10. Gk. τοὺς ἁγίους (traditionally, “the saints”); see on 1:2.
Cf. Hurd, 200–206, who, however, seems to read far more between the lines than is found in the text itself. This is particularly true of his treatment of vv. 5–9 and Paul’s change of plans. On Hurd’s view one seems forced to the conclusion that Paul was less than honest in his present dealings with them.
See elsewhere 2 Cor. 8–9; Rom. 15:25–32. Many scholars consider 2 Cor. 8 and 9 to be two different letters about the collection. For two different views from this perspective see Martin, 2 Corinthians, 249–52, who thinks that chaps. 1–8 form one letter, and that chap. 9 is another letter on the same issue written to Corinth very shortly thereafter; and H.-D. Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, 1985), who considers them two separate letters, neither of which belongs with any part of chaps. 1–7, chap. 8 being addressed to Corinth and chap. 9 to the Achaian churches not including Corinth. For a presentation that sees them as belonging together as part of chaps. 1–7, see Furnish, II Corinthians, 429–33.
That it is intended for Jerusalem is stated in v. 3. The fact that it was intended for the poor is not mentioned in this letter; it is implied in 2 Cor. 8:13; 9:9, 12, and made explicit in Rom. 15:26. It is idle speculation to try to determine how this church became poor. Two things are mentioned in Acts: the fact that the gospel apparently reached a large number of widows in Jerusalem (Acts 6:1–6) and the failure of crops during famine (Acts 11:27–30).
There is little to commend K. Holl’s suggestion that “the poor” was another word for “the saints” in Jerusalem and that the collection, therefore, was really a Christian form of the temple tax being imposed on the Gentile churches by Jerusalem (see “Der Kirchenbegriff des Paulus in seinem Verhältnis zu dem der Urgemeinde,” in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte [Tübingen, 1928; repr. of 1921 art.], 2:44–67). The basic perspective of this view was revived by B. Holmberg, Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Philadelphia, 1978), 35–43. Since Paul stresses the voluntary nature of this collection and the willingness of those who participated, this view seems quite untenable. Cf. the refutation in Furnish, II Corinthians, 412–13.
The NIV rightly captures the thrust of the present subjunctive by translating “continue to remember.” Probably this reflects the previous relief for the poor mentioned in Acts 11:27–30.
Given its apparent importance to Paul, one is surprised that it gets scant attention in Acts, which at least says something about how material is selected and shaped by an author’s own purposes. That Luke knows about the collection is evident from Paul’s speech before Felix (24:17) and the representatives from the churches who accompanied him (20:4).
For full discussions of the collection, its relationship to Jewish backgrounds (e.g., Temple tax, almsgiving), and its probable theological motivations, see K. Nickle, The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy (SBT 48; London, 1966), and D. Georgi, Die Geschichte der Kollekte des Paulus für Jerusalem (Hamburg-Bergstedt, 1965). For further discussion of the possible theological motivation, see also Munck, Paul, 282–308. For helpful overviews of all these matters see the commentaries on 2 Corinthians by Barrett (25–28), Furnish (409–13), and Martin (256–58); cf. also Panikulam, Koinōnia, 31–57.
Barrett, 385, takes the alternative view that they had heard of the collection from others, perhaps from some Galatians.
On the complex issue of the relationship of this instruction and Paul’s proposed visit to what actually happened, as it can pieced together from our 2 Corinthians, see the commentaries on 2 Corinthians (Barrett, Furnish, Martin) and the proposal by G. D. Fee, “ΧΑΡΙΣ in II Corinthians 1:15: Apostolic Parousia and Paul-Corinth Chronology,” NTS 24 (1977/78), 533–38. See the commentary on vv. 5–9.
Gk. περὶ δέ; see on 7:1, 25; 8:1 (4); 12:1; cf. 16:12.
Gk. τοὺς ἁγίους (traditionally, “the saints”); see on 1:2.
Gk. λογεία; the plural in v. 2 puts emphasis on the activity itself, as do most of the examples in MM. Thus its connotations in Greek are very much like those of the word “collection” in English, where it refers not so much to the money itself as to the actual activity of “taking it up,” as it were.
2 Cor. 8:4; 9:13; Rom. 15:26. This usage probably indicates Paul’s basic hope for this ministry in terms of Jew-Gentile relationships. Cf. Panikulam, Koinōnia, 49–57.
Gk. διακονία (2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1, 12, 13; Rom. 15:31; cf. v. 25). See the discussion of this word in 12:5. The implication is that loving service in behalf of others is an essential feature of Christian κοινωνία.
Gk. χάρις; this is the most common term (see on v. 3); cf. 2 Cor. 8:4, 6, 7, 19. The most vivid commentary on its usage in this regard is 2 Cor. 8:9; they are to respond to the benefits of God both exemplified and made available to them in Christ in this tangible way.
Gk. εὐλογία; see 2 Cor. 9:5, where there is something of a play on the word. Their “bounty” becomes a “blessing” to others, who in turn offer the “blessing” of thanksgiving to God.
Gk. λειτουργία; 2 Cor. 9:12 (cf. Rom. 15:27). The monetary gift is seen as an act of service to God. Since this is often a technical term for “divine service” (cf. our derivative “liturgy”), many think there is a link between this word and an actual collection taken during the service of worship. But this is extremely doubtful, esp. in light of the very private nature of the setting aside of the money in v. 2.
On this matter in this letter, see on 1:2 and esp. 14:33.
Gk. διέταξα (cf. 7:17; 9:14; 11:34), a word that can go the range from “command” to “arrange.” Here it means “ordered” in the sense of “directed” rather than “commanded.”
Although one cannot be certain, this may be the role of Gaius of Derbe (Acts 20:4).
This is the proper understanding of the Gk. κατά as distributive.
Gk. παρ’ ἑαυτῷ. See the discussion in BDAG, παρά, II1bα; and ἑαυτοῦ, 1g.
Cf. Hodge, 364, whose words these are; cf. Morris, 238; Mare, 293; Gromacki, 200. But this assumes a contemporary picture of the church, including church officials, regular offerings, and a building.
Gk. θησαυρίζω (= storing something up as a treasure); this word in particular assumes the accumulation of many smaller amounts.
See, e.g., Xenophon, mem. 3.13.3 (“who complained that the drinking water at home [παρ’ ἑαυτῷ] was warm”); Philo, cher. 48 (“rather, as stewards guard the treasure [θησαυρόν] in your own keeping [παρ’ ἑαυτοῖς]”); leg.ad Gai. 271 (“cheer up, you are staying at home [παρ’ ἑαυτῷ]”).
The other two are Acts 20:7 and Rev. 1:10. On this whole question, and esp. the relationship of this text to the larger question of Sunday worship, see W. Rordorf, Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church (ET, London, 1968), 193–96; D. A. Carson, ed., From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation (Grand Rapids, 1982), 184–86 (chap. by D. R. De Lacey); and from a sabbatarian perspective, S. Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome, 1977), 90–101.
Deissmann, LAE, 361, put forth this suggestion but acknowledged that it had no known support. It seems altogether too modern to have merit.
Gk. ὅ τι ἐὰν εὐοδῶται. The verb is probably present subjunctive; hence Barrett translates, “whatever profit he makes.”
Hurd, 201–2, reads into this urging of a weekly setting apart of money a reluctance on the part of the Corinthians to contribute as much as they were capable of giving. But that goes quite beyond the evidence. This is, after all, the same advice as has been given to the churches of Galatia—for obvious reasons. A one-time gift simply will not meet needs in the same way that a gift prepared over a long span will.
The phrase δί ἐπιστολῶν could go with the verb δοκιμάσητε, hence the NRSV (kept in the ESV; cf. Montgomery; Findlay, 946): “those whom you approve with letters.” But given the verb “I will send” and the uncertainty expressed in v. 4 as to his accompanying them, more likely he is the source of the letters.
Gk. δοκιμάζω; it means more than simply “select” or “determine” but, as in the NIV, “approve.” For this usage in a similar context see 2 Cor. 8:22.
On this matter see esp. Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, whose literary analyses are very helpful even if the author is perhaps overly confident that the two chapters therefore represent two separate letters.
Note the πέμψω, “I will send.” In the final analysis the project is his, not theirs.
See, e.g., the implications in 2 Cor. 11:14–19 that such accusations lie just below the surface of their relationship with Paul.
It is difficult to know how to interpret the evidence from Acts 20:4, which does not mention any representatives from Achaia. The implication of Rom. 15:26 is that the collection in Corinth had succeeded; but there Paul does not mention Asia or Galatia. Were the gifts of these latter provinces already sent on with representatives? What, then, of the evidence of Acts 20:4 and 21:29? The best guess is that, for reasons that are not quite clear, all of these passages are only partial listings of the people and areas involved.
Gk. ἄξιον; cf. 2 Thess. 1:3.
See, inter alios, Godet, 457; Findlay, 946; Parry, 246; Morris, 239.
The adjective is impersonal and followed by an articular infinitive of purpose. It can only mean, “if it be fitting (proper, worthwhile, advisable) that I also go along.”
The translation is Conzelmann’s, 294; cf. Georgi, Kollekte, 41.
Obviously now without need of the letters of v. 3.
Indeed, had only 1 Corinthians and Romans been preserved, these two texts would be seen as totally complementary. This is another piece of evidence that should cause scholars to be a bit less dogmatic about conclusions based on documents that are so limited in scope.
Paul has an explanatory γάρ; the MajT reads δέ.
In some additional cases he also explains why he did not come as expected or hoped (1 Thess. 2:17–3:5; 2 Cor. 1:15–2:13).
Mare, 294, makes this equation, as if the evidence in 2 Corinthians did not exist.
On this whole question see Fee, “ΧΑΡΙΣ.”
Otherwise Hurd, 202–3, who considers the “casualness” of these plans to be something of a ploy on Paul’s part to dissociate himself from the collection personally lest the Corinthians suspect his motives.
On this question see on 4:17 and esp. the article by Funk noted there ().
Gk. ὅταν . . . διέλθω (= “whenever I shall have passed through Macedonia”).
Cf. 2 Cor. 1:16. This verb is used frequently in Acts to describe missionary activity in places where they did not stay an extended time (cf. 8:4, 40; 11:19; 13:6, 14).
Gk. διέρχομαι, an example of the futuristic use of the durative present. Apparently an incorrect understanding of this verb is responsible for the subscript of the KJV: “The first epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi by Stephanus, and Fortunatus, and Achaicus, and Timotheus.” V. 8 absolutely rules this out.
Gk. τυχόν; cf. the εἰ τύχοι of 14:10; 15:37. The absolute use of the neuter participle as here tends to express much more hope regarding the outcome. Thus, “It may actually turn out that I will be able to spend time with you, even the winter.”
Cf. 2 Tim. 4:21. The danger is vividly illustrated in Acts 27:9–44. For a full presentation of the difficulties of travel on the Mediterranean in winter, see F. Brandel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (New York, 1966), 248–56.
Gk. προπέμπω; it appears again in v. 11. It is found in the NT with this meaning in 2 Cor. 1:16; Rom. 15:24; Tit. 3:13; Acts 15:3; 3 John 6. Outside the NT cf. 1 Macc. 12:4; 1 Esdr. 4:47; see also the entry in MM.
Cf. Fee, 1 Timothy, 167 (on Tit. 3:13).
Gk. γάρ, untranslated in the NIV.
Gk. ἄρτι, “at the present moment.” For its usage in this letter, see 4:11, 13; 13:12; 15:6. It has been a matter of considerable debate whether this adverb implies an earlier short visit, i.e., “I do not want to pay another ‘in passing’ visit.” But the grammar does not require this, nor does the historical evidence support it.
Not now διέρχομαι but ἐν παρόδῳ, a word he avoids in 2 Cor. 1:15–16 in explaining what motivated him to do this very thing. Rather, he was hoping to offer them the “grace” of helping him on his journey twice.
See the discussion on . See also Rordorf, Sunday, 195–96.
For this metaphor see also 2 Cor. 2:12; Col. 4:3.
Gk. ἐνεργής (cf. Heb. 4:12; Phlm. 6). Lit. the text reads, “for a door has opened to me, great and effective.”
See BDAG 1d: “At times the mng . . . approaches close to that of ὅταν whenever.”
Gk. τὸ ἔργον κυρίου ἐργάζεται. For this word as referring to the ministry of the gospel see on 3:13–15; 4:12; and 15:58.
Gk. ἐξουθενήσῃ; see on 1:28 and 6:4. The word basically means “to despise” or “hold in contempt.” The NIV’s “refuse to accept” is a euphemism at best and seems not to take seriously enough the conflict between this church and its apostle.
Gk. προπέμψατε, as in v. 6.
Speculations include some Ephesians who are accompanying the three Corinthian delegates back to Corinth with this letter (see v. 17), and may be expected to return with Timothy.
This is based on an understanding of 2 Cor. 1–7 that sees the material from 1:8 to 2:14 and 7:2 to 16 as basically a chronological recounting of Paul’s and their most recent exchanges. If so, then the man in 2:5–11 who needs their restoration is probably the same as the one in 7:12 who injured someone else. If the injured party is Paul, all of this makes a great deal of sense.