both of thought and feeling, is the most appropriate rendering.  Corrcupted from, is a pregnant expression,
meaning corrupted so as to be turned from. I'he simnplicity
that is in Christ; d&o Trqs a7rXdoT7?ro Ts s ELs Tov XPLIT&v, fi'from
singleness of mind towards Christ.' That is, the undivided
affection and devotion to Christ which is due from a bride to
her spouse. The allusion to the marriage relation is kept up.
Paul had compared the Corinthians to a virgin espoused to
one man, and he feared lest their affections might be seduced
firom Christ and transferred to another.
4. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus,
whom we have not preached, or (if) ye receive another




254         II. CORINTHIANS  11, 4.
spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel,
which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with
(him).
There are two entirely different views of the meaning of
this verse, depending on the view taken of the connection.
If the association of ideas is with the preceding verse, so that
this passage assigns the reason of the fear there expressed,
the meaning is,'I am afraid concerning you, for if a false
teacher comes and preaches another gospel, you readily bear
with him.' It is a reproof of their credulity and easiness of
persuasion to forsake the truth, analogous to that administered
to the Galatians. Gal. 4, 6-8. 5, 8. But if this verse is connected with the main subject as presented in v. 1, then the
sense is,' Bear with me, for if a false teacher preaches another
gospel you bear with him.' This is to be preferred, not only
because the sense is better as more consistent with the context, but also because JvE\Xo/aL means to endure, to put up with,
and supposes that the thing endured is in itself repulsive. In
this sense the word is used twice in v. 1, and should be so
taken here.'If a man preaches a new Christ ye would put
up with his self-laudation, therefore, you should put up with
mine.' The proper force of the verb (avcXouaxt) is also against
the interpretation given by Chrysostom and followed by many
later commentators.'If any one really preached another
gospel (i. e. communicated to you another method of salvation), you would do well to bear with him and receive him
gladly.' But all this is foreign to the context. The thing to
be endured, was something hard to put up with. It was what
the apostle calls folly.
For if he that cometh, 0 Epxo'/Evos, the comer, any one who
happens to come. The reference is not to any one well known
false teacher, but to a whole class. Preaches another Jesus;
not another Saviour, but another person than the son of Mary
whom we preached. That is, if he sets forth some other individual as the true deliverer from sin.  Or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received. The gift of the Holy
Ghost was secured by the work of Christ. He redeemed us
firom the curse of the law-in order that we might receive the
promise of the Spirit. Gal. 3, 13. 14. The indwelling of the
Spirit, therefbre, as manifested by his sanctifying and ixiraculous power, was the great evidence of the truth of the gospel.
Ience the apostle, to convince the Galatians of the folly of




II. CORINTHIANS  11, 5.                  255
apostasy to Judaism, says, " This only would I learn of you.
Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the
hearing of faith? " Gal. 3, 2; and in Heb. 2, 4, he says, God
bore witness to the gospel by the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
The apostle here supposes the impossible case that a like confirmation had attended the preaching of the false teachers.'If,' he says,'they preach another ('XXo;) Jesus, and in proof
that he is truly a Saviour, ye receive a different (E'EpoS) spirit,
i. e. a spirit whose manifestations were of a different kind
from those of the Spirit who attests my preaching,' &c. Or
ahother (e'TEpoa, a different) gospel, which ye have not accepted.
In the former clause the verb is EXCa3ETE (ye received), in the
latter i4acrSe (ye accepted), because, as Bengel says, Non
concurrit voluntas hominis in accipiendo Spiritu, ut in recipiendo evancelio.  That is, man is passive in receiving the
spirit, and active in accepting the gospel.  Ye might well
bear with him..The word is VwtXEoTJE, in the imperfect. The
tense which the context would seem to demand is the present,
avEXEcrSe, a reading which Lachmann and Riickert, on the authority of the MS. B, have introduced into the text. The
other leading verbs of the verse are in the present,'If one
preaches another Jesus, and ye receive another Spirit, and
accept another gospel, (in that case,) ye do bear with him.'
Instead, however, of saying,' ye do bear with him,' the apostle
is supposed purposely to soften the expression by'saying,' ye
might well bear with him;' the particle av being, as often,
understood. In this way he avoids the direct charge of tolerating the conceited boasting of the false teachers. Others,
as Meyer and Winer, assume an irregularity, or change of
construction.
5. For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very
chiefest apostles.
The sense here again depends on the connection. If the
yap refers to v. 4, the reference must be (as so often occurs in
Paul's writings) to a thought omitted.'Ye are wrong in
thus bearing with the false teachers, for I am equal to the
chief apostles.' This, however, is not in harmony with the
context. Paul's design is not so much to reproye the Corin.
thians for tolerating the folly of the false teachers, as to induce
them to bear with his. He felt it to be necessary to vindicate
himself, and he therefore prays them to bear with him a little




256         II. CORINTHIANS  11, 6.
in his folly. To this point every thing here refers. They
should thus bear with him, 1. Because he was jealous over
them with a godly jealousy. 2. Because they would bear
with any who really preached another gospel, were that possible. 3. Because he was on a par with the chief apostles.
The connection, therefore, is not with v. 4, but with the main
subject as presented in v. 1. This also determines the question, Who are meant by the chiefest apostles?  If the connection is with v. 4, then the expression is to be understood
ironically in reference to the false teachers.'Ye do wrong
to tolerate them, for I am in no respect behind those superlative apostles.' So Beza, Billroth, Olshausen, Meyer, and the
majority of the moderns. The reason given for this is, that
there is no controversy with the true apostles in this connection, and therefore nothing to call for such an assertion of his
equality with them as we find in Gal. 2, 6-11. There is, however, no force in this reason if the connection is with v. 1.'Bear with me in my boasting, for I am not behind the chiefest apostles.' In this view the reference to the true apostles
is pertinent and natural: Paul says,,8/Ev,OTEp-qK&VaL that as
to nothing, in no one respect, had he fallen short, or was he
left behind by the chiefest apostles; neither in gifts, nor in
labours, nor in success had any one of' them been more highly
ftvoured, nor more clearly authenticated as the messenger of
Christ. He was therefore fuilly entitled to all the deference
and obedience which were due to the chiefest apostles. The
expression,TV VWrepmXav  aroorr6rov, is not in itself bitter or
ironical. This is a force which must be given by the connection; it does not lie in the words themselves. It is not equivalent to the i/ev8aror'TokoL of v. 13, and therefore there is no
more reason why the true apostles should not be called ot
v7repXlav 7roToO than ot 8OKOVVTES LtvatL  T in Gal. 2, 6. The
argument, therefore, which the Reformers derived from this
passage against the primacy of Peter is perfectly legitimate.
Paul was Peter's equal in every respect, and so far from being
under his authority, he not only refused to follow his example
but reproved him to his face. Gal. 2, 11.
6. But though (I be) rude in speech, yet not in
knowledge; but we have been thoroughly made manifest among you in all things.
In Corinth, where Grecian culture was at its height, it had




II. CORINTHIANS  11, 6.                  257
been urged as an objection to Paul that he did not speak with
the wisdom of words. 1 Cor. 1, 17. He was no rhetorician,
and did not appear in the character of an orator. This he
here, as in the former epistle, concedes. If that were an objection, he had no answer to make other than that his dependence was on the demonstration of the Spirit, and not the persuasive words of man's wisdom. 1 Cor. 2, 4. El 8E Kat is
concessive.' But if, as is true, I am rude in speech;' I1ttrTs
iT Xo'yp, untrained, or unskilful in speech. The word tiL8toTrq
means a private person as opposed to those in official station;
a commoner as opposed to a patrician; an uneducated, or
unskilful man, as opposed to those who were specially trained
for any service or work, corporeal or mental. What Paul
concedes is not the want of eloquence, of which his writings
afford abundant evidence, but of the special trainining of a
Grecian. He spoke Greek as a Jew. It is not improbable
that some of his opponents in Corinth, although themselves
of Hebrew origin, prided themselves on their skill in the use
of the Greek language, and made the apostle's deficiency in
that respect a ground of disparagement.  But not in knowledge. He was no i&8trs rD yvoE. Having been taught the
gospel by immediate revelation from Christ, Gal. 2, 12, he had
complete possession of that system of truth which it was the
object of the apostleship to communicate to men. He therefore everywhere asserts his competency as a teacher instructed
of God and entitled to full credence and implicit confidence.
1 Cor. 2, 6-11. Eph. 3, 4. 5.  -But we have been thoroughly
made manifest among you in all things. In this clause,
after /avepwo3vVTES, &cdv is to be supplied;'v 7ravTr, rendered
thoroughly, is in every point, or in every respect; Ev raro-tv, in2
all things, so that in every point in all departments he was
manifest, i. e. clearly known; EIs V/as, as it concerns you, (not
among you, which would require Ev ~vtv). So far from being
deficient in knowledge, he stood clearly revealed before them
as thoroughly furnished in every respect and in all things as
an apostle of Jesus Christ. In nothing did he fall behind the
very chief of the apostles. Luther's translation of this clause
is, Doch ich bin bei euch allenthalben wohl bekannt. It is in
this view a correction of what goes before.'I am not deficient in knowledge.  Yet I am in all respects perfectly
known by you; there is no need to tell you what I am.'
Beza and Olshausen give the same explanation. This, howover, does not agree with what follows in the next verse.




258         II. CORINTHIANS. 11, 7.
Others again, understand the apostle as here asserting his
well established character for purity of purpose and conduct.'My whole conduct is perfectly open and straightforward for
you to see.' There is, however, no impeachment of his conduct referred to in the context, and therefore no call for this
general assertion of integrity. It is better to restrict the passage to the point immediately in hand.' He was not behind
the chief apostles; but although rude in speech, he was not
deficient in knowledge, and was manifest before them in all
things, i. e. in all things pertaining to the apostolic office.'
Instead of,qavEpo34EvVre the MSS. B, F, G, 17, read  XavEpX'cavTES, which Lachmann, Riickert and Tischendorf adopt. This
alters the whole sense. The meaning most naturally then is,'I am not deficient in knowledge, but have manifested it in
every point in all things.' The majority of critical editors retain the common text, which gives a sense equally well suited
to the connection.
7. Have I committed an offence in abasing myself
that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to
you the gospel of God freely?
Our version omits the particle' (or), which is necessary
to indicate the connection. Paul was clearly manifested as
an apostle.'Or,' he asks,' is it an objection to my apostleship that I have not availed myself of the right of an apostle
to be supported by those to whom I preach?  Have I sinned
in this respect?' Comp. 1 Cor. 9, 4-15. Have I committed
an offence in abasing myself; EavLTrr Ta7reLvwv, humbling myself by renouncing a privilege which was my due. Comp. Phil.
4, 12. It was an act of self:humiliation that Paul, though entitled to be supported by the people, sustained himself in
great measure by the labour of his own hands.'I humbled
myself, he says, that ye might be exalted, that is, for your
good.  It was to promote their spiritual interests that he
wrought at the trade of a tent-maker. Because I preached
unto you the gospel of God freely?  This clause, beginning
with O'rt, is exegetical of the preceding.'Have I sinned humnbling myself, i. e. have I sinned because I preached freely?'
(&opeav, gratuitously). It is clearly intimated in 1 Cor. 9, that'
Paul's refusing to be supported by the Corinthians was represented by his enemies as arising fiom the consciousness of the




II. CORINTHIANS 11, 8. 9.                259
invalidity of his claim to the apostleship. As they had no
other objection to him, he asks whether they were disposed
to urge that.
8. I robbed other churches, taking wages (of them),
to do you service,
To rob is to take with violence what does not belong to
us. It is therefore only in a figurative sense the word is here
used. What Paul received from other (i. e. the Macedonian)
churches, he was fully entitled to, and it was freely given.
The only point of comparison or analogy was that he took
from them what the Corinthians ought to have contributed.
2tking wages (Xafi3v h~SvLtov), or a stipend.  To do you service, irps -rv Lvv 8taKoVLav, for your ministry. This expresses
the object of his receiving assistance from others. It was
that he might minister gratuitously to them.
9. And when I was present with you, and wanted,
I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from  Macedonia
supplied: and in all (things) I have kept myself from
being burdensome unto you, and (so) will I keep
(myself).
It is plain from this verse that when Paul went to Corinth,
he took with him a supply of money derived from other
churches, which he supplemented by the proceeds of his own
labour; and when his stock was exhausted the deficiency was
supplied by the brethren from Macedonia. And when I was
present (wapov: rpov'tas), being present with you;' (Kal o-rePq.lEs),' and being reduced to want;' (oV KaTrEvapKvorla oV8evO),
I was chargeable to no man, literally,'I pressed as a deadl
weight upon no one,' i. e. I was burdensome to no one. The
verb here used is derived from vapKrq, torpor, hence vapKJa, to
be torpid. The compound KaTavapKaw, to be torpid against
any one, (to press heavily upon him,) is found only here and
in 12, 13. 14. In confirmation of the assertion that he had
been chargeable to no man he adds, for that which was lacking to mne (rT Vr~'pTE'/k 0ov, my dflciency,) the brethren twhich




260         II. CORINTHIANS  11, 9.
came from  Macedonia (rather,'the brethren having come
from Macedonia,') supplied; 7rporavErXTrpwroav, a double compound verb, to supply in addition. The contribution of the
churches were added to what Paul earned by his labour, or,
to his diminished stock which he had brought with him to
Corinth. The point on which he here dwells is not that he
laboured for his own support, but that he received assistance
from other churches, while he refused to receive any thing
from the Corinthians. His conduct in reference to receiving
aid varied with circumstances. From some churches he received it without hesitation; from others he would not receive
it at all. He said to the Ephesians, "I coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these
hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that
were with me," Acts 20, 34. 35. So also to the Thessalonians
he said, "Ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for
labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable
unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God,"
1 Thess. 2, 9. 2 Thess. 3, 8. Among the Corinthians he adopted the same course. Acts 18, 3. 1 Cor. 9, 15-18. Whereas
from the Philippians he received repeated contributions, not
only while labouring among them, but as he reminds them,
" Even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity," Phil. 4, 16; and when a prisoner in Rome they sent by
the hands of Epaphroditus an abundant supply, so that he
said, "I have all, and abound," Phil. 4, 18. It was therefore
firom no unwillingness to receive what he knew to be due by
the ordinance of Christ, (viz., an adequate support,) 1 Cor. 9,
14, but simply, as he says, to cut off occasion from those who
sought occasion. HIe was unwilling thatfhis enemies should
have the opportunity of imputing to him any mercenary motive in preaching the gospel. This was specially necessary in
Corinth, and therefore the apostle says,' In all things (&v 7ravr',
in every thing, not only in pecuniary matters, but in every
thing else,) I have kept myself from being burdensome unto
you, and will keep myself.' He would receive no obligation
at their hands. He was determined to assume towards them
a position of entire independence. This was doubtless very
painful to the faithful in Corinth. They could not but regard
it as a proof either of the want of love or of the want of confidence on his part. Still his determination as to this point
was settled, and he therefore adds solemnly in the next
verse:




II. CORINTHIANS  11, 10-12.                261
10. As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall
stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia.
Calvin, Beza, and others, understand this as an oath, or
asseveration. Our translators adopted the same view, and
therefore supply the word as, which is not in the Greek.
This interpretation is not required by the text or context.
The words are simply,'The truth (aXr3pSELa, the veracity,
truthfulness) of Christ, (i. e. the veracity which pertains to
Christ, and which Christ produces,) is in me.' That is, in virtue of the veracity which Christ has produced in me, I declare,
that (orTt, which our translators omit,) no man shall stop me of
this boasting. Literally,' This boasting shall not be stopped
as to me.' The word is kpayri'acrEa, which in the New Testament is only used in reference to the mouth. Rom. 3, 19.
Heb. 11, 33.'This boasting as to me shall not have its
mouth stopped.' in all the regions of Achaia; not in Corinth only, but in all that part of Greece not included in MIacedonia. From the Macedonians he was willing to receive aid;
from the Christians of Achaia he would not. The reason for
this distinction he states negatively and affirmatively in the
following verses.
11. 12. Wherefore? because I love you not? God
knoweth. But what I do, that I will do, that I may
cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that
wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
That his purpose not to receive aid from the Corinthians
did not, as it might seem, arise from want of love to them he
solemnly declares. The expression " God knows" in the lips
of the apostle, it need not be remarked, implies no irreverence.
It is a pious recognition of the omniscience of God, the searcher of all hearts, to whom he appeals as the witness of the
strength of his affection for his people. The true reason for
his determination to continue to do as he had already done,
was, as he says, That I may cut of occasion from them, thtt
desire occasion. That is, that I may avoid giving those wil,)
desire to impeach my motives any pretence for the charge
that I preach the gospel for the sake of gain. It is plain from
I Cor, 9, 15-18, that this was his motive in refusing to receive




262       II. CORINTHIANS  11, 11. 12.
aid from the Corinthians; and that his special Kav'aXnFa, 01
ground of boasting, was that he preached the gospel gratui
tously. He said he would rather die than that any man should
take from him that ground of confidence. This of course im
plies that the purity of his motives had been assailed, and that
his object in making "the gospel of Christ without charge"
was to stop the mouths of his accusers. That wherein they
glory. This clause (with Eva) depends on the immediately
preceding one. He desired to cut off occasion from those
seeking it, in order that, if they chose to boast, they may be
fbund even as we. That is, he wished to force them to be as
disinterested as he was. According to this interpretation, 4v
4, in the phrase &v X KavXWvrat, does not refer to any special
ground of' boasting, but to the general disposition.'Inasmuch as they are so fond of boasting and of setting themselves
up as apostles, they may be forced to give over making gain
of the gospel.'
Calvin, Grotius, Rickert, and others, assume that the false
teachers in Corinth preached gratuitously, and that the reason
why the apostle did the same, was that he might not give
them occasion to glory over him. In this view the second
clause with Iva is co-ordinate with the first, and iv W in the last
clause refers to their special ground of boasting, and the sense
of the whole is,' I will do as I have done in order that these
false teachers shall have no occasion to exalt themselves over
me; that is, in order that they be found, when they boast of
their disinterestedness, to be no better than I am.' But to
this it may be objected, 1. That it is evident from v. 20 of
this chapter, and from  the whole character of these false
teachers as depicted by the apostle, that so far from preaching gratuitously, they robbed the churches. 2. It is clear
from what is said in the former epistle that Paul's object was
not to prevent his opponents setting themselves forth as his
superiors, but to make undeniably manifest the purity of his
own motives in preaching the gospel. Others again, admitting that the false teachers received money from the Corinthians, understand the apostle to say, that he refused aid in
order that he might take away from the false teachers all
occasion for boasting that they were as he was. This, however, was not their boast. They did not claim to be what
the apostle was, for they denounced him as an impostor. The
first interpretation suits both the words and the context:




II. CORINTHIANS  11, 13.                  263
13. For such (are) false apostles, deceitful workers,
transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
The reason assigned in this verse for the determination
expressed in the preceding, to cut off occasion from those who
sought to degrade the apostle, is, the unworthy character of
his opponents. They were so unprincipled and unscrupulous
that Paul was determined they should have no advantage over
him. The words oZ TOtOr-ot IEvSa7TOrok-ToXot may be rendered
either, Such false apostles are, &c., or, Such are false apostles.
The Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, and the majority of the earlier
commentators, give the former interpretation; most of the
later writers the latter. The latter is to be preferred because
the emphasis is on the word false apostles; and because such
false apostles would imply that there were other false apostles
who were not deceitful workers. False apostles are those
who falsely claimed to be apostles, as false Christs, MIatt. 24,
24, and false prophets, Matt. 11, 15, are those who falsely
claimed to be Christ or prophets. An apostle was commissioned by Christ, endowed with the gifts of plenary inspiration
and knowledge, and invested with supernatural powers.
Those in that age, and those who now claim to be apostles
without this commission, these gifts, and these signs of the
apostleship, are false apostles. They claim to be what they
are not, and usurp an authority which does not belong to
them. The fundamental idea of Romanism is the perpetuity
of the apostolic office. Bishops are assumed to be apostles,
and therefore claim infallibility in teaching, and supreme authority in ruling. If we admit them to be apostles, we must
admit the validity of their claims to unquestioning faith and
obedience. Deceitful workers, i, e. workers who use deceit.
They were workers in so far as they were preachers or teachers; but they were not honest; they availed themselves of
every means to deceive and pervert the people. To the same
persons the apostle refers in Phil. 3, 2, "as evil workers."
Transforming themselves into, i. e. assuming the character of,
the apostles of Christ. Though their real object was not to
advance the kingdom and glory of Christ, and although they
were never commissioned for that work, they gave themselves
out as Christ's messengers and servants, and even claimed to
have a more intimate relation to him, and to be more devoted
to his service than Paul himself.
12




264       II. CORINTHIANS  11, 14. 15.
14. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
It is not wonderful that false apostles should put themselves forward under the guise of apostles of Christ, and appear and be received as such, for Satan himself, the most evil
of all beings, assumes the form of the highest and purest of
created intelligences. An angel of light, i. e. a bright, pure,
happy angel. Light is always the symbol of excellence and
blessedness, hence the expressions kingdom of light, children
of light, &c. And hence God is said to dwell in light, and
the saints are said to have their inheritance in light. It is by
no means clear that the apostle refers either to the history of
the fall or to Satan's appearing with the sons of God as mentioned in Job 1, 6. It is more probable that the statement
rests on the general doctrine of the Bible concerning the
great adversary. He is everywhere represented as the deceiver, assuming false guises, and making false representations.
15. Therefore (it is) no great thing if his ministers
also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness;
whose end shall be according to their works.
If Satan can be thus changed, it is no great thing if his
ministers undergo a similar transformation. If a bad angel
can assume the appearance of a good angel, a bad man may
put on the semblance of a good man. The false teachers are
called ministers of Satan, that is, they are his servants, 1. In
so far as they are instigated and controlled in their labours by
him. 2. And in so far that their labours tend to advance his
kingdom, i. e. error and evil. All wicked men and all teachers of false doctrine are, in this sense the servants of Satan.
He is their master. The false teachers assumed to be ministers of righteousness.  This may mean, righteous, upright
ministers; or, promoters of righteousness in the sense of general excellence. They pretended to be the promoters of all
that is good. Or, righteousness may be taken in its peculiar
New Testament and Pauline sense, as in 3, 9, where the
the phrase "ministry of righteousness " occurs; see also Eph.
6, 15. In these and many other places the word righteousuess refers to "the righteousness of God," or, as it is also




II. CORINTHIANS  11, 16.                  265
called "the righteousness of faith."   These false teachers
professed tbe tohe preachers of that righteousness which is
of God and which avails to the justification of sinners in his
sight. Satan does not come to us as Satan; neither does sin
present itself as sin, but in the guise of virtue; and the teach.
ers of error set themselves forth as the special advocates of
truth.  WVhose end shall be according to their works. Satan
is none the less Satan when he appears as an angel cf light,
and evil is evil when called by the name of good. God's
judgments are according to the truth. He does not pass
sentence on the (o-r;a) the external fashion which we assume,
but on our real character; not on the mask, but on the man.
The end, i. e, the recompense of every man, shall be not according to his professions, not according to his own convictions or judgment of his character or conduct, not according
to appearances or the estimate of men, but according to his
works. If men really promote the kingdom of Christ, they
will be regarded and treated as his servants; if they increase
the dominion of sin and error, they will be regarded and
treated as the ministers of Satan.
16. I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if
otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast
myself a little.
After the foregoing outburst of feeling against the false
teachers, the apostle resumes his purpose of self-vindication.
Ile therefore says again what he had in substance said in v. 1.
Let no man think me a fool, that is, a boaster. Self-laudation
is folly; and self-vindication, when it involves the necessity
of self-praise, has the appearance of folly. Therefore the
apostle was pained and humbled by being obliged to praise
himself. He was no boaster, and no one could rightfully so
regard him, but if otherwise (El 8E AP/yE, the negative is used
because although the preceding clause is negative, the idea
is,' I would that no man should regard me as a fool, but if
you do not think of me as I would wish, still, &c.')  Receive
me, (i. e. bear with me,) that I may boast myself a little.
The words are KayJ, I also, i. e. I as well as others.'You
allow my enemies to boast of what they do, permit me to say
a little of what I have done and suffered.'
17. That which I speak, I speak (it) not after the




266         II. CORINTHIANS  11, 17
Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of
boasting.
That which Ispeak, 8 XaXa. The apostle uses XaX& and
not XAy7o, because the reference is not to any definite words
which he had uttered, but general —my talk, or language.
Is not after the Lord, i. e. is not such as characterized Christ,
or becomes his disciples. Our Lord was no boaster, and his
Spirit does not lead any one to boast. This is very commonly regarded as a denial of inspiration, or divine guidance in
these utterances. Even Bengel says, " Whatever Paul wrote
without this express exception, was inspired and spoken after
the Lord;" and Meyer says, ovi XaX  KaTa Kv'ptov, negirt allerdings den theopneusten Charakter der Rede. This arises
from a misconception of the nature and design of inspiration.
The simple end of inspiration is to secure infallibility in the
communication of truth. It is not designed to sanctify; it
does not preclude the natural play of the intellect or of the
feelings. When Paul called the High Priest a " whited wall,"
Acts 23, 3, although he apologized for it, he was as much inspired as when he wrote his epistle to the Ephesians. Even
supposing therefore that there was something of human weakness in his boasting, that would not prove that he was not
under the inspiration of God in saying that he boasted, or in
saying that boasting was folly. But this assumption is unnecessary. There was nothing wrong in his self-laudation.
He never appears more truly humble than when these references to his labour and sufferings were wrung from him, filling
him with a feeling of self-contempt. Alas! how few of the
holiest of men does it pain and mortify to speak of their own
greatness or success. How often are the writings even of
good men coals on which they sprinkle incense to their own
pride. When Paul said that his boasting was not after the
Lord, he said no more than when he called it folly. All that
the expression implies is that self-praise in itself considered, is
not the work of a Christian; it is not a work to which the
Spirit of Christ impels the believer. But, when it is necessary to the vindication of the truth or the honor of religion, it
becomes a duty. But as it were foolishly, (&v J3poorv'v, in
folly.)  That is, speaking boastfully was not religious but
foolish. In this confidence of boasting,'v TavTJ T-r vTroorTacoE
I1  Kavx7lqcrEWs.'Y7ro'a-ots may mean matter, or confidence.'In this particular matter, or case of boasting.' In this sense




II. CORINTHIAN S 11, 18.                   267
it is a limitation of what precedes. He was justified in boasting in this particular matter. It is, however, more consistent
with the common use of the word in the New Testament, that
here, as in 9, 4, it should be taken in the sense of confidence,
and Ev be rendered with.'I speak with this confidence of
boasting.'
18. Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will
glory also.
The apostle here assigns the reason of his glorying.  His
opponents so magnified themselves and their services, and so
depreciated him and his labours, that he was forced, in order
to maintain his influence as the advocate of a pure gospel, to
set forth his claims to the confidence of the people.  Seeing
that (EirEt, since, becautse) many glory. From this, as well as
fiom other intimations abounding in this epistle, it is evident
that the opposition to Paul was headed not by one man, but
by a body or class of false teachers, all of whom were Judaizers. They gloried after the flesh (KaT& T7v, -appKa). This
may mean,'they gloried as to the flesh.' Then flesh means
what is external and adventitious, such as their Hebrew descent, their circumcision, &c. See v. 22, where these false
teachers are represented as boasting of their external advantages.  Compare also Gal. 6, 13 and Phil. 3, 4, where the
apostle says in reference to the same class of opponents, "If
any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust
in the flesh, I more."  The sense in this case is good and ap
pl'opriate, but it would require' Ev and not KaTa. See 10, 17
11, 12. 12, 9, &c., &c. KTa'& a'pKaz more properly means according to the flesh, i. e. according to corrupt human nature,
as opposed to KaTa KVptov in the preceding verse. These men
were influenced in their boasting by unworthy motives. I
will glory also. Does Paul mean,' As others glory after the
flesh, I also will glory after the flesh'? i. e. as others give
way to their selfish feelings, I will do the same. This is the
view which many commentators take. They say that KaT&a
acpKca is necessarily implied after KayO KavXjao-uaL, because the
apostle had just said that in boasting he did not act Kar& KVpLOV,
which implies that he did act KaTa uapKa; and because in the
following verse he makes himself one of al<pove; of whose glo.
tying the Corinthians were so tolerant.  But the sense thus
expressed is neither true nor consistent with the character of




268       II. CORINTHIANS  11, 19. 20.
the apostle. It is not true that he was influenced in boasting
by corrupt feelings; that self-conceit and the desire of applause were in him, as in the false teachers, the motives which
governed him in this matter. There is no necessity for supplying KaTa r-apKa after the last clause. What Paul says is,'As many boast from unworthy motives, I also will boast.'
If they did it from bad motives, he might well do it from
good ones.
19. For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye (yourselves) are wise.
That is,' I will indulge in the folly of boasting, for ye are
tolerant of fools.' The Corinthians had, to a degree disgraceful to themselves, allowed the boasting Judaizing teachers to
gain an ascendency over them, and they could not, therefore,
with any consistency object to the self-vindication of Paul.
Seeing ye are wise. As it is the part of the wise to bear with
fools, so the Corinthians in their wisdom might bear with the
apostle. Of course this is said ironically and as a reproof.
In the same spirit and with the same purpose he had said to
them in his former epistle, 4, 8, "We are fools, but ye are
wise."
20. For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage,
if a man devour (you), if a man take (of you), if a man
exalt himself, if a mall smite you on the face.
They might well bear with Paul since they bore with the
tyranny, the rapacity, the insolence, and the violence of the
false teachers. The character of these troublers of the church
was everywhere the same; see Gal. 1, 7. They were lords
over God's heritage, 1 Pet. 5, 3, not only as they endeavoured
to reduce the Christians under the bondage of the law, as appears from the epistle to the Galatians, but as they exercised
a tyrannical authority over the people. To this the apostle
here refers when he says, If any man bring you into bondage
(KaraaolvXoZ), i. e. makes slaves of you. That this is not to be
limited to subjection to the Jewish law, is evident from what
follows, which is an amplification of the idea here expressed.
These men were tyrants, and therefore they devoured, insulted and maltreated the people. If' any man devour (you),
i. e. rapaciously consumes your substance, as our Lord de



II. CORINTHIANS  11, 21.                   269
scribes the Pharisees as devouring widows' houses, MIatt.
23, 14. If any take (of you); cE rts Xa/a3aVELt; {btas is to be
supplied as after KarEO&-tE in the preceding clause. " If any
take you," i. e. capture you or ensnare you, as a huntsman his
prey.  Our version by supplying of you alters the sense, and
makes this clause express less than the preceding; devouring
is a stronger expression for rapacity than'taking of you.'
Irf any man, exalt himself (&Iratperat, sc. KalY ~'/pV), i. e. if any
one proudly and insolently lifts himself up against you. And
as the climax, If any one smite you on thc jfacce. To smite
the face or mouth was the highest indignity; as such it was
offered to our Lord, Luke 22, 64, and to Paul, Acts 23, 2;
see also 1 Kings 22, 24. MIatt. 5, 39. Such was the treatment
to which the Corinthians submitted fiom the hands of the
false teachers; and such is ever the tendency of unscriptural
churllch-authority. It assumes an absolute dependence of the
p)eol)le on the clergy —an inherent, as well as official superiority of the latter over the former, and therefore false teachers
hllave, as a general rule, been tyrants.  The gospel, and of
course the evangelical, as opposed to the high-church system
of doctrine, is incompatible with all undue authority, because
it teaches the essential equality of believers and opens tile
way to grace and salvation to the people without the intervention of a priest.
21. I speak as concerning reproach, as though we
had been weak.  Howbeit, whereinsoever any is bold,
(I speak foolishly) I am bold also.
I speak as concerning reproach.  KarT  it dUav XywO means
simply Irejproach. After arttav may be supplied'/'v. The
sense would then be,'I say to my own shame, that, &c.;'
AXEo being understood as referring to what follows.' I say
to my shame that I was weak.' The Greek is, Kamt JrLt/tav
(iptV ) US Ort  t/LELs JrS3E vrarV; where os OrTt may, as Winer,
~ 67, 1, says, be a redundancy for simply'rTt (5, 19. 2 Thess.
2, 2.)' I say that.' This would be a direct assertion on the part
of Paul that he was weak in the sense intended. It is better,
with Meyer and others, to give us its proper force, as, as if.
His being weak was not a fact, but an opinion entertained conlcerning him.'I say that (as people think) I was weak.' One
class of the Corinthians regarded Paul as weak in bodily ptres.




2'70       II. CORINTHIANS  11, 21.
ence and contemptible in speech, 10, 10. In reference to this
judgment of his opponents he says,' I acknowledge to my shame
that, when present with you (the aorist, -crt3evor0axEfv, is used),
I was weak.' In 1 Cor. 2, 3 he told the Corinthians that he
came among them in weakness and fear and much trembling.
There was a sense in which he admitted and professed himself
to be weak. He had no self-confidence. He did not believe
in his own ability to persuade or convert men. He felt the
responsibility of his office, and he relied both for knowledge
and success entirely on the Spirit of God. His conceited and
arrogant opposers were strong in their own estimation; they
contemned the mean-spirited apostle, and considered him destitute of all sources of power. The weakness of which Paul
here speaks is that which was attributed to him by his enemies. The whole preceding context is ironical, and so is this
clause.'Your teachers are great men, I am nothing compared to them. They are strong, but, I say it to my shame,
I am weak. But, as opposed to this imputed weakness, I
am equal to any of them, I speak in folly.' Hffowbeit whereinsoever any is bold (v v   8' v  rts oXjU),' But whatever they
dare, I dare. Whatever claims they put forth, I can assert
the same. If they boast, I can outboast them. If they are
Hebrews, so am I, &c.'
The foregoing interpretation of this passage, which assumes that XEyo in the first clause refers to what follows, and
that the reproach mentioned had Paul for its object, is given
by Storr, Flatt, Meyer, aund many others. The great majority
of commentators, however, understand VXyo as referring to
what precedes and the Corinthians and not Paul to be the object of the reproach.'I say this to your shame.' Compare
1 Cor. 6, 5, Vrpo 3v -powr2v vZv kXEyw. (In this latter passage,
however, it will be remarked that the preposition is 7rpos and
not KaTa, as in the passage before us, and that iv~zv is in the
text, whereas here there is no pronoun used.) The two principal objections to this interpretation are, 1. That if Xoyw refers to the preceding verses the sense must be,'I make this
exhibition of the character of your teachers in order to shame
you.' This would do very well if what follows carried out
that idea; but instead of speaking of the Corinthians, and endeavouring to convince them of their folly in adhering to such
men as teachers, he immediately speaks of himself, ana shows
how he was despised as weak. 2. According to this interpretation there is great difficulty in explaining the following




II. CORINTHIANS  11, 22. 23.                i71
clause. It would not do to say,'I speak to shame yob that
I was weak;' or, if o'TL be made causal,'I speak to shame you
because I was weak-, still the sense is not good. -The former
interpretation of this difficult passage is therefore to be preforred.
22. Are they Hebrews? so (am) I. Are they Israelites? so (am) I. Are they the seed of Abraham?
so (am) I.
In this verse the apostle begins his boasting by showing
that in no point did he come behind his opponents. The
three designations here used belonged to the chosen people.
The HIebrews were Israelites, and the Israelites were the seed
of Abraham. The first, as Meyer remarks, is the national
designation of the people of God; the second their theocratic
appellation; and the third marked them as the heirs of Abraham and expectants of the Messianic kingdom. Or, as Bengel remarks with no less justice, the first refers to their national, and the two others to their religious or spiritual relation.
A IHebrew was not a Jew of Palestine as distinguished from
the Hellenists, or Jews born out of Palestine and speaking
the Greek language. For Paul himself was born in Tarsus,
and yet was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, that is, a man of pure
Hebrew descent. In Acts 6, 1 the word is used for the Jews
of Palestine in distinction from other Jews, but it is obviously not so either here or in Phil. 3, 5.
23. Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as
a fool) I (am) more; in labours more abundant, in
stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in
deaths oft.
In all that related to the privileges of birth, as belonging
to the chosen seed, Paul stood on a level with the chief of his
opposers; in all that related to Christ and his service he stood
far above them. Are they the ministers of Christ?  Such
they were by profession, and such for the moment he admits
them to be, although in truth they were the ministers of Satan, 
as lie had said in v. 15. I more (Ur'p'yJ, where 7r'Ep is used.Ixs an adverb). This may mean either, I am more th.al  a,
(&LKOVO0) minister of Christ; or, I amn a minister or servant of
12*




272        II. CORINTHIANS  11, 24.
Christ in a higher measure than they. That is, I am more
devoted, laborious and suffering than they. The latter is the
true explanation as is clear firom what follows, and because in
Paul's language and estimation there was no higher title or
service than that of minister of Christ. I speak as a fool,
rrapacovwv XaX&o. This is a strong expression,'I speak as one
beside himself.' This is said out of the consciousness of illdesert and utter insufficiency. Feeling himself to be in himself both impotent and unworthy, this self-laudation, though
having reference only to his infirmities and to what God had
done in him and by him, was in the highest degree painful
and humiliating to the apostle. It is Paul's judgment of himself, not the judgment which others are presumed to pass
upon him. In labours more abundant,'V KoTroLS 7rrEpWcrorE'poS.
There are three ways of explaining this and the fbllowing
clauses, 1. In (or, by) labours I am more abundantly the servant of Christ. 2. Or, (supplying Tv or yEyova,) I have been
more abundant in labours. 3. Or, connecting, as De WVette
and Meyer do, the adverbs with the substantives with the sense
of adjectives, by more abundant labours. This latter explanation can better be carried through, and expresses the sense
clearly. In stripes above measure, Ev 7rX-yaZ3s vTreppfaXXo'vTWs,
i. e. by stripes exceeding measure (in frequency and severity).
In prisons more frequent, either, as before,' I have been more
frequently imprisoned,' or,'By more firequent prisons.' The
sense remains the same. In deaths oft, &v 3avaTrots 7woXXaKLt,
by manifold deaths.  Paul, in accordance with common
usage, elsewhere says, "I die daily."  He suffered a thousand
deaths, in the sense of being constantly in imminent danger
of death and of enduring its terrors.
24. 25. Of the Jews five times received I forty
(stripes) save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods,
once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night
and a day I have been in the deep.
These verses are a parenthesis designed to confirm the
preceding assertion that he had laboured and suffered more
in the service of Christ than any of his opponents. In v. 26
the construction is resumed. The apostle had at this period
of his history been scourged eight times; five times by the
Jews and thrice by the Romans. Of this cruel ill-treatment




II. CORINTHIANS  11, 26.                 273
at the hands of his own countrymen, the Acts of the Apostles
contain no record; and of the three occasions on which he
was beaten with rods, that mentioned in Acts 16, 22 as having
occurred at Philippi is the only one of which we have elsewhere any account. In the law of MIoses, Deut. 25, 3, it was
forbidden to inflict more than forty stripes on an offender, and
it appears that the Jews, in their punctilious observance of
the letter of the law, were in the habit of inflicting only
thirty-nine so as to be sure not to transgress the prescribed
limit. From the distinction which the apostle makes between
receiving stripes at the hands of the Jews and being beaten
with rods, it is probable that the Jews were at that period
accustomed to use a lash. The later Rabbis say that the
scourge was made with three thongs, so that each blow inflicted three stripes; and that only thirteen strokes were
given to make up the prescribed number of thirty-nine lashes.
Once was I stloed. Acts 14, 19. On this occasion his enemies supposed he was dead. He must therefore have been
rendered for the time insensible. Thrice I suffered shipwreck.
Of' this we have no mention in the Acts. The shipwreck in
which Paul was involved on his journey to Rome, was at a
much later period. Al  ight and a day hcave I been in the
leep. That is, for that length of tinme he was tossed about by
the waves, clinging to a fragment of a wreck. A  night and
lday (vvX37jtEpov), i. e. a whole day of twenty-four hours. The
Jews commenced the day at sunset.
26. (In) journeyings often, (in) perils of waters,
(il) perils of robbers, (in) perils by (mine own) countrymnen, (in) perils by the heathen, (in) perils in the
city, (in) perils in the wilderness, (in) perils in the sea,
(in) perils among false brethren.
Our translators have throughout this passage supplied the
preposition in. But as Ev in the preceding verse is used instrumentally, so here we have the instrumental dative, by
journeyings, by perils, &c. It was by voluntarily exposing
himself to these dangers, and by the endurance of these sut:
ferings the apostle proved his superior claim to be regarded
as a devoted minister of Christ. Perils of water, literally, of
rivers; as distinguished from the dangers of the sea mentioned
afterwards. History shows that in the country traversed hi




274         II. CORINTHIANS  11, 27.
Paul's journeys great danger was often encountered in passing
the rivers which crossed his path. Perils of robbers, to which
all travellers were exposed. Perils from my own countrymen
((K yE'ovs as opposed to $ EcSv'v). The Jews were, at least in
most cases, the first to stir up opposition and to excite the
mob against the apostle. This was the case at Damascus,
Acts 9, 23; at Jerusalem, Acts 9, 29; at Antioch in Pisidia,
Acts 13, 50; at Iconium, 14, 5; at Lystra, 14, 19; at Thessalonica, Acts 17, 5; at Berea, Acts 17, 13; at Corinth, 18, 12.
From the Gentiles, as at Philippi and Ephesus. In the city,
as in Damascus, Jerusalem and Ephesus. In the desert. The
dangers of the desert are proverbial. Paul traversed Arabia,
as well as the mountainous regions of Asia Minor, and was
doubtless often exposed in these journeys to the dangers of
robbers, as well as those arising from exposure, and hunger
and thirst. Of the sea, not only in the case of shipwreck before mentioned, but to other and lesser perils. Perils among
false brethren, referring probably to the treachery of those
who falsely professed to be his brethren in Christ, and yet
endeavoured to deliver him into the power of his enemies.
27. In  weariness and  painfulness, in  watchings
often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold
and nakedness.
Here the preposition Ev is again used, but in its instrumental sense by. It was by these trials and sufferings he
proved himself to be what he claimed to be. By weariness
and painfulness, iv KO7TO KaLt ~tXo. These words are thus associated in 1 Thess. 2, 9, and 2 Thess. 3, 8, in both of which
places they are rendered "labour and travail." They both
express the idea of wearisome toil and the consequent exhaustion and suffering. By watchings often, referring to the
sleepless nights which he was often compelled by business or
suffering to pass. In hunger and thirst, in fastings often.
The common meaning of the word vr-q-rdra, and its connection
with the words " hunger and thirst," implying involuntary abstinence from food, are urged as reasons for understanding it
to mean voluntary fasting. But the context is in favour of the
common interpretation which makes it refer to involuntary abstinence. Every other particular here mentioned belongs to
the class of sufferings; and it would therefore be incongruous




II. CORINTHIANS  11, 28.                 275
to introduce into this enumeration any thing so insignificant
and so common as religious fasting. In this the Pharisees
were his equals and probably far his superior. They fasted
twice in the week. Paul was no ascetic, and certainly did not
deny himself food to the extent of making that denial an act of
heroism. It is remarkable that we have no record of Paul's
ever having fasted at all, unless Acts 13, 3. By cold and nakedness. This completes the picture. The greatest of the
apostles here appears before us, his back lacerated by frequent
scourgings, his body worn by hunger, thirst, and exposure;
cold and naked, persecuted by Jews and Gentiles, driven from
place to place without any certain dwelling. This passage,
more perhaps than any other, makes even the most laborious
of the modern ministers of Christ hide their face in shame.
What have they ever done or suffered to compare with what
this apostle did? It is a consolation to know that Paul is now
as pre-eminent in glory, as he was here in suffering.
28. Besides those things that are without, that
which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the
churches.
This verse is variously interpreted. The first clause, Besides those things which are without, is rendered in the same
way in the Vulgate. Praeter illa, quae extrinsecus sunt. So
also Calvin, Beza, and others. But this is contrary to the
usage of the words Tr 7TapEKTO', which mean, the things besides,
i. e. other things; so that the sense of the clause XWpV3 TJV
7rapEKrTO& is,'Not to mention other things.' The preeding
enumeration, copious as it is, was not exhaustive. Thelre
were other things of a like nature which the apostle would
not stop to mention, but proceeded to another class of trials.
That class included his exhausting official duties. That which
cometh on me daily, viz., the care of all the churches. The
latter clause is, according to this explanation, assumed to be
explanatory of the former. The same view is taken of the
relation of the two clauses by Meyer, who renders the passage
thus: "My daily attention, the care of all the churches."
This latter interpretation assumes that instead of Erw-vroraTL,
which is in the common text, the true reading is  n'7rro-Tauts, a
reading adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf; Meyer, Rfickert,
and others. Both words are used in the sense of concourse,




27 6        II. CORINTHIANS  11, 29.
tumult, as of the people, see Acts 24, 12, but the former has
also the sense of care, or attention. If the corrected text be
adopted, then the interpretation just mentioned is to be preferred.'Without mentioning other things, (q E7rr-TLacr-s ov 4V
KaY' rplEpav) my daily oversight, the care of all the church.'
If the common text, although not so well sustained, be adhered to, the meaning probably is,'My daily concourse
(quotidiani hominumn impetus). That is, the crowding upon
him every day of people demanding his attention. This is
the sense expressed by Luther; " Dass ich tiglich werde angelaufen, und trage Sorge fir alle Gemeinen."  The solicitude
which the apostle felt for the churches which he had founded,
is apparent from all his epistles; and it may be easily imagined how various and constant must have been the causes
and occasions of anxiety and trouble on their account.
29. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?
That is, he sympathized with his fellow Christians, who
were his children in the faith, so that their sorrows and sufferings were his own. This was the consequence not only of the
communion of saints, in virtue of which, "if one member suf:
fier, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it," 1 Cor. 12, 26; but
also of the peculiar relation which Paul sustained to the
churches, which he had himself planted.  Who is weak; i. e.
in faith, or scrupulous through want of knowledge, compare
1 Cor. 9, 22, and I am not weak.  That is, with whose infirmities of faith and knowledge do I not sympathize? He
pitied their infirmities and bore with their prejudices. To
the weak, he became as weak. There are men, says Calvin,
who either despise the infirmities of their brethren, or trample
them  under their feet. Such men know little of their owp.
hearts, and have little of the spirit of Paul or of Paul's master.
God never quenches the smoking flax.  Who is offended
(o-KavlaX'er'aL), i. e. caused to stumble, or led into sin; and 1
btrn not. That is, and I am not indignant?  It was not to
Paul a matter of indifference when any of the brethren, by
the force of evil example, or by the seductions of false teachers, were led to depart from the truth or to act inconsistently
with their profession. Such events filled him not only with
grief at the fall of the weak, but with indignation at the au



II. CORINTHIANS  11, 30.31.               277
thors of their fall. Thus his mind was kept in a state of constant agitation by his numerous anxieties and his wide-hearted
sympathy.
30. If I must needs glory, I will glory of the
things which concern mine infirmities.
Paul's boasting was not like that of the false teachers.
They boasted not only of their descent, but of their learning,
eloquence, and personal advantages; he boasted only of the
things which implied weakness, his sufferings and privations.
The future, KavXv'ro-ouat, expresses a general purpose, illustrated
in the past, and not having reference merely to what was to
come. The persecutions, the poverty, the scourgings, the
hunger and nakedness of which Paul had boasted, were not
things in which men of the world pride themselves, or which
commonly attract human applause.
31. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
This is a peculiarly solemn asseveration. An oath is the
act of calling God to witness the truth of what we say. Here
the appeal is not simply to God as God, but to God in his peculiar covenant relation to believers.  When the Israelite
called on Jehovah as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
he recognized him not only as the creator and moral governor
of the world, but as the covenant God of his nation. So the
Christian when he calls God "The God and Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ," recognizes him not only as his Creator,
but as the author of redemption through his eternal Soln.
Jesus Christ is a designation of the Theanthropos, the historical person so named and known, to whom God stood in tile
relation at once of God and Father. Our Lord had a dependent nature to which God stood in the relation of Go(l,
and a divine nature to which He stood in the relation of'
Father, and therefore to the complex person Jesus Christ
God bore the relation of both God and Father.
There is a difference of opinion as to the reference of this
passage. Some suppose that the apostle intended by this oath
to confirm the truth of the whole preceding exhibition of his
labours and sufferings; others, that it is to be confined to the
assertion in v. 30, viz., that he would boast only of his infirini



278        II. CORINTHIANS  11, 32.
ties; others, as Calvin and many others, refer it to what follows, i. e., to the account which he was about to give of his
escape from Damascus. To give this explanation the more
plausibility, Meyer assumes that Paul had intended to introduce an extended narrative of his escape and sufferings, beginning with the incident at Damascus,'but was interrupted
and did not carry out his intention. As, however, there is no
intimation of this in the context, it is probable that the reference is to the whole of the preceding narrative. He intended
to satisfy his readers that he had not exaggerated or overstated his sufferings. God knew that all he had said was
true.
32. In Damascus the governor under Aretas the
king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison,
desirous to apprehend me.
It is useless to inquire why Paul introduces, as it were, as
an after-thought, this disconnected account of his escape from
Damascus. It is enough that the fact occurred to him when
writing, and that he saw fit to record it. The account here
given agrees with that found in Acts 9, 24. 25, except that
there the attempt to apprehend the apostle is attributed to
the Jews, and here to the governor of the city. There is no
inconsistency between the two. The governor acted no doubt
at the instigation of the Jews. He had no grievance of his
own to redress or avenge. The governor, or ethnarch, a term
applied to a vassal prince, or ruler appointed by a sovereign
over a city or province. Governor under, literally, qfAretas
the king. Aretas was a common name of Arabian kings, as
Pharaoh of the kings of Egypt. A king of that name is mentioned as contemporary with the high-priest Jason, and with the
king Antiochus Epiphanes. The one here referred to was the
father-in-law of Herod Antipas. Herod having repudiated
the daughter of Aretas, the latter declared war against him
and totally defeated his army. Vitellius, proconsul of Syria,
undertook to punish him for this assault on a Roman vassal,
but was arrested on his march by the death of the emperor
Tiberius. It is commonly supposed that it was during this
respite that Aretas, who was king of Petra, gained temporary
possession of Damascus. Kept the city of the Damrascenes,
not, besieged tihe clity, but as it is expressed in Apts, watched




II. CORINTHIANS  11, 33.                 279
the gates. The words of the _Damascenes (Tr7v halatzav'Kv
7rdXLv) are omitted in the original edition of 1611 of King
James's version, but are now found in all the copies.  With a
garrison. The word is simply qSpo'peL, he kept, or guarded..Desirous to apprehend me. The governor set a guard at the
gates to seize the apostle should he attempt to leave the
city.
33. And through a window in a basket was I let
down by the wall, and escaped his hands.
Through a window, Svpt, a little door, or aperture. This
was either an aperture in the wall itself, or, as is more probable, a window of a house built upon the walls of the city. A
representation of these overhanging houses as still to be seen
on the walls of Damascus, may be found in Conybeare and
Howson's life of St. Paul, p. 98 of the 8vo. edition. The same
mode of escape was adopted by the spies mentioned in Joshua
2, 15, and by David, 1 Sam. 19, 12.
CHAPTER XII.
The account of a remarkable vision granted to the apostle, vs. 1-6. The
other evidences of his apostleship, and his conduct and purooses in the
exercise of his office, vs. 7-21.
Paul's revelations and visions.
HE would give over boasting, and refer not to what he had
done, but to what God had done; not to scenes in which he
was the agent, but to those in which he was merely the subject-to revelations and visions. He had been caught up to
the third heavens, and received communications and revelations which he was not permitted to make known. This was
to him, and to all who believed his word, a more reliable evidence of the favour of God to him as an apostle than any thing
he had yet mentioned, vs. 1-6. With this extraordinary proof
of the divine favour there was given him some painful bodily
affection, from which he could not be delivered, in order to




280         II. CORINTHIANS  12, 1.
keep him duly humble, vs. 7-10. This reference to his per.
sonal experience was exceedingly painful to him. He had
been forced by their unreasonable opposition to speak of himself as he had done; for the external signs of his apostleship
should have convinced them that he was the immediate mes,
senger of Christ, vs. 11. 12. They themselves were a standing
proof that he was truly an apostle. They were not less richly
endowed than other churches founded by other apostles. If
inferior at all, it was only that he had refused to be supported
by them. This he could not help. He was determined to
pursue in the future the course in that matter which he had
hitherto adopted; neither by himself nor by others, neither
mediately nor immediately, would he receive any thing at
their hands, vs. 13-18. All this self-vindication was of little
account. It was a small matter what they thought of him.
God is the only competent and final judge. His fear was that
when he reached Corinth he would be forcecl to appear as:a
judge; that not finding them what he desired them to be, he
should be obliged to assume the aspect of a reprover, vs.
19-21.
1. It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory.
I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
The authorities differ much as to the text in this verse.
The common text has 8& (indeed, doubtless) with few MSS. or
versions in its support. Many of the oldest MSS. read 8E, it
is necessary; some few  E', which is adopted'by Meyer as the
original reading. The difference is only as to the shades of'
the thought. The idea is that boasting is not expedient; he
will pass to something else, or at least to things which implied
no agency or superior power on his part. Is not expedient.
Here again some MSS. read with the common text, o' uvp/E'petL MoL, Xev'o-oatc yap, (is not expedient for me, for I will come;)
others with Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Riickert, o' arvuaE'pov
pIv, &XEvG-ovat 8E, (it is not expedient indeed, but I will come.)
The common text is on the whole to be preferred. Boasting,
the apostle says, is not expledient for me, either in the sense
that it does not become me, is not a seemly or proper thing;
or, is not profitable; does not contribute to set my apostleship
in a clear light. There is a better way of proving my divine
mission than by boasting. The former explanation is better
suited to the apostle's mode of representation. He had re



II. CORINTHIANS  12, 2.                  281
peatedly spoken of boasting as a kind of folly, something derogatory and painful. He expresses the same feeling here
when he says it is not expedient. I will come. Our translators omit the ya7p, for I will come. The connection is with a
thought omitted. Boasting is not expedient, (therefore I desist,) for I will pass to something else. What follows in the
relation of the revelations made to him, was no selfllaudation,
but a recital of God's goodness.  Visions and revelations.
The latter term is, on the one hand, more general than the
former, as there might be revelations where there were no
visions; and, on the other, the latter is higher than the former, as implying a disclosure of the import of the things seen.
Of the Lord; not visions of which the Lord was the object;
it was not seeing the Lord that he here speaks of, but visions
and revelations of which the Lord is the author. By Lord is
obviously to be understood Christ, whose continued existence
and divine power over the thoughts and states of the soul is
hereby recognized.
2. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years
ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether
out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such
an one caught up to the third heaven.
He speaks of himself in the third person, " I knew a man.,"
Why he does this is not clear. He narrates what had happened as though he had been a spectator of the scene, perhaps
because his own activity was so completely in abeyance. A
mnan in Christ; a man who was in Christ; the scriptural
designation of a Christian, because union with Christ makes a
man a Christian. It is the one only indispensable condition
of salvation; so that all who are in Christ are saved, and all
who are out of Christ perish. It is also the plain doctrine of
the Bible that, so far as adults are concerned, this saving
union with Christ is conditioned, not on any thing external,
not on union with this or that external church, but on a personal appropriating act of faith, by which we receive and rest
on Christ alone for salvation. And still further, it is no less
clearly taught that holiness of heart and life is the certain
fruit and therefore the only satisfactory evidence of the genuineness of that faith. Above fourteen years ago. The event
referred to in this verse is not the same as that which occurred




282       II. CORINTHIANS  12, 3. 4.
at the time of Paul's conversion. That was a vision of Christ
to the apostle here on earth, this was a translation of the
apostle into heaven; that occurred twenty years before the
probable date of this epistle. So that the two agree neither
in nature, nor in the time of their occurrence.  tVhether in
the body or out of the body, I cannot tell. The point as to
which Paul was in doubt, was not the nature of the event,
not as to whether it was a mere exaltation of his consciousness and perceptions or a real translation, but simply whether
that translation was of the soul separated from the body, or
of the body and soul together. Though heaven is a state, it
is also a place. According to the scriptural representation,
more is necessary to our introduction into heaven than merely opening the eyes to what is now- about us and around us.
The glorified body of our Lord is somewhere, and not everywhere. Such an one caught up; ap7raye1vTa, carried away,
the proper term to express a removal from one place to another without the agency of the subject. Paul was entirely
passive in the translation of which he here speaks. Comp.
Acts 8, 39. 1 Thess. 4, 17, " Caught up to meet the Lord in
the air."  To the third heaven. This means either the highest
heavens; or, on the assumption that Paul used the language
and intended to conform to the ideas of the Rabbins who
taught that there were seven heavens, it means the air, the
region of the clouds. He was caught up into the air, and
then still further raised to Paradise. The former explanation
is to be preferred, 1. Because there is no evidence that the
opinions of the Jewish writers, whose works are still extant,
were prevalent at the time of the apostle. 2. Because there
is no evidence in the New Testament that the sacred writers
adopted those opinions.  3. Because if Paul believed and
taught that there were seven heavens, that is, if he sanctioned
the Rabbinical doctrine on that subject, it would be a part of
Christian doctrine, which it is not. It is no part of the faith
of the Christian church. 4. Because it is plain that the " third
heaven" and "paradise" are synonymous terms; and paradise,
as is admitted, at least by those who suppose that Paul here
speaks as a Jew, means heaven.
3. 4. And I knew such a man, (whether in the
body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
how that he was caught up into paradise, and heard




II. CORINTHIANS  12, 5. 6.                283
unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to
utter.
This is a repetition of v. 2, with the exception of the substitution of the word "paradise" for the phrase "the third
heaven." Paradise is a word of Sanscrit origin, and signifies
a park, or garden. It is used in the Septuagint, Gen. 2, 8, in
the description of Eden, which was a paradise or garden. The
word was early used among the Jews as a designation of
heaven, or the abode of the blessed after death, as appears
from Luke 23, 43, (compare Ecclesiasticus 40, 17. 28.) In
Rev. 2, 7, it occurs in the same sense. And heard unspoeakable words, ~app-ra pqraTa, literally, unspoken words; here obviously the meaning is words not to be spoken, as explained
by what follows.  WThich it is not lawful for a man to utter.
The communications made to the apostle he was not allowed
to make known to others. The veil which conceals the mysteries, and glories of heaven God has not permitted to be
raised. It is enough that we know that in that world the
saints shall be made perfectly holy and perfectly blessed in
the full enjoyment of God forever.
5. Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will
not glory, but in mine infirmities.
Of such a one, IrEp ToV TOLOVTOV, for such a one, i. e. in his
behalf; or, 6rrcp being taken in the sense of ~rept, about, or
concerning. This latter gives the better sense.'Concerning
such a person I will glory.' This is equivalent to saying,'Such an event is a just ground of glorying.' But TOLOVTOV is
not to be taken as neuter, (of such a thing,) as is plain firom
the antithetical EFavroV.'Of such a one, but not of myself.'
The translation which he had experienced was a proper
ground of boasting, because it was a gratuitous favour. It
implied no superiority on the part of the subject of this act of
divine goodness, and therefore might be gloried in without
assunming any special merit to himself.  Of myself I will not
glory; that is, he would not boast of his personal qualities as
entitling him to admiration. -But (d Pu, except) in my in-.firmities. That is,'I will boast concerning myself only of
those things which prove or imply my own weakness.'
6. For though I would desire to glory, I shall not




284         II. CORINTHIANS  12, 7.
be a fool; for I will say the truth: but (now) I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that
which he seeth me (to be), or (that) he heareth of me.
The connection as indicated by (yap) for, is not immediately with what is expressed in the preceding verse, but with
a thought obviously implied. Paul had said he would not
glory concerning himself. The reason for this determination
was not the want of grounds of boasting.'I could do it, for
if I chose to boast, I should not be a fool; i. e. an empty
boaster-for I would speak the truth.' -But Iforbear (kEt'o/LatL 8 sc. ToV KavXac(r3a). Abundant as were the materials for
boasting at the apostle's command, justly as he could refer to
the extraordinary gifts with which he was endowed, and the
extraordinary success which had attended his labours, he did
not dwell on these things. The reason which he assigns for
this forbearance is that others might not be led to think of
him too highly. He did not wish to be judged of by what
he said of himself or of his experiences. He preferred that
men should judge of him by what they saw or heard.
7. And lest I should be exalted above measure
through the abundance of the revelations, there was
given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of
Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above
measure.
As Paul determined not to give occasion to others to
think too highly of him, he here tells us that God provided
against his being unduly elated even in his own mind. It is a
familiar matter of experience that men are as much exalted
in their oivn estimation by the distinguishing favour of their
superiors, as by the possession of personal advantages. Therefore the apostle, although he would not boast of himself, was
still in danger of being. unduly elated by the extraordinary
manifestations of the divine favour. The order of the words
is inverted. " And by the excess of revelations lest I should
be exalted above measure;"  TrwEpaoo/cLat, be lifted up above
what is meet or right. The expression excess, or exceeding
abundance, of revelations seems to refer not exclusively to the
event above mentioned, but to other similar communications
made to him at other times. That was not the only occasion




1I. CORINTHIANS  12, 7.                    28..
on which God had unveiled to the apostle the treasures of divine knowledge. There was given to me, i. e. by God. It was
God who sent the trial here referred to, and fiom God the
apostle sought deliverance. A thorn in the flesh, UOKo'Xoq  T
aapKl. The word aKoXoAO properly means a sharpened stake, a
palisade, then any piece of sharpened wood, and'specifically a
thorn. This last is the meaning best suited to this passage,
and is the one commonly adopted. Others say the meaning
is, "a goad for the flesh," borrowing a figure from  oxen,
metaphora a bobus sumpta, as Calvin says; others again understand KoXdo to refer to a stake on which offenders were
impaled, or the cross on which they were suspended. A
stake, or cross, for the flesh, would be a figurative expression
for bodily torture. Flesh may be taken literally for the body,
or figuratively for the corrupt nature. Calvin and many others take the latter view. But there is no reason for departing
from the literal meaning, which should in all cases be preferred, other things being equal. The dative crapKC may be
rendered either, for the flesh, or pertaining to the flesh, i. e.
in the flesh. This last is to be preferred, as it suits the context and is sustained by the parallel passage, Gal. 4, 14, Trv
7rELpaar-O7V /0ZOVv'v v  (TrCapKt IKov. If this is the true interpretation of the word cap$, it goes far to determine the nature of
the thorn of which the apostle here speaks. It cannot be the
evil suggestions, or fiery darts of Satan, as Luther, Calvin, and
others, understand it; nor some prominent adversary, as
many of the ancients suppose; it was doubtless some painful
bodily affection. A  messenger of Satan. In the Bible the
idea is often presented that bodily diseases are at times produced by the direct agency of Satan, so that they may be
regarded as his messengers, something sent by him. The
word  aTiav is used here probably as an indeclinable noun, as
in the Septuagint in one or two places, but in the New Testament it is always, except in this instance, declined, nom. eavavas, gen. eraTva. On this account many are disposed to
take the word here as in the nomninative, and translate the
phrase angel Satan, i. e. an angel (or messenger) who is Satan. But inasmuch as -a'rav is at times indeclinable, and as
Satan is never in the New Testament called an angel, the
great majority of commentators give the same exposition as
that given in the English version.  To buffet me, tva /le Kokaqbg~, in order that he (i. e. the angel or messenger) may buffet
Me. The use of the present tense seems to imply that "the




286        II. CORINTHIANS  12, 8.9.
thorn in the flesh" was a permanent affection under which
the apostle continued to suffer. Lest I should be exalted
above measure. This last clause expresses the design of God
in permitting the apostle to be thus afflicted. He carried
about with him a continued evidence of his weakness. However much he was exalted, although raised to the third heaven,
he could not extract this rankling thorn. And the experience
of God"s people shows that bodily pain has a special office to
perform in the work of sanctification. In the unrenewed its
tendency is to exasperate; when self-inflicted its tendency is
to debase and fill the soul with grovelling ideas of God and
religion, and with low self-conceit. But when inflicted by God
on his own children, it more than any thing teaches them their
weakness and dependence, and calls upon them to submit
when submission is most difficult. Though he slay me, I will
trust in him, is the expression of the highest form of faith.
8. 9. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice,
that it might depart from me. And he said unto me,
My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is
made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will
I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of
Christ may rest upon me.
For this thing, v7rEp TOVTOV, in reference to this; vrrEp is
here used in the sense of 7rEpp. TV'TOV may be neuter, for this
thing, i. e. this affliction; or masculine referring to ayyEXo0,
"about this angel or messenger of Satan," &c. This is generally preferred on account of the following clause, tva &aro-O`i,
that he might depart from me. I besought the Lord, says
the apostle, thrice. So our blessed Lord prayed "the third
time saying, Let this cup pass from me."  Paul was therefore
importunate in his petition for deliverance from this sore trial.
lie says, I besought the Lord, that is, Christ, as is clear not
only fiom the general usage of Scripture, but from what follows in v. 9, where he speaks of the " power of Christ."  And
he said unto me, E'tpKi' oL. The perfect is used either for the
aorist, or in its proper force connecting the past with the
present. The answer was not simply something past, but
something which continued in its consoling power. Winer,
~ 41. "He has said;" the answer was ever sounding in the
apostle's ears, and not in his ears only, but in those of all his




II. CORINTHIANS  12, 8. 9.                  287
suffering people from that day to this. Each hears the Lord
say, 31y grace is sufficient for thee, apKEL (ToL I XapLt; you.
These words should be engraven on the palm of every believer's hand..My grace, either,'my love,' or metonymically,'the aid of the Holy Spirit,' which is so often meant by the
word grace. The connection is in favour of the common meaning of the term.' My love is enough for thee.' These are the
words of Christ. He says, to those who seek deliverance from
pain and sorrow,' It is enough that I love you.' This secures
and implies all other good. His favour is life; his lovingkindness is better than life. For my strength is pee:fected in
weakness. This is given as the reason why the grace or favour of Christ is all-sufficient.  That reason is, that his
strength is perfected, i. e. clearly revealed as accomplishing
its end, in weakness.' Weakness, in other words, says our
Lord, is the condition of my manifesting my strength. The
weaker my people are, the more conspicuous is my strength
in sustaining and delivering them.' Most gladly therefore
will I rather glory in my infirmities. The sense is not,'I
will glory in infirmities rather than in other things,' as though
Paul had written  iAXXov Cv rais arEvEt'at,3 but,' I will rather
glory in infirmities than seek deliverance.' If Paul's sufferings were to be the occasion of the manifestation of Christ's
glory, he rejoiced in suffering.  This he did uj'8t(ra, most
sweetly, with an acquiescence delightful to himself. His sufferings thus became the source of the purest and highest
pleasure.  KavXadopaL v'acls aG-JEvetaLs does not mean I glory
in the midst of infirmities, but on account of them. See 5,
12. 10, 15. Rom. 2, 23, &c., &c. This rejoicing on account
of his sufferings, or those things which implied his weakness
and dependence, was not a fanatical feeling, it had a rational
and sufficient basis, viz., that the power of Christ may rest
upon me. The word is  t-K(TlqKiVL —, may pitch its tent upon
me; i. e. dwell in me as in a tent, as the shechinah dwelt of
old in the tabernacle. To be made thus the dwelling-place
of the power of Christ, where he reveals his glory, was a rational ground of rejoicing in those infirmities which were the
condition of his presence and the occasion for the manifestation of his power. MIost Christians are satisfied in trying to
be resigned under suffering. They think it a great thing if
they can bring themselves to submit to be the dwelling-place
of Christ's power. To rejoice in their afflictions because
thereby Christ is glorified, is more than they aspire to. Paul's
12




288        II. CORINTHIANS  12, 10.
experience was far above that standard. The power of Christ
is not only thus manifested in the weakness of his people, but
in the means which he employs for the accomplishment of his
purposes. These are in all cases in themselves utterly inadequate and disproportionate to the results to be obtained. The
treasure is in earthly vessels that the excellency of the power
may be of God. By the foolishness of preaching he saves
those who believe. By twelve illiterate men the church was
established and extended over the civilized world. By a few
missionaries heathen lands are converted into Christian countries. So in all cases, the power of Christ is perfected in
weakness. We have in this passage a clear exhibition of the
religious life of the apostle, and the most convincing proof
that he lived in communion with Christ as God. To him he
looked as to his supreme, omnipresent, all-sufficient Lord for
deliverance from "the thorn in the flesh," from the buffetings
of the messenger of Satan, under which he had so grievously
suffered. To him he prayed. From him he received the answer to his prayer. That answer was the answer of God; it
implies divine perfection in him who gave it. To what sufferer would the favour of a creature be sufficient? Who but
God can say, "My grace is sufficient for thee? "  To Paul it
was sufficient. It gave him perfect peace. It not only made
him resigned under his afflictions, but enabled him to rejoice
in them. That Christ should be glorified was to him an end
for which any human being might feel it an honour to suffer.
It is therefore most evident that the piety of the apostle, his
inward spiritual life, had Christ for its object. It was on him
his religious affections terminated; to him the homage of his
supreme love, confidence and devotion was rendered. Christianity is not merely the religion which Christ taught; but it
is, subjectively considered, the religion of which Christ is the
source and the object.
10. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses
for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I
strong.
The difference between glorying in infirmities and taking
pleasure in them, is that the former phrase expresses the outward manifestation of the feeling expressed by the latter,




II. CORINTHIANS  12, 11.                289
He gloried in infirmities when he boasted of them, that is, referred to them as things which reflected honour on him and
were to him a source of joy. As they were thus the occasions of manifesting the power of Christ, Paul was pleased
with them and was glad that he was subjected to them. Infirmities is a general term, including every thing in our condition, whether moral or physical, which is an evidence or
manifestation of weakness. From the context it is plain that
the reference is here to sufferings, of which reproaches, necessities, persecutions and distresses were different forms. For
Christ's sake.  These words belong to all the preceding
terms. It was in the sufferings, whether reproaches, necessities, persecutions or distresses, endured for Christ's sake, that
the apostle took pleasure. Not in suffering in itself considered, not in self-inflicted sufferings, nor in those which were
the consequences of his own folly or evil dispositions, but in
sufferings endured for Christ's sake, or considered as the condition of the manifestation of his power. For when I am
weak, then am I strong. When really weak in ourselves, and
conscious of that weakness, we are in the state suited to the
manifestation of the power of God. When emptied of ourselves'we are filled with God. Those who think they can
change their own hearts, atone for their own sins, subdue the
power of evil in their own souls or in the souls of others, who
feel able to sustain themselves under affliction, God leaves to
their own resources. But when they feel and acknowledge
their weakness he communicates to them divine strength.
11. I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of
you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest
apostles, though I be nothing.
Iam become a fool, &c. This some understand as ironically said, because the self-vindication contained in what precedes was not an act of folly, although it might be so regarded
by Paul's opposers. It is more natural, and more in keeping
with the whole context, to understand the words as expressing the apostle's own feelings. Self-laudation is folly. It was
derogatory to the apostle's dignity, and painful to his feelings,
but he was forced to submit to it. And, therefore, in his case
and under the circumstances, although humiliating, it was




290        II. CORINTHIANS  12, 12.
right.  Ye have compelled me. It was their conduct which
made it necessary for the apostle to commend himself. This
is explained in the following clause. For I ought to have been
commended of you. If they had done their duty in vindicating him from the aspersions of the false teachers, there would
have been no necessity for him to vindicate himself. They
were bound thus to vindicate him, for in nothing was he behind the very chiefest apostles. It is an imperative duty resting on all who have the opportunity to vindicate the righteous.
For us to sit silent when aspersions are cast upon good men,
or when their character and services are undervalued, is to
make ourselves partakers of the guilt of detraction. The
Corinthians were thus guilty under aggravating circumstances; because the evidences of Paul's apostleship and of
his fidelity were abundant. He came behind in no one respect the very chief of the apostles. Besides this they were
not only the witnesses of the signs of his divine mission, but
they were the recipients of the blessings of that mission. For
them therefore to fail to vindicate his claims and services was
an ungrateful and cowardly dereliction of duty. By the chief
of the apostles, still more clearly here than in 11, 5, are to be
understood the most prominent among the true apostles, as
Peter, James, and John, who in Gal. 2, 9 are called pillars.
Neither here nor in 11, 5 is it an ironical designation of the
false teachers. Though I be nothing. The apostle felt that
what was the effect of the grace, or free gift of God, was no
ground of self-complacency or self-exaltation. 1 Cor. 4, 7. 15,
8-10. There were therefore united in him a deep sense of
his own unworthiness and impotence, with the conviction and
consciousness of being full of knowledge, grace and power, by
the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.
12. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought
among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and
mighty deeds.
This is the proof that he did not come behind the chief
apostles. Truly; pE'v, to which no $e answers. The opposition is plain from the connection.'The signs indeed of an
apostle were wrought among you, but you did not acknowledge them.' So Ruckert, De Wette, and others. The signs
of an apostle were the insignia of the apostleship; those




II. CORINTHIANS  12, 12.                 291
things which by divine appointment were made the evidence
of a mission from God. When these were present an obligation rested on all who witnessed them to acknowledge the
authority of those who bore those insignia. When they were
absent, it was, on the one hand, an act of sacrilege to claim
the apostleship; and, on the other, an act of apostacy from
God to admit its possession. To acknowledge the claims of
those who said they were apostles and were not, was (and is)
to turn from God to the creature, to receive as divine what
was in fact human or Satanic. This is evidently Paul's view
of the matter, as appears from 11, 13-15, where he speaks of
those who were the ministers of Satan and yet claimed to be
the apostles of Christ. Comp. Rev. 2, 2. These signs of an
apostle, as we learn from Scripture, were of different kinds.
Some consisted in the manifestations of the inward gifts of the
apostleship (i. e. of those gifts the possession of which constituted a man an apostle); such as plenary knowledge of the
gospel derived by immediate revelation from  Jesus Christ,
Gal. 1, 12. 1 Cor. 15, 3; inspiration, or that influence of the
Holy Spirit which rendered its possessor infallible in the communication of the truth, 1 Cor. 2, 10-13. 12, 8, in connection
with 12, 29 and 14, 37. Others of these signs consisted in the
external manifestations of God's favour sanctioning the claim
to the apostleship, Gal. 2, 8. To this class belongs fidelity in
teaching the truth, or conformity to the authenticated standard of faith, Gal. 1, 8. 9. Unless a man was thus kept faithful
to the gospel, no matter what other evidence of being an
apostle he might be able to adduce, he was to be regarded as
accursed. Gal. 1, 8. To this class also belong, success in
preaching the gospel, 1 Cor. 9, 2. 2 Cor. 3, 2. 3; the power
of communicating the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands,
Acts 8, 18. 19, 6; the power of working miracles, as appears
from the passage under consideration, from Rom. 15, 18. 19,
and many other passages, as Heb. 2, 4. Mark 14, 20. Acts 5,
12. 14, 3; and a holy walk and conversation, 2 Cor. 6, 4.
Without these signs no man can be recognized and obeyed as
an apostle without apostacy from God; without turning from
the true apostles to those who are the ministers of Satan.
In all patience, or constancy. This does not mean that the
patient endurance of severe trials was one of the signs of his
apostleship, but that those signs were wrought out under adverse circumstances requiring the exercise of the greatest
constancy. In signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. These




292      II. CORINTHIANS  12, 13. 14.
are different designations for the same thing. Miracles are
called signs in reference to their design, which is to confirm
the divine mission of those who perform them; wonders because of the effect which they produced; and mighty deeds
(8vvcaEvs) because they are manifestations of divine power.
13. For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except (it be) that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong.
For. The connection indicated by this particle is with
the assertion in v. 12.' I am not inferior to the chief apostles,
for you are not behind other churches.' The fact that the
churches founded by Paul were as numerous, as well furnished
with gifts and graces, as those founded by the other apostles,
was a proof that he was their equal. In other words, as it is
said Gal. 2, 8, "He that wrought effectually in Peter to the
apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in ime
towards the gentiles."  Comp. 1 Cor. 1, 5-7.  Were ye inferior to other churches, literally, less, or weaker than. The
verb IrrTao!aLt (from  TTTwV, less) has a comparative sense, and
therefore is followed by nrEtp, beyond;'weak beyond other
churches.' The only distinction to the disadvantage of the
Corinthians was, that the apostle had refused to accept aid
from them. This is not to be regarded as a sarcasm, or as a
reproach. It was said in a tone of tenderness, as is plain from
what follows. Forgive me this wrong. It was, apparently, a
reflection on the Corinthians; it seemed to imply a want of
confidence in their liberality or love, that Paul refused to
receive from them  what he willingly received from  other
churches. In the preceding chapter he endeavoured to convince them that his doing so was no proof of his want of affection to them, or of his want of confidence in their love to him.
His conduct in this matter had other and sufficient reasons,
reasons which constrained him to persist in this course of con.
duct, however painful to him and to them.
14. Behold, the third time I am  ready to come to
you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek
not yours, but you. For the children ought not to lay
up for the parents, but the parents for the children.




II. CORINTHIANS  12, 15. 16.               293
The Acts of the Apostles mention but one visit of Paul to
Corinth prior to the date of this epistle. From this passage,
as well as from 2, 1 and 13, 1. 2, it is plain that he had alleady
been twice in that city. The words, therefore, the third time,
in this verse, belong to the word come, and not to I am ready.
The sense is not,'I am  the third time ready,' but,'I am
ready to come the third time.' His purpose was to act on
this third visit on the same principle which had controlled his
conduct on the two preceding occasions. I will not be blrdensome to you, I will receive nothing ftoia you. For this he
gives two reasons, both not only consistent with his love for
them, but proofs of his love. For I seek not yours, but yoeu.
This is the first reason. He had no mercenary or selfish ends
to accomplish. It was not their money, but their souls he
desired to win. For the children ought not to lay up for the
panrents, but the parents for the childrenz. This was the second
reason. He stood to them in the relation of a parent. In the
course of nature, it was the parent's office to provide for the
children, and not the children for the parent. You must allow me, says Paul, a parent's privilege. Thus gracefully and
tenderly does the apostle reconcile a seemingly ungracious act
with the kind feelings which he cherished in himself and desired to excite in them.
15. And I will very gladly spend and be spent for
you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less
I be loved.
As I am your father, I will gladly act as such, spend and
be spent for you; even though I forfeit your love by acting
in a way which love forces me to act. This is the strongest
expression of disinterested affection. Paul was willing not
only to give his property but himself, his life and strength,
for them (literally, for your souls, TrE'p T&-v vXvyxv VzlV), not
only without a recompense, but at the cost of their love.
16. But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.
Be it so; that is, admitted that I did not personally burden you, yet (you may say) I craftily did it through others.
This was designed to meet the ungenerous objection which




294       II. CORINTHIANS  12, 17-19.
the false teachers might be disposed to make. They might
insinuate that although he refused to receive any thing him,
self, he quartered his friends upon them, or spoiled them
through others. I caught you with guile, 8o'X v'a^ EXaf3ov,
i. e. I despoiled you by artifice, as an animal is taken by being
deceived. This shows the character of the opponents of the
apostle in Corinth. That he should think it necessary to
guard against insinuations so ungenerous and so unfounded,
is proof of his wisdom in refusing to give such antagonists the
least occasion to question the purity of his motives.
17. 18. Did I make a gain of you by any of them
whom I sent unto you? I desired Titus, and with
(him) I sent a brother.  Did Titus make a gain of
you? walked we not in the same spirit? (walked we)
not in the same steps?
The best refutation of the insinuation that Paul did in an
underhand way by others what he refused to do openly and
in his own person, was an appeal to facts. The Corinthians
knew the charge to be unfounded. They knew that no one
of those whom Paul had sent to Corinth received any compensation at their hands. This was specially true in the case
of Titus, his immediate representative. All his messengers
followed the example, and doubtless the injunctions of Paul,
in bearing their own expenses. The mission of Titus to Corinth here referred to, is not that mentioned in chap. 8, which
was not yet acecomplished, but that mentioned in chap. 7, designed to ascertain the effect produced by Paul's previous
letter. In the same spirit; either the same inward disposition of mind, or with the same Holy Spirit, i. e. imbued and,
guided by the same divine agent, who controls the conduct
of the people of God. In the same steps. Paul and his messengers walked in the same footsteps. That is, they all followed Christ, whose steps mark the way in which his followers
are to tread.
19. Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto
you? we speak before God in Christ: but (we do) all
things, dearly beloved, for your edifying.
There were two false impressions which the apostle here




II. CORINTHIANS  12, 20.                 295
designs to correct. First, that he felt himself accountable to
the Corinthians, or that they were the judges at whose bar he
was defending himself. Second, that his object was in any
respect personal or selfish. He spoke before God, not before
them; for their edification, not for his own reputation.
Again think ye. Do you again think, as you have thought
before. Instead of rdaXLv, again, the MSS. I), E, J, K read
7raXat, formerly, long. This reading is adopted by the majority of modern editors. The sense then is,'Ye are long of the
opinion,' or,'Ye have long thought.' Comp. el 7raXatL 7rrEavFv, whether he had been long dead, in 3Mark 15, 44. The
common reading has so much MSS. authority in its favour,
and it gives so good a sense, that it is generally by the older
editors and commentators retained. With 7raXtv the passage
is best read interrogatively. Do ye again think? as they had
before done. See 3,1. 5, 12. They were too much disposed
to think that the apostle, like the false teachers, was anxious
to commend himself to their favour, and to appeal to them as
his judges. He on more occasions than one gives them to
understand that he was not under their authority, his office
was not received firom their hands, and he was not accountable to them for the manner in which he exercised it. See
1 Cor. 4, 3. LExcuse ourselves unto you; iv, be/fore you as
judges..Excuse, a7roXoyt'oat, to talk oneself off, to plead, or
answer for oneself. This was not the position which the
apostle occupied. He was not an offender, real or supposed,
arraigned at their bar. On the contrary, as he says, we speak
before God; i. e. as responsible to him, and as in his presence;
in Christ, i. e. as it becomes one conscious of his union with
the Lord Jesus. In all his self-vindication he considers himself as a Christian speaking in the presence of God, to whom
alone he was, as a divinely commissioned messenger, answerable for what he said. All things, dearly beloved, for your
edification. This is the second point. His apology, or selfvindication, had their good, not his reputation or advantage,
for its object.
20. For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find
you such as I would, and (that) I shall be found unto
you such as ye would not: lest (there be) debates, enlvyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellinigs, tumults.
13*




296        II. CORINTHIANS  12, 21.
He aimed at their edification, for he feared their state was
not what he could desire. He feared lest thev would not be
acceptable to him, nor he to them. What he feared was that
the evils to which frequent reference had already been made,
should be found still to exist. Those evils were, "pets, contentions, such as existed between the different factions into which
the church was divided, some saying we are of Paul, others,
we are of Cephas, &c., see 1 Cor. 1, 11; envyings, ZjXoL, those
feelings of jealousy and alienation which generally attend contentions; 3Jvot' outbreaks of anger; tpLJ3eat, cabals. The
word is from Ep%8o;, a hireling, and is often used of a factious
spirit of party; KacraXaXLat and  tLOvpLpotL', backbiting and whisperings, i. e. open detractions and secret calumnies; rVOLrtE'L,
swellings, i. e. manifestations of pride and insolence; aKaTa(r-'ractat, tumults, i. e. those disorders which necessarily follow
the state of things above described. This is a formidable list
of evils, and it seems hard to reconcile what is here said with
the glowing description of the repentance and obedience of
the church found in the preceding part of this epistle, especially in chapter 7. To account for this discrepancy some
suppose, as before mentioned, that the latter part of this epistle, from ch. 10 to the end, formed a distinct letter written at
a different time and under different circumstances from those
under which the former part was written. Others, admitting
that the two portions are one and the same epistle sent at the
same time, still assume that a considerable interval of time
elapsed between the writing of the former and latter parts of
the letter; and that during that interval intelligence had
reached the apostle that the evils prevailing in the church had
not been so thoroughly corrected as he had hoped. The
common and sufficient explanation of the difficulty is, that
part of the congregation, probably the majority, were penitent
and obedient, while another part were just the opposite.
When the apostle had the one class in view he used the language of commendation; when the other, the language of
censure. Examples of this kind are abundant in his epistles.
The first part of his first epistle to the Corinthians is full of
the strongest expressions of praise, but in what follows severe
reproof fills most of its pages.
21. (And) lest, when I come again, my God will
humble me among you, and (that) I shall bewail many




II. CORINTHIANS  12, 21.                 297
which have sinned already, and have not repented of
the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness,
which they have committed.
The same apprehension expressed under a different form.
The word again may belong to coming, " me coming again;"
or with will hTumblel, "God will humble me again."  This implies that during his second unrecorded visit, Paul was humbled
by what he saw in Corinth, and grieved, as he says, 2, 1, in
having to use severity in suppressing prevalent disorders. He
feared lest his third should prove like that painful second
visit. The more obvious and natural connection, however, of
7raXtv is with EX3o'vra, as in our version.'Lest God will humnble me when I come again.' Nothing filled the apostles with
greater delight than to see the churches of their care steadfast in faith and in obedience to the truth; and nothing so
pained and humbled them as the departure of their disciples
fiom the paths of' truth and holiness. Humble me among
you; 7rpus vLas, in relationz to you.
And that I sh/all bewail, 7rEvrro-. The word 7rEv%&o  is
here used transitively; to mourn any one, to grieve for him.
Many suppose that the sorrow here intended was that which
arises from the necessity of' punishing'; so that the idea really
intended is,'I fear I shall have to discipline (or excommunicate) some, &c.' But this, to say the least, is not necessary.
All that the words or context requires is, that Paul dreaded
having to mourn over many impenitent members of the
church.  Miany zwhich have sinned already and have not repented, 7roXXovbs rv rrpo07LapraT7KovTV Kat /1tl FLEraa1vool-avTwv, many
of those who having sinned shall not have repented. The 7rpo
in 7rpoJapTrfKortov is probably not to be pressed, so as to make
the word refer to those who had sinned bebfore some specific
time,-as their profession of Christianity, or Paul's previous
visit. The force of the preposition is sufficiently expressed by
the word heretofore.'Those who have heretofore sinned.'
W\That Paul feared, was, that when he got to Corinth he should
find that many of those who had sinned, had not joined in the
repentance for which he commended the congregation as a
whole.  Of the uncleanness, dce., which they committed. According to Meyer, d7rt r- jKa9aporta, K.T.X., are to be connected
with 7rEV3aoT,' I shall lament many on account of the uncleanness, &c.'  The position of the words is evidently in favour
of the common construction.'Who have not repented con



298          II. CORINTHIANS 13.
cerning the uncleanness they have committed.' The classes
of sins most prevalent in Corinth were those referred to in v.
20, arising out of the collisions of the different classes or parties in the church; and those here mentioned, arising out of
the corruptions of the age and of the community. To make
a holy church out of heathen, and in the midst of heathenism,
was impossible to any but an almighty arm. And we know
that in the work of sanctification of the individual or of a
community, even Omnipotence works gradually. The early
Christians were babes in Christ, much like the converts from
among the heathen in modern times.
CHAPTER XIII.
Threatening of punishment to impenitent offenders; exhortation to self-examination and amendment; conclusion of the epistle.
Paul's warnings and exhortations.
HAVING previously admonished and warned, he now distinctly
announces his purpose to exercise his apostolic power in the
punishment of offenders, vs. 1. 2. As they sought evidence
of his apostleship, he would show that although weak in himself, he was invested with supernatural power by Christ. As
Christ appeared as weak in dying, but was none the less imbued with divine power, as was proved by his resurrection
from the dead; so the apostle in one sense was weak, in another full of power, vs. 3. 4. Instead of exposing themselves
to this exercise of judicial authority, he exhorts them to try
themselves, since Christ lived in them unless they were reprobates, v. 5. He trusted that they would acknowledge him as
an apostle, as he sought their good, vs. 6. 7. His power was
given, and could be exercised, only for the truth. He rejoiced in his own weakness and in the prosperity of the Corinthians. The object in thus warning them was to avoid the
necessity of exercising the power of judgment with which
Christ had invested him, vs. 8-10. Concluding exhortation
and benediction, vs. 11-13.




II. CORINTHIANS  13, 1.                 299
1. This is the third (time) I am coming to you:
In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every
word be established.
From this it is evident that Paul had already been twice
in Corinth. He was about to make his third visit. Those
who do not admit that he went to Corinth during the interval
between the writing the first and second epistle, say that all
that is proved by this verse, is that "onse he had been there;
a second time he had intended to come; now the third time
he was actually coming." Others, still more unnaturally, say
he refers to his presence by letter, as Beza explains it: Binas
suas epistolas pro tolidem profectionibus recenset. There is
no necessity for departing from the obvious meaning of the
words. The Acts of the Apostles do not contain a full record
of all the journeys, labours and sufferings of the apostle. He
may have visited Corinth repeatedly without its coming within the design of that book to mention the fact. In the mouth
of two or three witnesses, dcc. It was expressly enjoined in
the Old Testament that no one should be condemned unless
on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Num. 35, 30.
Deut. 17, 6. 19, 15. In this latter passage, the very words
used by the apostle are to be found: "One man shall not
rise up against any man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any
sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the
mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established."
This principle of justice was transferred by our Lord to the
New Dispensation. In his directions for dealing with offenders he says, "Take with thee one or two more, that in the
mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established," Matt. 18, 16; see also John 8, 17. Heb. 10, 28. In
1 Tim. 5, 19 the apostle applies the rule specially to the case
of elders: "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but
before two or three witnesses." In the judgment of God,
therefore, it is better that many offenders should go unpunished through lack of testimony, than that the security of
reputation and life should be endangered by allowing a single
witness to establish a charge against any man. This principle,
although thus plainly and repeatedly sanctioned both in the
Old and New Testaments, is not held sacred in civil courts.
Even in criminal cases the testimony of one witness is often
considered sufficient to establish the guilt of an accused person, no matter how pure his previous reputation may have




300        II. CORINTHIANS  13, 2.
been. Paul here announces his determination to adhere, in
the administration of discipline, strictly to the rule relating to
testimony laid down in the Scriptures. There are two explanations, however, given of this passage. Some suppose that
Paul merely alludes to the prescription in the Law, and says
that his three visits answers the spirit of the divine injunction
by being equivalent to the testimony of three witnesses. Tres
mei adventus trium testimoniorum loco erunt, says Calvin.
This interpretation is adopted by a great many commentators,
ancient and modern. But the formality with which the principle is announced, the importance of the principle itself, and
his own recognition of it elsewhere, show that he intended to
adhere to it in Corinth. Three visits are not the testimony
of three witnesses. Every word, 7rav plea, every accusation,
a sense which, agreeably to the usage of the corresponding
Hebrew word, the Greek word p-ca has here in virtue of the
context, as in Matt. 5, 11. 18, 16. 27,14.  Shall be established, i. e. legally and conclusively proved.
2. I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were
present, the second time; and being absent now I
write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all
other, that, if I come again, I will not spare.
The meaning of this verse is doubtful. The words second
time (To 8EvTEpoV,) may be connected with being present ('s
7rap v,) or with I foretell (7rpodyo). If the former the sense
may be, " I foretold (i. e. when in Corinth), and I foretell, as
though present the second time, although yet absent, to those
who heretofore have sinned, &c."  If the latter connection be
preferred, the sense is, "I foretold you, and foretell you the
second time, as if present, although now absent, &c." This
is not consistent with the natural order of the words. Assuming Paul to have been already twice in Corinth, the simplest
explanation of this verse is that given by Calvin, Meyer,
R ickert, and others, "I have said before, and say before, as
when present the second time, so now when absent, to those
who have sinned, I will not spare." Paul gives now when
absent the same warning that he gave during his second visit.
The words 7poEL7rov and 7rpoX' yoX are combined here as in Gal.
5, 21 and 1 Thess. 3, 4. "I said before, and I forewarn."
Those who heretofore have sinned; 7rpoqlz1apwTK'oa to those




II. CORINTHIANS  13, 3.                301
who sinned before, not before Paul's second visit, but those
who heretofore have sinned, i. e. those who already stand in
the category of known sinners, and to all other, i. e. to those
who were not thus known, who had not as yet offended. If
Icome again (Et To ra Xtv), I will not spare. Paul had forborne long enough, and he was now determined to try the
effect of discipline on those whom his arguments and exhortations failed to render obedient. From this, as wel,i as from
other passages of Paul's epistles, two things are abundantly
manifest. First, the right of excommunication in the church.
It is only in established churches controlled by the state, or
thoroughly imbued with Erastian principles, that this right is
seriously questioned, or its exercise precluded. In his former
epistle, chap. 5, the apostle had enjoined on the Corinthians
the duty of casting out of their communion those who openly
violated the law of Christ. The second thing here rendered
manifest, is, that the apostle as an individual possessed the
right of excommunication. The apostolic churches were not
independent democratic communities, vested with supreme
authority over their own members. Paul could cast out of
their communion whom he would. He was indeed clothed
with supernatural power which enabled him to deliver offenders'" unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh," 1 Cor. 5, 5,
but this was not all. This presupposed the power of excommunication. It was the ability miraculously to punish with
corporeal evils those whom he cut off from the church. This
right to discipline, as it is not to be merged into the supernatural gift just referred to, so it is not to be referred to the
inspiration and consequent infallibility of the apostles. The
apostles were infallible as teachers, but not as men or as disciplinarians. They received unrenewed men into the church,
as in the case of Simon Magus. They did not pretend to read
the heart, much less to be omniscient. Paul proposed to arrive at the knowledge of offences by judicial examination.
He avowed his purpose to condemn no one on his own judgment or knowledge, but only on the testimony of two or three
witnesses.  This right to exercise discipline which Paul
claimed was not founded on his miraculous gifts, but on his
ministerial office.
3. Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me,
which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you.




302         II. CORINTHIANS  13, 4.
This is part of the sentence begun in v. 2.'I will not
spare since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me.' Olshausen says the sense of the context is,' Since they wished to
put the apostle to the test and see whether Christ was in him,
they had better try themselves and see whether Christ was in
them. If Christ was in them, they would recognize the power
of God in the apostle's weakness.' This supposes v. 4 to be a
parenthesis, and connects wEIt 8OKtLYV frpTEtLTE of v. 3, with EavTros oKLtLOaceT of v. 5. But this is arbitrary and unnatural, as
it is unnecessary, there being no indication of want of continuity in the connection. A proof of Christ, may mean,'a
proof which Christ gives,' or,'a proof that Christ speaks in
me.' De Wette and Meyer prefer the former, on account of
the following,' who is not weak,' which agrees better with
the assumption that XptL(Tov is the genitive of the subject.' Since ye seek a proof or manifestation of Christ who speaks
in me, who is not weak.' Calvin's idea is that it was not
Paul, but Christ, that the Corinthians were questioning. " It
is Christ who speaks in me; when therefore you question my
doctrine, it is not me, but him whom you offend." He refers
to Num. 16, 11, where murmuring against Moses and Aaron
is represented as murmuring against God. Compare also
Isaiah 7, 13. The common interpretation, however, is more
in keeping with the drift of the whole context. What the
false teachers and their adherents denied, was Paul's apostleship; what they demanded was proof that Christ spoke in
him, or that he was a messenger of Christ. Since the evidence which he had already given in word and deed had not
satisfied them, he was about to give them a proof which they
would find it difficult to resist.  TVho is not weak as concerns
you, but is mighty among you. The messenger and organ
of Christ was not to be rejected or offended with impunity,
since Christ was not weak, but powerful. His power had
been proved among them not only in the conversion of multitudes, but by signs and wonders, and by divers manifestations
of omnipotence.
4. For though he was crucified through weakness,
yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are
weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power
of God toward you.




II. CORINTHIANS  13, 4.                  303
Christ is divinely powerful, for though he died as a man,
he lives as God. He had a feeble human nature, but also an
omnipotent divine nature. So we his apostles, though in one
aspect weak, in another are strong. We are associated with
Christ both in his weakness and in his power; in his death
and in his life. For though. The text is doubtful. The
common edition has Kal yap El, for even if, which the Vulgate
renders etsi and the English version although, taking Kal El
(even ij') as equivalent to El KaL, if even. Many MSS. and
editors omit the EL. The sense then is,' For he was even crucified through weakness.' The common text gives a clear
meaning,' For even if he were crucified through weakness.'
The case is hypothetically presented.  Through weakncess, (K
aor3vELa3. His weakness was the cause or necessary condition
and evidence of his death; not of course as implying that his
death was not voluntary, for our Lord said he laid down his
life of himself; but the assumption of a weak human nature
liable to death, was of course necessary, in order that the
eternal Son of God should be capable of death. Comp. Phil.
2, 9. Heb. 2, 14, 15. His death, therefore, was the evidence
of weakness, in the sense of having a weak, or mortal nature.
Yet he liveth by the power of God. The same person who
died, now lives. That complex person, having a perfect hu.
man and a true divine nature hypostatically united, rose firom
the dead, and lives forever, and therefore can manifest the di.
vine power which the apostle attributed to him.. The resur.
rection of Christ is sometimes referred to God, as in Rom. 6,
4. Eph. 1, 20. Phil. 2, 9; sometimes to himself, as in Matt.
26, 61. Mark 14, 58. John 2, 19. 10, 18. This is done on the
same principle that the works of creation and providence are
referred sometimes to the Father and sometimes to the Son.
That principle is the unity of the divine nature, or the identity
of the persons of the Trinity as -to essence. They are the
same in substance, and therefore the works ad extra of the
one are the works of the others also. It is not, however, the
fact that the resurrection of Christ was effected by the power
of God, but the fact that he is now alive and clothed with
divine power, that the apostle urges as pertinent to his object.
For we also, &dc. The connection of this clause may be with
the immediately preceding one,'Christ liveth by the power
of God, for we live.' The life which the apostle possessed
and manifested being derived from Christ, was proof that
Christ still lived. Or the connection is with the close of' the




304         II. CORINTHIANS  13, 4.
preceding verse.'Christ is powerful among you, 1. Because
though he died as a man, he lives; and 2. Because though we
are weak, we are strong in him.' In either way the sense is
substantially the same. In what sense does the apostle here
speak of himself as weak?  It is not a moral weakness, for it,
is conditioned by his communion with Christ; we are weak
in him. It is not subjection to those sufferings which were a
proof of weakness and are therefore called infirmities; because the context does not call for any reference to the apostle's sufferings. Nor does it mean a weakness in the estimation of others, i. e. that he was despised. It is obviously
antithetical to the strength -or power of which he was a
partaker; and as the power which he threatened to exercise
and demonstrate was the power to punish, so the weakness
of which he speaks was the absence of the manifestation of
that power. Hie in Christ, that is, in virtue of his fellowslhip
with Christ, was when in Corinth weak and forbearing, as
though he had no power to vindicate his authority; just as
Christ was weak in the hands of his enemies when they led
him away to be crucified. But as Christ's weakness was
voluntary, as there rested latent in the suffering Lamb of God
the resources of almighty power; so in the meek, forbearing
apostle was the plenitude of supernatural power which he derived from his ascended master.;Ve shall live with him.
"Vitam," says Calvin, "opponit infirmitati: ideoque hoc
nomine florentem et plenum dignitatis statumr intelligit."  As
the life of Christ subsequent to his resurrection was a state in
which he assumed the exercise and manifestation of the power
inherent in him as the Son of God, so the life of which Paul
here speaks, was the state in which he manifested the apostolic
power with which he was invested. There is no reference to
the future or eternal life of which Paul, as a believer, was hereafter to partake. He is vindicating the propriety of his denunciation of chastisement to the disobedient in Corinth.
Though he had been among them as weak and forbearing,
yet he would manifest that he was alive in the sense of having
power to enforce his commands. By the power of God.
Paul's power was a manifestation of the power of God. It
was derived from God. It was not his own either in its
source or in its exercise. He could do nothing, as he afterwards says, against the truth. Toward you; i. e. we shall
live toward you. We shall exercise our authority, or manifest
our apostolic life and power in relation to you.




II. CORINTHIANS  13, 5.                  305
5. Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith;
prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves,
how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
There are two links of association between this verse ana
what precedes. They had been trying the apostle, seeking
proof of Christ speaking in him. He tells them they had better examine themselves and see whether Christ was in them.
Hence the antithesis between &avrovs (yourselves) placed before the verb for the sake of emphasis, and 8OKt/lJAV ~r/TELTE (ye
seek a proof, &c.) of v. 3.'Ye would prove me-prove yourselves.' Another idea, however, and perhaps a more important
one is this,'Ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, seek it
in yourselves. Kndow ye not that Christ is in you (unless you
be reprobates), and if he is in you, if you are really members
of his body, ye will know that he is in me.' The passage in
this view is analogous to those in which the apostle appeals to
the people as seals of his ministry, 1 Cor. 9, 1, and as his letters of commendation, 3, 2. To examine and to prove mean
the same thing. Both express the idea of trying or putting
to the test to ascertain the nature or character of the person
or thing tried.  Whether ye be in the faith, that is, whether
you really have faith, or are Christians only in name. This
exhortation to self-examination supposes, on the one hand,
that faith is self-manifesting, that it reveals itself in the consciousness and by its fruits; and, on the other hand, that it
may exist and be genuine and yet not be known as true faith
by the believer himself. Only what is doubtful needs to be
determined by examination. The fact, therefore, that we are
commanded to examine ourselves to see whether we are in
the faith, proves that a true believer may doubt of his good
estate. In other words, it proves that assurance is not essential to faith. Calvin, in his antagonism to the Romish doctrine that assurance is unattainable in this life, and that all
claims to it are unscriptural and fanatical, draws the directly
opposite conclusion from this passage. Hic locus, he sa s,
valet ad probandam fidei certitudinem, quam nobis Sorbonici
sophistre labefactarunt, imo penitus exterminarunt ex hominum
animis: temeritatis damnant, quotquot persuasi sunt se esse
Christi membra, et illum habere in se manentem; nam morali
quam vocant, conjectura, hoc est, sola opinione contentos esse




306         II. CORINTHIANS  13, 5.
nos jubent, ut conscientive perpetuo suspensae hlereant ao
perplexce.  Quid autem hic Paulus? reprobos esse testatur
quicunque dubitant an possideant Christum, et sint ex illius
corpore. Quare sit nobis hlec sola recta fides, qure facit ut
tuto, neque dubia opinione, sed stabili constantique certitudi.
ne, in gratia Dei acquiescamus. Elsewhere, however, Calvin
teaches a different doctrine, in so far as he admits that true
believers are often disturbed by serious doubts and inward
conflicts. See his Institutes, Lib. iii. cap. ii. 17, and Lib. iv.
cap. xiv. 7. 8.
KEnow ye not your own selves how that Christ is in you.
This version overlooks the connecting particle v (or), the force
of which indeed it is not easy to see. It may be that the
apostle designed in these words to shame or to rouse them.'Examine yourselves, or are you so besotted or ignorant as
not to know that Christ is in you; that some thing is to be
discovered by self examination, unless ye are no Christians at
all.' It may, however, be a direct appeal to the consciousness
of his readers.' Do you not recognize in yourselves, that is,
are ye not conscious, that Christ is in you.' The construction
in this clause is analogous to that in 1 Cor. 14, 37 and 16, 15.'Know  yourselves that, &c.,' equivalent to'know  that.'
Winer 63, 3. The expression Christ is in you, does not mean' Christ is among you as a people.' It refers to an indwelling
of Christ in the individual believer, as is plain from such passages as Gal. 2, 20, "Christ liveth in me," and Gal. 4, 19.
Rom. 8, 10. Christ dwells in his people by his Spirit. The
presence of the Spirit is the presence of Christ. This is not a
mere figurative expression, as when we say we have a friend
in our heart-but a real truth. The Spirit of Christ, the HIoly
Ghost, is in the people of God collectively and individually,
the ever-present source of a new kind of life, so that if any
man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his. Rom. 8, 9.
Unless ye be reprobates. The word reprobate, in its theological sense, means one who is judicially abandoned to everlasting perdition. Such is obviously not its sense here, otherwise
all those not now converted would perish forever. The word
is to be taken in its ordinary meaning, disapprovedu, unworthy
of approbation. Any person or thing which cannot stand the
test is a8oKLtos. Those therefore in whom Christ does not
dwell cannot stand the test, and are proved to be Christians,
if at all, only in name.




II. CORINTHIANS  13, 6. 7.               307
6. But I trust that ye shall know that we are not
reprobates.
In v. 3 Paul had said that the Corinthians sought BSOKqLwv
(evidence) that Christ was in him as an apostle. He exhorted
them to seek evidence that he was in them as believers. If
they should prove to be (aSo'KLor;) without evidence, he was
satisfied that they would find that he was not &ao'KLLos. The
8OKLl (or evidence) of Christ speaking in him which he proposed or threatened to give, was the exercise of the apostolic
power which resulted from the indwelling of Christ, and therefore proved his presence. He was loath, however, to give
that evidence; he would rather be (aSoKLyO7) without that
evidence; and he therefore adds,
7. Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that
we should appear approved, but that ye should do that
which is honest, though we be as reprobates.
Now I pray God that ye do no evil; that is, I pray that
ye may not give occasion for me to give the evidence of Christ
speaking in me, which I have threatened to give, in case of
your continued disobedience. So far from desiring an opportunity of exhibiting my supernatural power, I earnestly desire
that there may be no occasion for its exercise. The interpretation which Grotius, and after him Flatt, Billroth, and others
give of this clause,'I pray God that I may do you no evil,' is
possible so far as the words are concerned, as 7rotoaL ~ vivraKaKov may mean either, to do you evil, or, that you do evil.
But to do evil is not to punish. And had Paul intended to
say,'I pray God that I may not punish you,' he certainly
would have chosen some more suitable expression. Besides,
lroLcrat KaKOV is the opposite of 7rotLTTE TO KaXo'v (ye may do
right) in this same verse. Not that we should appear approved, &c. This and the following clause give the reason
of the prayer just uttered. The negative statement of that
reason comes first. He did not desire their good estate for
the selfish reason that he might appear, i. e. stand forth apparent, as O'KLtLOs (approved), as one concerning whom there
could be no doubt that Christ dwelt in him. There were different kinds of evidence of the validity of Paul's claims as a
believer and as an apostle; his holy life and multiform labours;
signs /and wonders; the apostolic power with which he was




308        II. CORINTHIANS  13, 8.
clothed; his success in preaching, or the number and charac.
ter of his converts. The good state of the Corinthian church
was therefore an evidence that he was approved, i. e. could
stand the test. This, however, as he says, was not the reason
why he prayed that they might do no evil. That reason, as
stated positively, was, that ye should do that which is honest.
That is, it was their good, and not his own recognition, that
he had at heart. Do what is honest, To KaXov 7rot7p-E, that ye
may do the good, the beautiful, what is at once right and
pleasing.  Though we be as reprobates, ao'KLtUo without approbation. Paul was earnestly desirous that the Corinthians
should do what was right, although the consequence was that
he should have no opportunity of giving that 8OKqLt4V (evidence) of Christ speaking in him which he had threatened to
give, and thus, in that respect, be a&OKLtO%, without evidence.
There is such a play on words in this whole connection that
the sense of the passage is much plainer in the Greek than it
is in the English version. This view of the passage is simple
and suited to the connection, and is commonly adopted.
Calvin and others interpret it more generally and without
specific reference to the connection. "Concerning myself,"
he makes the apostle say, "I am not solicitous; I only fear
lest ye should offend God. I am ready to appear as reprobate, if you are free of offence. Reprobate, I mean, in the
judgment of men, who often reject those who are worthy of
special honour."'This is the general sense, but the peculiar
colouring of the passage is thus lost.
8. For we can do nothing against the truth, but
for the truth.
This verse is connected with the last clause of the preceding.'We shall, in one sense, be a3o'KqloL (without evidence)
if you do what is right, for we can do nothing against the
truth, but are powerful only for the truth.' That is,' We can
exercise the apostolic and supernatural power which is the
evidence of Christ speaking in us, only in behalf of the truth.'
By the truth is not to be understood moral excellence, or rectitude-a sense indeed which the word &XrELa often has when
antithetical to unrighteousness; nor does it mean judicial rectitude specifically, i. e. that standard to which a judge should
be conformed, or, as Bengel explains it, "the exact authority
to be exercised over the Corinthians; " but it means truth in




II. CORINTHIANS  13, 9. 10.              309
its religious, scriptural sense; that revelation which God has
made ill his word as the rule of our faith and practice. This
passage is of special interest as fixing the limits of all ecclesiastical power, whether ordinary or miraculous. The decision
of the apostle, if against the truth, availed nothing in the sight
of God; the supernatural power with which he was invested
forsook his arm, if raised against God's own people. The
promise of our Lord, that what the church binds on earth
shall be bound in heaven, is limited by the condition that her
decisions be in accordance with the truth. The doctrine of
the extreme Romish party that acts of discipline are effectual
in cutting off from the true church and the communion of
God, even cdave errante, i. e. when the church errs in her
knowledge of the facts, is utterly inconsistent with Paul's
doctrine. He claimed no such power.
9. For we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are
strong: and this also we wish, (even) your perfection.
If connected with the preceding clause the sense of this
verse is,' We can act only for the truth, for we have no desire to exercise our power to punish; we are glad when we are
weak.' The meaning is better if this verse is regarded as coordinate with verse 8, and subordinate to v. 7.' We desire
that you should do right, though we appear as anOKotoL (without evidence), for we are glad when we are weak.' That is,
we are glad when we have no occasion to exercise or manifest
our power to punish. This is evidently the sense in which the
word weak is to be here taken. It does not mean weak in
the estimation of men, that is, despised as unworthy of respect.
And ye are strong, i. e. such as cannot be overcome. They
were strong when they were good. Their goodness was a
sure protection from the disciplinary power of the apostle.
This also we wish, viz. your perfection. That is, we are not
only glad when you are strong, but we pray for your complete
establishment. Perfection, KaTaprtts3, fromn Karapritw, in the
sense to put in complete order. Paul prayed that they might
be perfectly restored from the state of confusion, contention,
and evil into which they had fallen.
10. Therefore I write these things being absent,




310        II. CORINTHIANS 13, 10.
lest being present I should use sharpness, according to
the power which the Lord hath given me to edification,
and not to destruction.
Therefore, i. e. because I desire your good, and because I
prefer to appear a8OKLLOS, without proof, so far as the proof of
my apostleship consists in the exercise of my power to punish.
This is the reason why the apostle wrote these exhortations
and warnings, lest being present I should use sharpness, i. e.
be obliged to exercise severity in dealing with offenders.
The expression is  oroTo'w Xpo-awaw, where vitv must be supplied,'lest I should use you sharply.' According to the
power. The word is $ovat'av, which includes the ideas of
ability and authority or right. Paul was invested both with
the authority to punish offenders and with the power to carry
his judgments into effect. Which the Lord hath given me.
His authority was not self-assumed, and his power was not
derived from himself. They were the gifts of the Lord, the
only source of either in the church. The Lord is of course
Christ, whose divine power and omnipresence are taken for
granted. Paul everywhere as much assumes that the Lord
Jesus is invested with divine attributes and entitled to divine
worship, as God himself. Nothing can be more foreign to
the whole spirit of the New Testament than the idea, that
Christ, having finished his work on earth as a teacher and
witness, has passed away so as to be no longer present with
his people. The whole Scriptures, on the contrary, assume
that he is everywhere present in knowledge and power, the
source of all grace, strength and consolation, the object of the
religious affections, and of the acts of religious worship. For
edification, and not for destruction. This not only expresses
the design with which Paul was invested and endowed with
apostolic power, but it teaches that the power itself could be
exercised only for good. Christ would not sanction an unjust
decision, or clothe the arm of man with supernatural power to
inflict unmerited punishment. The apostles could not strike
a saint with blindness nor deliver a child of God unto Satan.
The church and its ministers are in the same predicament still.
They are powerful only for good. Their mistaken decisions
or unrighteous judgments are of no avail. They affect the
standing of the true believer in the sight of God no more
than the judgments of the Jewish synagogues when they cast
out the early disciples as evil. Truth and holiness are a surf




II. CORINTIIIANS 13, 11.                311
defence against all ecclesiastical power. No one can harm us,
if we be followers of that which is good. 1 Peter 3, 13.
11. Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of
good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the
God of love and peace shall be with you.
The severe rebukes contained in the preceding chapters,
are softened down by the parental and apostolic tone assumed;n these concluding verses. He addresses them as brethren,
members of the family of God and of the body of Christ.
Earewell, XaLpETe; literally, rejoice, or, joy to you. It is used
often in salutations, as Hail! On account of what follows it
is better to take it as an exhortation to spiritual joy. Rejoice,
i. e. in the Lord. In Phil. 3, 1 and 4, 4 we have the same exhortation, XatperE iv Kvpt@. Joy in redemption, rejoicing in
our union and communion with the Lord is one of our highest
duties. Blessings so infinite as these should not be received
with indifference. Joy is the atmosphere of heaven, and the
more we have of it on earth, the more heavenly shall we be
in character and temper. Be perfect, KaprtI'EotSe, reform yourselves; correct the evils which prevail within and among you.
Be of good comfort, 7rapaKaXEZo-9e, which may be rendered,
exhort one another.  This latter interpretation is perhaps
preferable, because more distinct from the preceding command. The exhortation to rejoice includes that to be of good
comfort..Be of one mind, To' a'rT 4poveZTe, be united in faith
in feeling, and in object. Cognate with this is the exhorta.
tion, Live in peace. One of the greatest evils prevailing in
Corinth, as we learn from 1 Cor. 1, 10-12, was the contentions
of the various parties into which the church was divided.
And the God of love and peace, i. e. God is the author of love
and of peace, shall be with you. The existence of love and
peace is the condition of the presence of the God of peace.
He withdraws the manifestations of his presence from the soul
disturbed by angry passions, and from a community torn by
dissensions.  We have here the familiar Christian paradox.
God's presence produces love and peace, and we must have
love and peace in order to have his presence. God gives
what he commands. God gives, but we must cherish his
gifts. His agency does not supersede ours, but mingles with
it and becomes one with it in our consciousness. We work
14




312       II. CORINTHIANS  13, 12. 13.
out our own salvation, while God works in us. Our duty is
to yield ourselves to the operation of God, and to exert our
faculties as tlAough the effect desired were in our own power,
and leave to his almighty, mystic co-operation its own gracious office.  The man with the withered hand, did something when he stretched it forth, although the power to move
was divinely given. It is vain fio us to pray for the presence
of the God of love and peace, unless we strive to fiee our
hearts from all evil passions. Shall be with you; shall mailifest his presence, his glory and his love. This gives perfect
peace, and fills the soul with joy unspeakable and full of glory.
It is the restoration of the original and normal relation between God and the soul, and secures at once its purification
and blessedness. He who has the presence of God can feel
no want.
12. Greet one another with a holy kiss.
The kiss was the expression of fellowship and affection.
It was and is in the East the common mode of salutation
among friends. A holy kiss, is a kiss which expresses Christian communion and love. It was the usage in Christian assemblies for the men to kiss the minister and each other,
especially at the celebration of the Lord's supper. It did not
go out of use in the Western churches until about the thirteenth century, and is still observed among some eastern
sects. It is not a command of perpetual obligation, as the
spirit of the command is that Christians should express their
mutual love in the way sanctioned by the age and community
in which they live.
13. All the saints salute you.
The saints, in scriptural usage, are not those who are
complete in glory, but believers, separated from the world,
consecrated to God, and inwardly purified. This term, therefore, expresses the character and the relations, not of a class
among God's people, but of the disciples of Christ as such.
They are all, if sincere, separated firom the world, distinguished from men of the world as to their objects of desire
and pursuit, and as to the rules by which they are governed;
they are consecrated to the service and worship of God, as a
holy people; and they are cleansed from the guilt and con



II. CURI{NTHIANS. 13, 14.                 313
trolling power of sin. They are therefore bound to live in
accordance with this character. All the saints, i. e. all those.
in the place in which Paul then was. The communion of
saints includes all believers who feel themselves to be one
body in Christ. Salute you, that is, wish you salvation, which
includes all good.
14. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the
love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost,
(be) with you all. Amen.
This comprehensive benediction closes the epistle. It includes all the benefits. of redemption. First, the grace, or.ayour, of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the theanthropical
designation of our blessed Saviour. It includes or indicates
his divine nature, he is our Lord; his human nature, he is Jesus; his office, he is the Christ, the Messiah, the long-promised
Redeemer. It is the favour, the unmerited love and all that
springs from it, of this divine person clothed in our nature, and
who as the theanthropos is invested with the office of Messiah,
the headship over his own people and all power in heaven and
earth, that the apostle invokes for all his believing readers.
Every one feels that this is precisely what he, as a guilty, polluted, helpless sinner, needs. If this glorious, mysteriously
constituted, exalted Saviour,-Son —of God and Son of man,
makes us the objects of his favour, then is our present security
and ultimate salvation rendered certain.  The love of God.
In one view the love of God is the source of redemption.
God manifested his love in giving his Son for us, Rom. 5, 8.
But in another view the love of God to us is due to the grace
and work of Christ. That is, the manifestation of that love
in the pardon, sanctification and salvation of men, was conditional on the work of Christ. We are reconciled to God
by the death of his Son. H-Iis death as a satisfaction fbr our
sins was necessary in order to our being actually introduced
into the fellowship of God and made partakers of his love.
Therefore the apostle puts the grace of Christ before the love
of God, as, in the sense mentioned, the necessary condition of
its manifestation. And the communion (KoLvrovga, the participation) of t/e Hfoly Ghost. The primary object of the death
of Christ was the communication of the Holy Spirit. He redeemed us from the curse of the law that we might receive
14




314        II. CORINTHIANS  13, 14.
the promise of the Spirit, Gal. 3, 13. 14. It is the gift of the
Holy Ghost secured in the covenant of redemption by the
death of Christ that applies to us the benefits of his mediation.
As the gift of the Spirit is secured to all the people of God,
they are KOLVWVOL, joint partakers, of the Holy Ghost, and
thereby made one body. This is the ground of the cornmunion of saints in which the church universal professes her faith.
The distinct personality and the divinity of the Son, the
Father, and the Holy Spirit, to each of whom prayer is addressed, is here taken for granted. And therefore this passage is a clear recognition of the doctrine of the Trinity, which
is the fundamental doctrine of Christianity For a Christian
is one who seeks and enjoys the grace of the Lord Jesus, the
love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost.
T= RD.