Commentary
Why a Further Visit Failed to Happen
(2 Corinthians 1:23–2:17)
Textual Issues
1:23—Ἐγὼ δὲ ‘But for my own part’
ἐπὶ τὴν ἐμὴν ψυχήν—‘nach meiner Seele hin.’ But there is some objection to the common reading—‘against my soul.’ On Meyer’s objection see Josh 24:22. For the strength of the objection cf. Rom 9:3.
The expression φειδόμενος ὑμῶν was dictated not by tyranny but by sympathy.
Vs. 24—He corrects any false impression which his use of the word φειδόμενος might create. ‘By speaking of sparing you, I do not mean to imply that we are lords over your faith.’
Συνεργοί—fellow workers.
τῇ γὰρ πίστει ἑστήκατε—‘For it is by your faith that you stand’ and therefore your faith must be allowed free action, it must not be lorded over by anyone. It is a matter between yourself and God. Cf. Rom 11:20. Meyer is wrong about this.
2:1—Read πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ with all the best authorities.
Read πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν with Lachmann, and not as Tischendorf. The versions are of no authority in determining such a point and discarding these the weight of the testimony is with Lachmann.
Vs. 3—The words ἐπι λύπην inserted in many authorities seem to be genuine unless they be imported in from Phil 2:27.
Vs. 7—omit μᾶλλον with Lactanius?
Vs. 9—εἰ—See Lachmann—ᾗ with the absolut.
Vs. 10—Read ἐγὼ ὃ κεχάρισμαι, εἴ τι κεχάρισμαι with Tischendorf (and A, B, C, D, F, G, it) not as the Textus Receptus—εἴ τι κεχάρισμαι, ᾧ κεχάρισμαι.
Vs. 16—Insert ἐκ before θανάτου and ζωῆς with Tischendorf.
Vs. 17—Read οἱ λοιποί and not οἱ πολλοί. οἱ λοιποί is well supported and οἱ πολλοὶ is evidently a correction of a transcriber who could not allow such a sweeping condemnation of the other teachers understood in part as contained in οἱ λοιποί. He seems to have considered that it implied all the other teachers except Paul and Silas and Timothy were included under this charge. To get out of such an imaginary implication, the text was altered.
Commentary
2:1—ἔκρινα δὲ ἐμαυτῷ—the latter word means not ‘in myself’ but ‘for myself’ (‘im Bezeichnung an mich selbst’—Meyer). ‘I came to this verdict in regards my conduct.’ He decided upon this course [of action] for himself.
μὴ πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ—Not to pay you a second visit of sorrow. λύπῃ here is natural grief. Cf. 2 Cor 2:2, 5.
Vs. 2—For it would be unnatural that I should grieve you, since I should be grieving those who are the source of my own gratification.
καὶ τίς does not in itself signify inconsequence or inconsistency—it simply binds the two propositions together, and by thus placing them in juxtaposition shows how irreconcilable they are. Cf. Winer, p. 514. τίς here is not the offender, but the Corinthian Church generally.
Vs. 3—ἔγραψα τοῦτο αὐτὸ
Questions—1) Does ἔγραψα refer to the present or the previous letter? Is it ‘I write’ (epistolary aorist), or ‘I wrote’? 2) Does τοῦτο αὐτὸ refer to the contents or the object of the letter? Is it ‘this very thing’ or ‘this very account’?
With regard to 1) the ἐκ γὰρ πολλῆς θλίψεως καὶ συνοχῆς καρδίας can hardly describe the Apostle’s state of mind when he wrote the Second Epistle. Cf. 2 Cor 7:6 sq., 2 Cor 7:13. Below, when he is speaking of the Second Epistle, he uses different language—in 2 Cor 2:9-10. With regard to 2), 1) being settled, if ἔγραψα τοῦτο αὐτὸ means ‘I wrote this very thing,’ then τοῦτο αὐτὸ must refer either a) to the continuation of the irregularities in the Corinthian Church, but there is no sufficient distinct reference to that in the immediate context of the phrase τοῦτο αὐτὸ or b) it refers to the change of intention, but obviously from the next verse it refers to something far more important and more likely to grieve the Corinthians. Therefore, I take τοῦτο αὐτὸ to mean ‘this very account’ cf. 2 Peter 1:5.
τοῦτο αὐτὸ in the sense of ‘for this very purpose’ is foreign to St. Paul’s usage (Meyer), and besides that it is quite inconsistent with the order of the words καὶ ἔγραψα τοῦτο αὐτὸ (though authorities differ on this). Again to translate it ‘I put in writing the same thing’ seems to me unnatural, especially as there is nothing to which τοῦτο αὐτὸ can be referred. On the whole, perhaps it is better with Chrysostom, Oc., Theophyl., Erasmus, Grot. to refer τοῦτο αὐτὸ to this present Epistle, which agrees well with ἐκ γὰρ πολλῆς θλίψεως καὶ συνοχῆς καρδίας ἔγραψα ὑμῖν (2 Cor 2:4). In this case οὐχ ἵνα λυπηθῆτε will be not to grieve you, not to rebuke you. τὴν ἀγάπην ἵνα γνῶτε ἣν ἔχω περισσοτέρως εἰς ὑμᾶς refers much more suitably to this Epistle.
πεποιθὼς ἐπὶ πάντας
For the reading sorrow upon sorrow (λύπη ἐπὶ λύπη) see Philostratus.
Vs. 5—On τις as the offender, see the comments of Tertullian, de Prescrip. c. 13.
ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ μέρους, ἵνα μὴ ἐπιβαρῶ, πάντας ὑμᾶς—But all of you, to a certain extent (that I may not be too hard on the offender). The opposition is between οὐκ ἐμὲ and ἀλλὰ . . . πάντας ὑμᾶς (as Meyer, truly) for the position of οὐκ ἐμὲ requires this opposition.
Vs. 6—ἡ ἐπιτιμία—E.V. is wrong. Not in the classical sense where ἡ ἀτιμία = to the Classical ἐπιτιμίον.
ἡ ὑπὸ τῶν πλειόνων seems to denote merely the legitimate way of punishing the offender.
Vs. 8—To stamp and ratify—i.e. by an outward act for the restoration of the offender.
Vs. 9—ἔγραψα here seems evidently to refer to our present Epistle—‘for this was my object in writing this letter, that I may know the proof of you, whether you are obedient in all things’ (i.e. in forgiving now as you were condemning before). And whether εἰς τοῦτο refers to what precedes or what follows, the reference to the Second Epistle seems required. From the connecting particle γὰρ it is evident that εἰς τοῦτο refers to what follows.
Vs. 10—ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ ‘in the sight of Christ’ (cf. 2 Cor 4:6 where the same phrase occurs however without leading to a solution), or does it mean ‘in the person of Christ’ (cf. 1 Cor 5:4)? Yes certainly so, cf. however Prov 8:30 which supports the former. The forgiveness now, as the punishment before was rendered in the name and person of Christ. For the connection between God’s presence and the deliberations, see Acts 15.
Κεχάρισμαι—Must be transitive for the sense so obviously requires it. The instances of the aorist in the intransitive do not affect the perfects.
δι’ ὑμᾶς—He loses sight of the subordinate reasons. One of these would be the redeeming of the offender but this is for the moment neglected, in the consideration of the general weal of the Corinthian Church. Cf. 2 Cor 2:5 and 2 Cor 7:12.
Vs. 11—ὑπὸ τοῦ Σατανᾶ. Compare the expression used of the offender in 1 Cor 5:5.
Vs. 12—δὲ—returning to the main subject after the digression from 2 Cor 2:5-11.
See Journal of Philology, iii, p. 97.
θύρας μοι ἀνεῳγμένης ἐν κυρίῳ—cf. 1 Cor 16:9. The expression shows how far the metaphor had retained from the background.
τὴν Τρῳάδα—See Stanley.
εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ—subjective not objective genitive (Meyer).
Vs. 13—ἔσχηκα cf. Rev 5:7 and 2 Cor 1:9. We cannot however suppose that it is equivalent to an aorist.
ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματί cf. on 2 Thess 1:7 (notes p. 6).
ἀποταξάμενος—See Sween [?] Lex. Nov. Test. s.v.
On ἐξῆλθον see Stanley.
Vs. 14—St. Paul here loses himself in a thanksgiving, the thanksgiving leads to a review of his position as a minister of the Church, and his relationship to the Corinthians. He works around to the old topic in 2 Cor 7:5.
θριαμβεύοντι—cf. Wettstein and Meyer. See Col 2:15 and cf. 1 Cor 4:9. The E.V. not unaccountably wrong inasmuch as verbs ending in ευω can have both a transitive and an intransitive sense.
τὴν ὀσμὴν—fragrance, which consists in the knowledge of Christ.
αὐτοῦ i.e. Χριστῷ. The ὀσμὴν will refer more naturally to the incense being used during the Triumph (see Thucy. Tacit. Ad. iv.2.50) rather than to the sacrifice, though the sacrifice is the metaphor in Eph 5:2.
Vs. 15—Here the application of the metaphor is changed. The Apostles are no longer the captives led in the Triumph, but the incense offered up. For instances of St. Paul turning about a metaphor see e.g. 1 Thess 2:7 (and notes p. 25).
τοῖς σωζομένοις καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις—Cf. notes on 1 Cor 1:18 (p. 18).
Vs. 16—Apparently using language common with Jewish teachers. Thus the law was called ‘odoramentus vito Israelites’ ‘odoramentus mortis Gentiles.’ Is the image of the Triumph lost sight of here or not? No! cf. especially Josephus, Bell. Jud. vii.5.6; Cicero, Ver. ii.5.30.
Vs. 17—καπηλεύοντες—see Aeschylus Thet. 541. Blass seems to be right with regard to Aeschylus, but the καπηλεύοντες of Apostle here is more allied to the cauponari of Eunius. See Eun. Ap. Cicero de. Offic. 1.38—‘. . . nec cauponantes bellum, sed belligerantes. Ferro, non auro vitam cernamus utrique.’ The ideas involved here in this word then are ‘making gain’ and ‘adulterating.’