2 Corinthians 1:12-24

III.—THE APOSTLES VINDICATION OF HIS CONDUCT IN GENERAL, AND OF HIS EPISTLES AND JOURNEYS IN PARTICULAR (2 Corinthians 1:12-24)

2 Corinthians 1:12-24

12For our rejoicing [glorying] is this, the testimony of our10 conscience, that in simplicity [holiness]11 and godly12 sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward. 13For we write none other things unto you, than13 what ye read or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even14 to the end; 14as also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing [glorying], even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord15 Jesus. 15And in this confidence I was minded to come unto you before16 [before unto you], that ye might have17 a second benefit; 16and to pass18 by you into Macedonia, and to come again out of Macedonia unto you, and of you to be brought on my way toward Judea. 17When I therefore was thus minded,19 did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be 18yea, yea, and nay, nay? But as God is true [faithful], our word toward you was [is]20 not yea and nay.7 19For 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. 20For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him21 Amen [For how many soever may be the promises of God, in Him is the yea; wherefore also through him is the Amen], unto the glory of God by us. 21Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; 22who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest 23of the Spirit in our hearts. Moreover [But] I call God for a record [witness] upon my soul, that [it was] to spare you [that] I came not as yet [no more] unto Corinth. 24Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

In that which the Apostle has thus far said we may notice an apologetical element. He had spoken of those troubles which his Judaizing opponents represented as a token of the divine displeasure. He had implied that these were so far from being such a token and a reason for the withdrawal of confidence from him, that they were rather an indication of his fellowship with Christ and a reasonable ground for an affectionate communion between him and the church. But in whatever way we regard the preceding verses, the Apostle’s vindication of himself evidently commences with this section, though it is in intimate connection with what he had just taken for granted, viz., that they were sufficiently interested in him to assist him by their intercessions. He now gives them to understand that he was justified in such an assumption, for he was not unworthy of their sympathies and their prayers. Such is the connection which we infer from the γάρ.

2 Corinthians 1:12. For Our rejoicing is this.—The word καύχησις, as it is used in 1 Corinthians 15:31, and frequently in this Epistle, is not equivalent to καύχημα: that of which one makes his boast, for it signifies rather the act of boasting, the external expression of joyful confidence. It here relates to the whole moral conduct of the Apostle, as Bengel has it: even in seasons of adversity and in his conduct towards his opponents. The inward feeling of which it is the outward expression is the testimony of our conscience, to which it is emphatically directed by αὕτη. The word συνείδησις (here rendered conscience) is found also in 1 Corinthians 8:7; 1 Corinthians 10:25 et al. It is here closely connected with the objective sentence:—that in holiness and godly sincerity, we have had our conversation in the world.[22]—Ἀναστρεφέσθαι occurs here and in Ephesians 2:3; 1 Timothy 3:16; Heb 12:18; 1 Peter 1:17; 2 Peter 2:18. In the Sept. of Proverbs 20:7, it is used as a rendering for הִתְהַלֵּךְ, and signifies the conduct, the way in which one acts. By ἐν is indicated the path in which the movement takes place, and which determines and directs the mode of action referred to. If we accept of ἁγιότης as the true reading, the idea will be that of a religious purity, arising from an unreserved surrender of the heart to God. On account of the numerous and independent critical authorities in its favor, and because ἁγιότης has too general a meaning in connection with εἰλικρίνεία, and might have been suggested by τοῦ θεοῦ etc., Osiander gives the preference to ἁπλότης signifying a freedom from all irrelevant and private views, i. e., a plain single mind. Εἰλικρίνεία τοῦ θεοῦ, godly sincerity, is either a purity like that which is in God, or one which comes from him or is wrought by him in those who submit themselves to him. Τοῦ θεοῦ designates the source and the consequent resemblance. The idea of being acceptable to God necessarily follows from this, but it is not strictly contained in the expression. Still less does it signify what is demanded by God, and least of all what is superior, as if it were merely a superlative. The subjoined antithetic definition of the same idea:—not in carnal wisdom, but in the grace of God,—more precisely explains what is meant by ἐν ἁγιότης. The σοφία σαρκικὴ (1 Corinthians 1:20 σοφ. τοῦ κόσμου; 1 Corinthians 2:5 σοφ. ἀνθρώπων 1 Corinthians 2:6 τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) forms in this passage a contrast on the one hand, to the holiness and godly sincerity, and the εἰλικρίνεια τοῦ θεοῦ, and on the other, to the grace of God. This last phrase signifies God’s free grace; in which, however, is included a surrender and communication of his own infinite self with all the blessings of salvation; just as the holiness and the sincerity had involved a power which moved and directed the Apostle from within himself.—In contrast with this divine disposition, is presented that impure fleshly wisdom which belongs to our sensuous and selfish nature, and which inclines us to pursue our own enjoyment, profit, honor or applause, and hence leads us off into inconsistent courses of conduct. Osiander thinks that here is also an allusion to that theoretical kind of σοφία (1 Corinthians 1:3) which made use of the various artificial methods supplied by the Rhetoric and Logic of that period to gain influence over the minds of men. Theophylact: “words of stirring eloquence, and twistings of sophistries.”] But evidently a more practical kind of worldly wisdom was then uppermost in the Apostle’s mind.—The sphere of the conversation is the world, which, according to Meyer, is the profane portion of men, inasmuch as the Apostle’s object was to make his holy walk more prominent by the contrast. We may certainly regard the non-christian element in society as intended, in distinction from the churches, which were represented here by the Corinthians (πρὸς ὑμᾶς). Περισσοτέρως (more abundantly) has reference to a higher degree, and not to a higher quality. Πρὀς ὑμᾶς has the sense of: in intercourse with you, and it is therefore equivalent to, with you; Neander: “with reference to you. We may conclude from this verse that his opponents had charged him with practising a spurious kind of worldly wisdom, which indicated a lack of uprightness of heart.”—W. F. Besser: “Not as if his Christian intercourse with them had been characterized by any thing extraordinary, or beyond what he had shown in other places. He intended simply to say: “If there are any to whom I have not been manifest as a single-hearted and sincere minister of Christ, surely it cannot be you (1 Corinthians 9:2), for where in all the world have I been more completely known than among you?”

2 Corinthians 1:13-14. For we write none other things unto you—He now confirms his avowal that he had been sincere in his treatment of them, so far as relates to his Epistles. He probably has reference to the suspicions which his opponents had awakened, that his language meant something very different from that which they seemed to mean to an unsuspicious reader.—The full and well at tested reading ἀλλ̓ ἡ ἁ, equivalent to ἡ ἅ or ἀλλ’ ἄ, is a blending together of two constructions: οὐκ άλλ̓—ή and οὐκ —ἀλλὰ (comp. Meyer) [Jelf. Gram. § 773. Obs. 1–3].—But we are writing;—He here refers (as in 1 Corinthians 5:11) to that which he was then writing, and to the meaning which it properly conveyed: we have no other meaning in what we have written than what you yourselves read, and what is the literal signification of the language before the eye of the reader.—No other things unto you than what ye read, or indeed acknowledge.—The words or acknowledge, refer to what they had known, in other ways, of what he then meant. There is no need of an artificial distinction between ἀναγινώσκειν in the sense of recognoscere, and ἑπιγινώσκειν in the sense of agnoscere (Calvin), a distinction which is, moreover, opposed to the uniform usage of ἀναγινώσκειν in the New Testament.23—In the succeeding clause another object of discussion is introduced. It is to be derived not from the preceding ἅ, as if it were equivalent to all that the Apostle in his sincerity had performed and suffered among them (Osiander), but it comes before us in the form of a distinct proposition, viz.: that we are your rejoicing. This sentence grammatically depends upon ἐπιγνώσεσθε [as that which they should continue to acknowledge unto the end], and not upon the intervening clause with which it might be connected according to the sense. The words might indeed be taken as a causal sentence, giving a reason for what is said in the previous clause (comp. Osiander), but the logical connection would certainly be less forcible.—The phrase, unto the end, means, as in 1 Corinthians 1:8, and Hebrews 3:6, the absolute end of all things, and not merely the Apostle’s close of life. In part, in the intermediate clause, expresses a limitation, not in opposition to unto the end, nor with respect to the recognition itself, as if equivalent to in some degree; but with respect to the persons recognizing, implying that only a part of the Church recognized him in his true character. This is the only view which accords with the facts. A reproach would not have been here appropriate. Καύχημα occurs in 1 Corinthians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 9:15 f. In the day of the Lord Jesus, belongs to the principal proposition, but requires also to be joined to the incidental clause. He meant to express his confidence that they would steadfastly acknowledge that he was indeed the object of their glorying, and would continue to be so even to the last day, when teachers and churches shall stand before the great Chief Shepherd, and when all events and the way in which they have been brought about shall be open to inspection. He had no doubt that they would point with joyful triumph to him as the one through whom they and so many others had been brought to Christ, and to all the enjoyments and honors which have been derived from him, as the one to whom they owed their spiritual life with all its benefits and dignities; just as he on his side even then pointed to them as the honorable fruit of his labors (Comp. 1 Corinthians 9:1 s; 2 Corinthians 1:8; Philippians 2:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:19).

2 Corinthians 1:15-20. Having thus drawn their hearts to a firmer confidence in him and to withstand more successfully the influence of his opponents, the Apostle now proceeds to repel the charge of inconsistency and fickleness which had been made against him because he had changed the plan of his journey in coming to them.—And in this confidence I was minded before to come unto you.—Most recent commentators refer the πεποίθησις (confidence, trust) to what has been expressed in ἐλπίζω, &c.; as if he was intending to say that under the influence of this confidence in their steadfast recognition of his true relation to them, he had at first formed the design to pay them a visit, &c.—Some would draw the πρότερον into immediate connection with ἐβουλόμην [q. d. I was before minded], but not only would this be incoherent in itself, since he was yet desirous of this thing, but it would also be unsuitable to δευτέραν χάριν.—The position of the words πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν, by which ὑμας is more properly contrasted with Macedonia, is attested by good authorities.—This had been the Apostle’s original intention, but it had been given up as early as when he wrote his first Epistle. Comp. 1 Corinthians 16:5. This alteration of his plan had become known to the Corinthians either by letter or by personal conversation, and it had been represented to them as an evidence of his general fickleness of character. Hence the propriety of this defence of himself. That ye might have a second benefit.—He here refers to what had been the object of his original plan.—Every visit he might make to them would be the occasion of many blessings, and would manifest the divine favor toward them. Had he visited them a second time, his presence with them would have been a second grace. Such had been his aim when he formed that earlier plan, the only motive of which they might see in the confidence he had just expressed. And now when he declares that that confidence always animated him and had prompted such a friendly purpose, he implies that no thought of a misconstruction of his motives could have crossed his mind when he changed his plan. Χάρις (grace or favor) has not the same meaning with χαρά, (as some would have the original read, signifying joy, or a new delight which his visit would give), nor does it signify an exhibition of human favor, but it is equivalent to χάρισμα πνευματικόν (a spiritual gift) in Romans 1:11 (comp. Romans 15:29). The meaning δευτέραν is not the same here as that of διπλῆν would have been. We need not suppose that his first residence in Corinth, or his first Epistle is referred to as the first grace, for the context (2 Corinthians 1:16) shows evidently what he had in view, and this seems inconsistent with the otherwise probable hypothesis that πρότερον implies that the Apostle had been at Corinth since his first residence there. In 2 Corinthians 1:16 we have more definite information regarding this earlier plan, and light is thrown also upon what is meant by their receiving a second benefit, but we are not therefore to conclude that this latter expression stands out of its proper place.—With respect to his being sent on his way, consult 1 Corinthians 16:6.—Τοῦτο, in 2 Corinthians 1:17, has reference to the earlier plan which had been spoken of in 2 Corinthians 1:15 f. He is meeting the objection which had been raised against him on account of his change of purpose. The amount of this objection was, that he could not have reflected sufficiently upon his plan and the way in which he was to accomplish it,, and so that he became guilty of light-mindedness; or that if he had really intended to visit them, he either could not have been very strenuous in carrying out his purpose, and so had changed his mind without sufficient reasons, or he had not much regard to his promiss. That such an objection had been made to him, in fact, is not to be inferred, perhaps, from the article τῇ, as if this referred to the particular lightness which had been imputed to him, for this may also be pointed to the levity which would generally be suspected in such cases.—Did I use lightness.—Ἐλαφρία (lightness) is found nowhere else in the New Testament, although the adjective occurs twice (2 Corinthians 4:17 and Matthew 11:30), but not with an ethical signification. Χρῆσθαι, when used with reference to moral states or qualities, means to have a hand in, to be occupied with, to enter upon, some business, and is equivalent to: behaving or conducting one’s self in a certain manner. Ἄρα, in an interrogative sentence, implies that the inquirer will wait for an answer (well, really! indeed! comp. [Jelf. Gr. Gram., § 873, 2.] Passow I., 377), and hence indicates necessarily no logical deduction (a consequence from this state of thing.). The second question,—or the things which I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh?—is either coordinated with the first (in which case ἤ is equivalent to aut), or subordinated to it (ἤ having the force of an), and implying that the contrary would lead to an absurdity: “if, then, you would not charge me with levity, you must suppose that I form my purposes according to the flesh” (Meyer). This subordination would agree very well with the explanation which refers ἐχρησάμην to the purpose itself; but the coördination would suit best the interpretation which refers that word rather to the carrying out of the purpose, and introduces here the additional point respecting the improper spirit shown in the formation of the purpose. And yet this last is probably the more correct meaning. Κατὰ σάρκα however, refers to that which determines the mind when it is coming to a decision, or it is the same as to say that the conclusion was reached in the way in which the σάρξ usually determines us, i. e., in a carnal manner. The real meaning would be essentially the same on either interpretation. The opposite of this is: κατὰ πνε͂υμα. Where the spirit controls a man in all his conduct, the sole object of his consultations and conclusions is the honor, the kingdom and the will of God, but where the σάρξ (i. e., the nature of man, when it is confined to the pursuit of external and selfish objects), controls his decisions, nothing will be regarded but outward relations, selfish inclinations, personal interests, or something to accommodate, please, profit, or flatter himself.—A spiritual mind always makes a man decided, consistent, true to himself, and uniform in all his conduct; but a carnal mind makes him uncertain in all his ways, and involves him in many contradictory courses. This necessary result, the Apostle presents as if it were the object of the person’s design or aim, ἵνα ᾗ &c. If we follow the correct reading ναὶ ναὶ—ὄυ ὄυ (the Vulgate and some other verss. have simply ναι—ὄυ), the second ναὶ and ὄυ might belong to the predicate: that the yea with me should be yea, and the nay should be nay (comp. James 5:12); and the whole might refer to an obstinate and presumptuous course of conduct, in which a man adheres to his determination, and resolves that his yea shall remain yea, and his nay shall continue nay. The idea would thus be that he will never change his mind, whether he had resolved upon a yea or a nay, a promise or a refusal, a doing or a declining to do something. But, according to the context, the objection the Apostle was here meeting was not so much to his consistent obstinacy as to his inconsistent fickleness. The double form of ναί, ναί and οὔ, οὔ is merely to give additional force to the simple form in 2 Corinthians 1:18, as in Matthew 5:37. The predicate is either, should be with us also, nay, nay; i. e. the yea, yea, may become with us nay, nay; that is, the purpose or the promise may change about into just the opposite according to convenience; or (better) merely should be with us; in which case καὶ has the ordinary sense of, and:—that there should be with me the yea, yea, and the nay, nay.—[Chrysostom forcibly gives the objection which is met by the Apostle in this passage (2 Corinthians 1:18-22) thus: “If when you promised to come to us, you failed to do so, and your yea is not yea, nor your nay nay; but what you say now you change afterwards, as you have done in regard to your coming to us, woe to us lest this also should be the case with your preaching! In order, therefore, that they might not think thus, he assures them that God was faithful, and that His word to them was not yea and nay; for in his preaching such changes could not happen, but only in his travels and journeyings.] Their objection must then have been that the Apostle had both these intentions together and at the same time, and hence that he could not be depended upon, was equivocal, self-contradictory, and took back at one time what he had just before promised (not as Olshausen arbitrarily assumes, that truth and falsehood were blended together).

Very different from all this was the actual conduct of the Apostle toward them, based as it was upon motives of the highest love and wisdom, 2 Corinthians 1:23.—As God is faithful, our word towards you is not yea and nay.—He here proceeds in the first place to meet the objection in a very solemn but lively manner (2 Corinthians 1:18), introducing his assertion with a δέ (which, however, has not the force of μᾶλλον δέ, as if he would give a still further denial to the question). Πιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεός, ὅτι, &c., may here be taken either as saying that God’s fidelity was the reason he ventured to assert such a consistency for himself, i. e. he asserted such things of himself because God was faithful—God is faithful in this (εἰς τοῦτο), and this fact makes it impossible that we should speak in this uncertain manner among you (Meyer)—or, as a solemn protestation: as surely as God is true, our word toward you, etc. de Wette, Osiander). The former seems harsh, and is not grammatically confirmed by a reference to John 9:17, where ὅτι has the force of: because, since. Πιστὸς ὁ θεός may be a form of solemn affirmation as well as ἔστιν ͂υ ἐν ἐμοί in 2 Corinthians 9:10, and it goes probably on the assumption that God was a witness. Comp. Romans 1:9; Php 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:5. He thus brings forward the fidelity (reliableness) of God as a security for the reliableness of his own λόγος. But what does he mean by this λόγος? Does it refer to his promise to visit them, or to his discourses generally, i. e. to everything he had said to them in any way? or finally does it refer to his doctrines and public instructions (κήρυγμα)?24 We are decidedly in favor of the last for the reason assigned in the next verse, in which the Apostle maintains that his instructions must be perfectly reliable because they consisted of truths which were incontrovertible and irresistible. Neander: “Every way in which he held intercourse with the Corinthians, his instructions as a whole.” But such an assertion of the credibility of his teaching should have an influence also to ward off those accusations which had been made against those decisions which related to his official work (such as his apostolical journeys), just as these latter had created a prejudice against his teachings.

For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us (2 Corinthians 1:19).—[“In place of the preaching he here puts Him who was preached (metonomy); and says that the doctrine concerning the Son of God which he and Silvanus and Timotheus had preached contained no discrepancies, nor did they at one time preach this and at another time that, but they brought forward always the same doctrine.” Theodoret]. Τοῦ θεοῦ, according to the true reading, precedes γὰρ, and thus becomes emphatic, in order to give prominence to the Divine part of the subject of their preaching. It evidently has reference to what had been said in 2 Corinthians 1:18, respecting ὁ θεός. Κηρυχθείς relates to the preaching by which they had been at first brought to believe in Christ. He describes this as the common testimony of the three organs of Divine revelation who had been associated at that time (Acts 18:5). It should not, however, be supposed that the Christ thus preached signifies the same thing as the preaching of Christ, for then γὰρ would serve only to introduce an explanation or further exposition of what had been said in 2 Corinthians 1:18. Comp. 2 Corinthians 1:20. [In describing “the Son of God, Jesus Christ,” the epithets are accumulated “to express the greatness of Him whom they preached, and so to aggravate the impossibility of His connection with any littleness or levity.” Stanley]. Of Him, as he had been preached among the Corinthians, the Apostle says: he was not made yea and nay, but has been made yea in him; i. e., He has proved Himself among you as among others, not an untruthful, untrustworthy and ambiguous personage, saying yea and nay at the same time; but one in whom an everlasting yea, a pure, steadfast affirmation might always be found (comp. Hebrews 13:8; Revelation 3:14). “The whole Old Testament revelation has proved to be true by means of the Christ who has been preached among you. And yet, what is thus true of the objective Christ, must be applied with equal truth to the word preached respecting him.” Neander. [The verb here used, γέγονεν, signifies not mere existence, but a transition from one state, or character, or condition, to another (Webster’s Synn. of the Gr. Test., p. 199). Being in the perfect tense, it implies that the change spoken of is not only completed, but that the result of it is conceived of as permanent (Winer, § 41, 4). It hath become yea, and it remains yea in Him forever. My plans and purposes may change, but the subject of my preaching remains the same under every mutation of its preachers].

The more particular declaration and reason assigned in the next verse shows that what had just been asserted had reference to the experience, not merely of the Corinthians, (who had been spoken of in the phrase, preached among you), but of Christians in general; For however numerous may be the promises of God (in the Old Testament), in Him is the yea, (i. e., the affirmation of them, 2 Corinthians 1:20); inasmuch as they are actually fulfilled in Him or He secures their fulfilment in the future. By means of His person and work, the certainty of all God’s promises has been practically confirmed (comp. Romans 15:8; John 1:17; Acts 3:21). To this external confirmation in Christ, corresponds the Amen, which is not added merely to strengthen the yea (as the Rec. would make it), but it expresses the unanimous assent which believers yield to the objective truth, the confession they make with respect to the actual fulfilment everywhere taking place at the time, with an allusion also to the Amen which the primitive Christians were in the habit of responding in their public assemblies. Even this confession is by means of Christ, for inasmuch as the fulfilment itself takes place in Him, the confession must be drawn from believers by Him through our means to the glory of God. Or: all God’s promises are yea in Christ’s person and work, i. e., in His name, as it is proclaimed in the Gospel, and are Amen in the Church which confesses His name (Besser).—The words δἰ ἡμῶν [through or by means of us] might possibly be referred to believers in general, but the context more naturally connects them with those only, who are Christ’s ministers; and the Amen is either the joyful and believing testimony of such ministers, or (more correctly and more strictly conformed to the usage with respect to ἀμήν), the public expression of confidence which all believers gave. The phrase to the glory of God by us is in apposition with that which precedes it, and signifies, that which glorifies God by our means, i. e., when we who proclaim the Gospel are the instruments of producing the confidence thus expressed (Meyer).—The article is placed before ναί and ἀμὴν in 2 Corinthians 1:20, because the yea has here acquired a definite position with respect to the ἐπαγγελίαι. There is no necessity of supplying a subject for the affirmation in this yea (as e. g. in ἀλλὰ ναὶ ἐν αὐτῷ γέγονεν), nor of understanding by it that which He (i. e., Christ) has affirmed (the preceding yea), but it is itself the subject. [Bengel: Christ preached, i. e., our preaching of Christ became yea in Christ Himself]. [Obviously, then, the Apostle would argue, there could be no variableness in the subject (λόγος) of His preaching, since God who gave it was faithful, and Christ who is its substance is the same in all ages, however the promises respecting Him might vary. The whole revelation of Christ, whether in Old Testament writing or in the preaching of the Apostle and his companions, had been one everlasting affirmation from God to men like a mighty yea poured forth from heaven through all generations. He was then, had been, and ever would be the same (Exodus 3:14; John 8:58). Even in the experience of those to whom the Apostle was writing, this was manifest, for they were accustomed in all their assemblies to join with believers of every age and country in responding their hearty Amen to the instructions and worship of the Church. Thus the earth’s Amen responded to heaven’s yea in Christ]. In 2 Corinthians 1:20, ἐπαγγελίαι refers to the promises not of the New, but of the Old Testament, such as the Apostle speaks of in Galatians 3:16 ff. and Romans 4:13; to the promise of salvation in all its clear details, and not merely to that of the Holy Spirit.—Even with the reading given in the Recep.: καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ (retained by Osiander, with Tischendorf and Reiche), we need no other explanation than that we have just given. We shall not need to refer the yea to the God who promises and the Amen to the Christ in whom the promises are fulfilled (Beza); nor to regard the Amen as an expression of what is complete truth, i. e., an idea expressed in two languages (as in the case of Abba, Father), with reference to both Jewish and Gentile Christians; nor yet to make the Amen God’s seal to man’s Amen, i. e., to the confidence they thus expressed (?) (Osiander). Even on the supposition that the Amen refers to the subjective confidence of believers, it would not be inconsistent with the Apostle’s aim to set forth the complete objective certainty of the Divine promises, secured as they were in all their strength through Christ, and so forming a basis on which he could claim confidence for himself. That internal confidence which the Corinthians had yielded to his preaching, and which they had openly confessed, was a sufficient proof of his trustworthiness as an Apostle. Neander: “In this way he met in the most effectual manner the suspicions which his opponents had cast upon his instructions, by appealing to the experience which the Corinthians had received of the power of Divine grace through Christ upon their hearts.” But after all the arguments which have been urged against the reading, διὸ καὶ δἰ αὐτοῦ we do not regard them as of sufficient weight to induce us to set it aside, or to give us entire confidence in that of the Recepta. [The sense of the two readings is somewhat different. By Lachmann’s reading (preferred by Calvin and most of the ancient expositors), it is asserted, that, however various God’s promises might be, their yea was in Christ, and hence that the Amen which expresses human experience must be in Him also. According to this, not only do the promises receive their confirmation in Christ, but we experience and assent to their truth. By the common reading the Apostle simply asserts, that the promises had received their verification, (their yea and Amen), in Christ. Certainly the tenor of the Apostle’s argument is most strengthened by the former reading].

2 Corinthians 1:21-22. [One thought still lingers in the Apostle’s mind, which he must express before he returns to his personal defence (comp. Stanley)]. The firm faith which Christ had effected, and which had brought such glory to God by means of the preaching of the Gospel, he now traces back to its ultimate author (2 Corinthians 1:20).—Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God.—In the first place he represents God as firmly establishing, so far as related to Christ (1 Corinthians 1:6), not only those who preached the Gospel, but those who had been brought by them to the Christian faith. The former he had enabled to preach Christ in such a way as to deserve and to secure the confidence of their fellow-men; and the latter he had induced to exercise a steadfast faith, and to hold forth an unshaken confession of the truth. In the next place he presents God as anointing the Apostle and his assistants; that is, as bestowing upon them that spiritual inspiration which was needful for their duties. [There is certainly nothing in the mere language or grammatical construction which intimates that he associated all Christians with these inspired teachers in the enjoyment of these blessings. In the confirmation (βεβαιῶν), indeed, he expressly includes the Corinthians to whom he was writing, and this is spoken of as an event which was then (present participle) taking place. But with an almost evident design he extends this participation to none of the remaining facts (the anointing, the sealing and the earnest of the Spirit), which are represented as having taken place (aorist participles) once for all at an earlier period (probably when the Apostles and the other teachers were consecrated to their public offices, and when, of course, the Corinthians were unconverted). As we know that miraculous gifts had been conferred upon the Corinthians, a special reason may have existed for applying the confirmation alone to them (σὺν ὑμῖν). And yet it must be conceded, that nothing in the nature of either of these benefits, so far as they are known to us, would necessarily limit their application to any class of believers. Even if the unction in 1 John 2:20; 1 John 2:27 be explained of a miraculous endowment, it would be difficult to give such an interpretation to Ephesians 1:13 f. Dr. Hodge also calls attention to the fact, that when an official anointing is spoken of in the New Testament, it is only in relation to Christ and never with reference to the Apostles or other preachers, whereas all believers are said to receive the more ordinary unction of the Holy Spirit. The ancient expositors (Chrysostom, Theodoret and Ambrosiaster) attached much importance to this passage as a special description of the privileges of all believers as the anointed prophets, priests and kings of God. On the whole, although we must grant that the Apostle has expressly limited the anointing, the sealing and the earnest of the Spirit to himself and his fellow-laborers in their official capacity, and the confirmation to them and the Corinthians, we see nothing in the endowments themselves or in the analogy of similar passages, which should prevent us from giving these expressions a much more extensive application, since they refer to those spiritual benefits which are promised to all Christians as well as their public teachers.] With respect to the anointing (κρίσας), comp. John 2:20-25, where the unction of believers (κρῖσμα) is spoken of; and Luke 4:18; Acts 4:27; Acts 10:38; Hebrews 1:9. Preachers of the Gospel should be imitators of Christ, and this they can be only as they partake of the Divine Spirit (official grace).—The δὲ indicates that an additional subject is introduced, for it is here metabatic (or transitional), and not adversative. The phrase εἰς Χριστόν has in this place the sense of: in respect to Christ, or, in the direction of Christ, and not of: within or in Christ. The former signification is undoubtedly the simplest, but the representation of the Apostle requires that we should conceive of the union with Christ as a continuous and progressive one, and it may be doubted whether εἰς will bear such an interpretation. Σὺν ὑμῖν (with you) is used here, not merely to conciliate the good will of the readers (Meyer, Osiander), but it enters much more essentially into the course of the argument. W. F. Besser:—“He takes the Corinthians themselves for his witnesses, from their own experience, that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ makes the course of His people sure by the Holy Spirit.”—It would be altogether inappropriate and even contradictory to the spirit of the text to suppose that the Apostle had here a collateral reference to those who affected to regard him as a reed shaken, by the wind (Rückert).—In the second and in the next succeeding ἡμᾶς the Apostle does not include his readers with himself, for in the previous part of the sentence he had expressly distinguished ἡμᾶς from them, and had made it refer exclusively to himself and his fellow laborers.—The anointing refers not merely to the original vocation but to the subsequent spiritual endowment of the persons spoken of. The expression [paronomasia] intimates that there was a resemblance between the anointed ones and Him who was in a preeminent sense the Anointed One. Neander: “As it was customary to transfer every predicate of the Old Testament Theocracy, in a spiritual sense, to Christianity, we have the chrism which was used in the consecration of priests and kings applied to the spiritual consecration of the Christian by the presence of the Holy Spirit in his heart. The reference is to the consecration of all believers to the general priesthood.”—It is rather an overstraining of the word when it is made (Bengel) to imply a communication both of strength and of fragrancy (2 Corinthians 2:15); or, in addition to this, the clear and accurate discernment of truth, which was sometimes given from above, and which made its recipients inaccessible to all forms of error and falsehood (comp. 1 John 2:27); or some character indelibilis in the evangelical sense, a permanent Divine endowment by which one became holier and more inviolable, on account of some special prerogative or dignity which he acquired as the Lord’s anointed (Osiander; comp. Psalms 105:15); or, finally, the quality imparted in the three-fold office, i. e., the refreshing and cheering influence (Psalms 40:15), which all Christians receive when they are made prophets, priests and kings unto God, and are strengthened for their conflicts with the world, sin and Satan (anointing of the athletae). 2 Corinthians 1:21 can be correctly construed only as an independent sentence, of which 2 Corinthians 1:22 was designed to give an additional explanation. If we take 2 Corinthians 1:21 as the subject and 2 Corinthians 1:22 as the predicate, so that the idea should be: God who stablishes and hath anointed us hath also sealed us, the βεβαιῶν, which now forms the connecting link with the preceding passage, ceases to be the principal and becomes a merely incidental thought.—In 2 Corinthians 1:22 the phrase—Who also hath sealed us—has reference to the Christian character of all those who had been ordained to the office of teaching, and points out the true source of those peculiar endowments which qualified them for their work. The sealing (σφραγίζεσθαι) signifies in general the act by which a man designates something as his property. Here, as in Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 4:30, it signifies that Divine assurance of adoption which is effected by the communication and inward witness of the Holy Spirit. Osiander describes it as the complete consecration of one to the service and fellowship of the Lord and his uninterrupted continuance therein (comp. Revelation 7:2; 2 Timothy 2:10). The phrase—and hath given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts—is here added epexegetically, for in this communication of the Spirit lies the true power of the sealing. The whole phrase is a brachylogy [a concise expression] in which the act and its result are taken together; for it is implied that the Spirit is in such a way given that he abides in the heart.—Ἀῤῥαβών is properly the earnest-money, e. g., in a bargain, when some part of the price agreed upon is paid beforehand, in token that the contract is ratified and that the purchaser is bound for the payment of the whole. It is therefore a pledge or security.25 If we take the genitive (τοῦ πνεύματος) partitively, the sense will be, that a communication of the Spirit is begun, and that the portion given is a pledge that the communication will be completed hereafter. If we follow the analogy of 2 Corinthians 5:5, we must regard the communication of the Spirit as the proper warrant for expecting a complete salvation, the actual inheritance (the κληρονομία). The Spirit therefore should be looked upon as the earnest of the whole salvation; properly speaking, the earnest is, or consists of, the Holy Spirit, and the genitive hero is one of apposition [Winer, Gr. d. N. T. § 48, 2]. Comp. on this subject Romans 8:2; Romans 8:10-11; Romans 8:15-17. It seems altogether too contracted a view of this passage to make all that is here said refer exclusively to the testimony which the Spirit bore in the hearts of the original preachers of the Gospel to the truth of their official character. [The expressions more properly relate to the complete assurance which they possessed that they were, both as believers and as preachers of the truth, under the direction of an infallible Divine Spirit.]

2 Corinthians 1:23-24. In the two preceding verses, the Apostle had set forth the firm basis God had given for the confidence his hearers might repose in him, and in consequence of which he had been so abundantly authenticated both as an Apostle and a Christian. This had prepared the way for the appeal to God which he now makes with an irresistible power:—Moreover I call God for a witness against my soul.—This is a solemn affirmation respecting his failure to visit Corinth according to his previous intention and the reasons which kept him from going. Instead of the general us, he now uses the singular I, because he is about to speak of personal matters in which no one but himself was involved. The prominence of the ἐγὠ is increased by its close connection with δὲ (comp. Osiander: [“As God had placed a divine seal upon him and his word, according to 2 Corinthians 1:22, so he now seals his own word with the name of God.”]) Επί has its peculiar sense of against, Meyer makes it mean for (comp. 2 Macc. 2:37), but here it means in respect to; Neander: over my soul. The former sense is more appropriate to the nature of a solemn affirmation or oath (comp. Joshua 24:22), The sense is: “If what I now say is untrue, may God appear as a witness against my soul, and may I fall under his condemnation.”—The condition was necessarily implied and hence was not expressed. The phrase, my soul (τὴν ἐμὴν ψυχήν) does not apply to the inmost spirit, that which the Apostle always regarded as especially akin to, and conscious of, God, and which he therefore places here in this sacred relation to the Omniscient God (Osiander). According to Beck (Seelenl. § 2) the soul is that in which the life is found, and hence is always named as the subject when a preservation, deliverance, peril or loss of life is spoken of.—This solemn asseveration was justifiable on moral grounds, because his credit as an Apostle had been called in question, and with this was essentially connected the honor of Christ, who had sent him, and the cause of God which he represented at Corinth. In like manner, Galatians 1:20; Romans 9:1 f, and other places. W. F. Besser: Even Augustine, in his day, refers to this solemn oath of the Apostle, to prove that our Lord could not have intended in his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:34) to prohibit every kind of swearing, but only those oaths which were useless and were an unhallowed profanation of God’s name, and hence were arbitrary and uncalled for. In this place Paul made use of an oath, as Christ did (Matthew 26:64), when the honor of God called for it.—Οὐκέτι implies that he had been in Corinth before he wrote his First Epistle (comp. Meyer). [Our A. V. translates οὐκέτι as if it were=οὔπω; Tyndale, more correctly: “not eny moare;” Conybeare: “I gave up my purpose;” Alford: “No more, i. e., after the first time.” Paul does not deny that he had as yet been at Corinth, but only explains why he had not gone there at the time, and on the journey, of which he was speaking. It seems probable from this whole passage (2 Corinthians 1:15-23) that Paul had paid no visit to Corinth between the sending of the First and Second Epistles. See Introd. § 6.]. The reason he had not gone directly to Corinth, according to his earlier intention, but had visited the Macedonian churches first and had contented himself with writing to the Corinthians, is expressed in φειδόμενος ὑμῶν—that I came not to Corinth any more, in order that I might spare you.—He had hoped that they would be induced by that Epistle to return to their right mind and would be so completely restored to their proper relation to him, that he would not be obliged to treat them with a rod of severity (1 Corinthians 4:21). He was not, however, even then without anxiety on this point (2 Corinthians 12:20 f; 2 Corinthians 13:1 ff.)—Not that we have dominion over your faith (2 Corinthians 1:24).—He here anticipates and meets any misconstruction which might be put upon what he had just said about sparing them (φειδόμενος), and he obviates the appearance of domineering which some might find in it.—Οὐχ ὁτι is equivalent to saying: I say not that etc. (a common brachylogy), i. e., “the words φειδόμενος ὑμῶν are not intended to imply,” etc.—Κυριεύομεν is not here to be so connected with ὑμῶν as to make ἔνεκα necessary to be understood before τῆς πίστεως [as if he had meant: over you with respect to your faith]; nor is τῆς πίστεως to be considered as equivalent to τῶν πιστευόντων: them that believe. His object was to say that when he spoke of sparing them, he meant not to use his apostolic authority in a lordly way to control their faith, their inward religious life, and their spiritual action with respect to Christian truth. All this he knew must be the result of a free surrender, and a voluntary determination, of their own minds, not merely at first, but ever afterwards, on each renewed act of faith. A positive expression of his meaning is given in the words:—but are helpers of your joy.—‘Your joy, your “rejoicing in the Lord,” can thrive and maintain its existence only by your putting forth all the energies of your faith in the work of progressive sanctification, in abstaining from all selfish and fleshly desires, and in the perfecting yourselves in love and a positive likeness to Christ.’ In this way not only would their faith be proved, but their hearts would be filled with Christian cheerfulness, and they would become conscious of a genuine and established spiritual life. In all this he had endeavored to assist them by the exercise of discipline, by earnest admonitions, by a strict adherence to the upright course which a genuine love demanded, and by strenuously persevering in the path of duty, whatever censures he might find it needful to inflict on them for their remaining inconsistencies. [As inspired men the Apostles had power to prescribe what ought to be believed, the objective truth on which all right faith is grounded, but they claimed no other authority over men’s subjective faith. “He claimed no right to control their spiritual convictions, but only their outward conduct, and hence he might speak of having spared them only in respect of external discipline” (Erasmus’ Paraphrase). Thus careful was he to recognize the right of private judgment even under the spiritual jurisdiction of inspired men. The reason he gives is, that Christians were steadfast only when they exercise a free faith in God alone, without the attempted constraint of human authority.] The σύν in συνεργοί refers neither to God nor to Christ, nor to his companions in office, as if he had said that he worked in common with them, but to his readers for whose welfare he was concerned, and whose activity in their own behalf was presupposed. That he was here speaking of nothing but a cooperation with them in promoting their joy (in this sense) and not directly of faith, is confirmed by the final clause:—for by faith ye stand,—or rather, in respect to faith ye are steadfast. The Dative here shows wherein or in what respect they were steadfast (comp. Galatians 5:3), and does not point out [as our English A. V. makes it] the reason, or the efficient cause of their stead-fastness. [See, however, Winer, Gr. d. N. T., § 31, 3].

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. How pure the relationship between ministers and their congregations, when the eye of the former is kept steadfastly upon the day of Jesus Christ, and when the latter attend strictly to the doctrine preached to them. The thought that we are both to appear together before the great Shepherd to whom we all belong, who has united us together, and who perfectly knows all that we do to one another, will have the effect, 1) to repress in those who have been intrusted with the pastoral office all motives unworthy of fellowship with God, to render them indifferent to the empty honors of the world and to fleshly indulgences, and to make them long with purer and more intense desire for the salvation of souls, to whom they might be able in the last day to point with satisfaction as those whom they had been instrumental in leading to, and confirming in, the way of life; and 2) to induce the people to make such a profitable use of their instructions and admonitions, to grow in grace, to free themselves from every thing which will not bear the light of the last day, and to abound in the fruits of righteousness, that their ministers may perform their duties with joy and not with grief, and finally be able to point to them as to a thriving and fruitful field which will not dishonor either the great Master or the under shepherds.—But the formation and continuance of this relation must depend very much upon the character of the instruction which is given. When a people are supplied only with opinions derived from the preacher’s own heart or the teachings of men, they can never know with confidence where they stand or the true foundation of their hopes. But when they are supplied with the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ in the ever consistent words of the Apostles and prophets, and with those promises of God which, however ancient, are perpetually fulfilled and confirmed before their eyes and in their own experience, they will always know where to look for direction, will be established in the truth, and will acquire a confidence which no insinuations or calumnies can shake. As his course will never be ambiguous, they will not be obliged to be on their guard against every thing which proceeds from him, his words will be received in their natural signification, and if at any time suspicions are raised against him, they will confidently anticipate from him a satisfactory explanation.2. The proper relation of a pastor to his people is not that of a lord over his subjects. It is no part of his business to interfere directly with their external social relations, to lord it over their private judgments in respect to God and the Divine word, or to hold them in a state of slavish dependence upon himself. A hierarchy is an apostasy from the mind and spirit of the Apostles. These felt that their office was most honored when they became helpers of their people’s joy, extended a helping hand to such as were weak and struggling, and enabled these to walk securely along the way of righeousness. Their object was to render believers more and more capable of using God’s word and grace for themselves, and to become increasingly skilful and zealous in good works. Their official power depended not upon external accompaniments, but upon the amount of assistance and coöperation they could afford to those around them. It was the power of love and a participation in the sufficiency of God. Of such a hierarchy, those who love to have dominion over men’s faith present only a miserable caricature, and an apish device of Satan, who endeavors thus haughtily and violently to recover what our Lord and those who have our Lord’s Spirit have gained by works of humanity and love. Such ministers boast themselves only in that God who establishes them with all true believers in one great fellowship with Christ, calls them and qualifies them for their office, and bestows on them the Spirit which witnesses to their adoption and is an inward pledge of their eternal glory.[3. “The joys of a Christian on earth are of the same nature with the joys of heaven. They are an earnest, a part of that which he is to enjoy forever. There will be no other heaven than that which would be constituted by the expanded joys of a Christian. Of course, he who has not such a character, such principles, and such joys, as, if fairly developed, would constitute heaven, is not a Christian.” Barnes.]

[4. “If the inspired Apostles recognized not only their subjection to the word of God, but also the right 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 recognizes 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.” Hodge.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Starke, 2 Corinthians 1:12 : Hedinger:—What an excellent pillow for the soul is a good conscience! Well may we seek for it, purify it, and keep it! An indispensable means to this, is never to neglect the duties of our stations.—With a good conscience, simplicity and sincerity are cardinal virtues by which, no less than by faith, all virtuous conduct is ennobled.—He who has the witness of a good conscience, thereby lives continually at the bar of that omniscient Judge, who tries the reins and the heart. (Romans 9:1). Nothing tranquilizes a man under manifold sufferings, like the consciousness that he brought not his troubles on himself; but even when he is conscious of some defects, the grace of God will sustain him if he is engaged in a good cause; and is suffering, not on account of those defects, but for Christ’s sake.

2 Corinthians 1:13. A Christian’s speech should never be ambiguous or distorted (Psalms 25:21; John 1:47).—The great matter is, to be faithful even to the end; but it is a sad thing to be perhaps faithful to-day, and to-morrow to be like salt which has lost its savor (Matthew 5:13), relapsing into entire worldliness (Hebrews 10:38 f.).

2 Corinthians 1:14. Many despise and hate the preacher who is faithful, and yet fancy that they love God, but the time is coming when the preacher will be honored, and they will be put to shame (Luke 19:10)!—Happy is it when the minister and his people have reason for mutual glorying, but alas! when he is obliged to labor in the midst of perpetual sighings (Hebrews 13:17)!

2 Corinthians 1:16. Even when we have the sincerest and best intentions, our whole conduct may be misinterpreted and ascribed to base motives. But go thy way, perverse world; thou shalt yet see and confess the truth, though perhaps too late!

2 Corinthians 1:19. The Church has now many builders; oh, if all would build on the same plan and would hold up the Lord Jesus Christ in the same way! But with some it is yea, and with others it is nay; some pull down what others build up.

2 Corinthians 1:20. Jesus Christ is the seal and the realization of all God’s promises and predictions. In him we have the manifestation of God.

2 Corinthians 1:21. To be called the Lord’s anointed, and yet not have the Lord’s anointing, is to have a name to live while we are dead.—A genuine Christian stands upon a firm footing, and has no reason to doubt, much less to despair, that God will enable him to hold out faithful to the end; for the Holy Spirit which dwells within him, is the pledge of his establishment, anointing and sealing by the Father.—The Holy Spirit is the precious love token26 which God gives his people that Christ may be glorified in them, and to shed abroad the love of God in their hearts, diffusing in them a peace (Romans 5:5) which assures them of an inheritance of similar blessedness in the world to come.

2 Corinthians 1:23. On important occasions, when the honor of God and the welfare of our neighbor is concerned, we are warranted in taking a solemn oath (Deuteronomy 6:13).

2 Corinthians 1:24. Faith cannot be forced. Fetters and chains are the instruments which antichrist uses for instructing his followers and for ensuring his decisions in the hall of judgment.—Nothing can exceed the joy which true Christians derive from the pledge God gives them of their glorious inheritance by sealing them for it. All true servants of the gospel are helpers of this joy, and never will imagine themselves the people’s lords (1 Peter 3:3).—Those who truly stand in the faith will also withstand the enemy (1 Peter 5:8 f.). But let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall (1 Corinthians 10:12; Romans 11:20).

Berlenburg Bible, 2 Corinthians 1:12 :—A minister of Christ must look mainly to the approbation of his own conscience, for he will be obliged to live as if he cared nothing for the opinions of worldly men.—All things in this case have a mutual dependence; the simplicity of the dove is united with the prudence of the righteous, and with an understanding so purified from above that it will receive or endure nothing corrupt or incongruous in its nature. The eyes are turned always toward God as He is in Christ, and the whole conduct is regulated by the Divine will. This is walking by faith. In it the believer will not be disposed to get up intrigues, and will have no occasion for doubt or fear. Like charity (1 Corinthians 13:4) he has none of the serpent’s spirit, and he keeps constant hold on God. He walks in the light, and he has no corrupt by ends, for his eye is single. Did we all walk thus we might traverse the world without injury.

2 Corinthians 1:13 ff. No reproof is so severe as the words and the example of consistent Christians. The faithful minister will, therefore, be always in conflict with men. We need never expect to be without some root of bitterness and suspicion.

2 Corinthians 1:17. The distinction between those whom God leads, and those who walk according to their own counsel, may be seen in the steadfastness with which the former keep, and the fickleness with which the latter change, their resolutions. The stability of the Christian depends upon the immutability of that Divine Spirit who leads him, and who will allow of no Yea and Nay in Him. Those who have not that Spirit will be subject continually to change, resolving sometimes upon one thing and sometimes upon another, but constant to nothing.

2 Corinthians 1:19. In Christ and His gospel there are no contradictions. What He is in himself, He will manifest himself to be in us, ever the same. Such will he prove himself to be in all those temptations which we sinners must endure with patience.

2 Corinthians 1:20. God’s promises are all connected with Christ. Those then who heartily lay hold of Christ can easily overcome and make their way through all possible offences.

2 Corinthians 1:21. Our eye should be fixed not so much upon the instruments God uses, as upon the work He accomplishes by them.

2 Corinthians 1:22. By the sealing which God gives us, we become so assured of His promises and of the salvation effected by Christ and revealed in the gospel, that no creature can separate us from Him.

2 Corinthians 1:24. Whoever imposes burdens upon the necks and endeavors to have dominion over the faith and consciences of God’s people, thereby puts himself in the place of Christ and becomes an antichrist.

Rieger, 2 Corinthians 1:12-16 :—The reproach of the cross has always something oppressive and crushing to a man. Then those who see him will write upon his cross all manner of superscriptions. But then it is that we may make our boast and stand erect with a right royal and divine spirit. This is not self-exaltation, but in our troubles glorying in the Lord. Such a faith which glories in fellowship with Christ and in His righteousness alone, arms us against the accusations of conscience, and yet so purifies conscience itself that it will allow of nothing which would interrupt our fellowship with a God of light. It will make us diligent to maintain a good conscience along with our faith, that its friendly testimony may be our rejoicing under the unfriendly judgments of men.—The man who faithfully performs the work assigned him by Providence, and never corrupts himself with sinister and selfish views, may be said to act with simplicity and sincerity. As it is in the divine government, every thing here proceeds from a single principle. The Christian may be severely tried, but he will always be an object of divine complacency. Confidence in himself will sometimes beguile a man into expedients of a worldly nature, into subtle schemes and strenuous endeavors to obtain relief, but a true confidence in the living God will support him all along his course with the assurance that grace will be sufficient for his day, and that all things shall work together for his good. He will have no need of concealments, corrections of former errors, double meanings to his words, and forced explanations of what he has done, but his honest, meaning is what every one would easiest understand it to be.

2 Corinthians 1:17 ff. Nothing can be nobler than the common fellowship of all Christians in the gospel, but nothing can be more disgusting than a perversion of it to promote objects of a worldly nature. The purer a man’s intentions are, the more unsuspecting will he be, and the more freely will he adjust his course to new circumstances. While, on the one hand, a worldly spirit in its eagerness to maintain its influence over men, will not unfrequently persevere with fatal obstinacy in the course it has once chosen, a light mind, on the other, changes its purposes without reasons. A proper regard for the guiding hand of God will preserve us from both extremes.—Even in his primary principles no one should presume that he can attain by himself infallible truth. God will, however, faithfully see to it that we have enough in his word to rest upon. The Gospel is no mere plaything, which asserts at one time what it denies at another, and which approves at one time what it condemns at another; but as it proceeds from an unchangeable source, it presents always the same warrant for faith.

2 Corinthians 1:20. The whole mystery of God and of Christ has been contrived, so far as we are concerned, with the special object of giving us promises amply sufficient to afford us perfect peace; but all these promises find their fulfilment in Christ and in the accomplishment of this divine mystery. It is by the work of redemption that God has preserved His own name from dishonor and vindicated His glory in creation; and when He sends forth men to preach His Gospel, it is that they may make known the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:21 f. Christ the Son of God has arranged all things in such a way as to promote His Father’s glory; but the Father, as the true Husbandman, watches over each branch in Christ, that it shall be purified and bring forth more fruit. He is the source of all the assurance and certainty, and of all the joy and constancy, which as Christians and ministers, we can possess.

2 Corinthians 1:22. A father sometimes averts his eyes from that which may cause too much shame on the part of a well-disposed child.

2 Corinthians 1:24. Matters of faith and of ecclesiastical order must not be subject to men’s caprices, and changed according to the convenience of kings or subjects. (Matthew 20:25-26).

Heubner, 2 Corinthians 1:12.—The only condition on which we can claim the intercession of our fellow Christians or speak in our own behalf, is the possession of a pure conscience. This can exist only where there is a simplicity which has but one aim and one desire, i. e., to please God, a divine sincerity or purity of purpose which renounces all selfish and extraneous objects, and an uprightness which can bear the divine inspection.

2 Corinthians 1:13. The Christian is always consistent with himself.

2 Corinthians 1:15. The honorable, conscientious man can present himself even before his enemies with cheerfulness.

2 Corinthians 1:17. The Christian should be prudent and conscientious when he promises, that he may never engage to do more than he can perform.—An honest man is consistent with himself even when he changes his plans, for in all his changes he has no selfish ends.

2 Corinthians 1:19. Christ himself is an example of a witness, absolutely faithful, upright and reliable (Revelation 3:14).—What can impose a stronger obligation to speak the truth, than to be the messenger of such a faithful and true witness? Those who have constant intercourse with Christ, and in whom Christ dwells, must surely be expected to have something of His truthfulness and fidelity.

2 Corinthians 1:20. Christ has honored God’s veracity. Every one ,then brings another to Christ, contributes something to the glory of God’s veracity.

2 Corinthians 1:21 f. Stability of character is a grace which belongs to those who are upright, and pious in heart, to those who humbly and firmly maintain confidence in God.—It is the anointing of the Spirit which makes us Christians.—Like every other creature, the Christian has his distinctive signature (mark). The Spirit, the pledge of divine grace and of adoption, is the invisible stamp which every one must bear.

2 Corinthians 1:24. The Apostles would not for a moment have dominion over men’s faith, how much less should those who act only as their representatives? Every Christian should be led by the Spirit freely through the divine word.—The Apostles imparted to others nothing but Christ’s own word, and the Spirit had to confirm it in their hearts.

W. F. Besser, 2 Corinthians 1:12. A Christian may have confidence in the testimony of his conscience, for the eye of his conscience is directed by the Holy Ghost to the clear and faithful glass of the divine will in the heart. (Romans 9:1).

2 Corinthians 1:13. The Scriptures evidently teach us that holy men of God have not concealed their thoughts among the written letters, but plainly expressed them in intelligible words.

2 Corinthians 1:18. How could we know God’s faithfulness and veracity, if not by means of what prophets and Apostles have told us? Through their writings which are not yea and nay, but are in their essential nature only a single word, the Church is a pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), the faithful witness of a faithful God, and the spotless Bride of the spotless Lamb.

2 Corinthians 1:19. Christ is not a reed shaken with the wind, but a rock. From the mouth of our Lord Jesus Christ, no poor sinner ever heard a yea of promise at the same time with a nay of denial. Justas He was when He stood among His disciples and said (John 14:6): I am the truth, so is He to-day, and will be forever; the preached Christ identical with the preacher Christ.—Jesus Christ the Son of God is the substance of all prophetic and apostolic announcements, the very heart and kernel of the whole word of God; He who has come in the flesh is undoubtedly the one who was promised in the word of prophecy.

2 Corinthians 1:24. Faith cannot be extorted by force or by authority.

[F. W. Robertson, 2 Corinthians 1:12 :—The testimony of conscience. Paul is here speaking, not of the faultlessness of his personal character, but of his ministry—not of the blamelessness even of this, but of its success; he had been earnest and straightforward in his work, and his worst enemies could not prove him insincere. This sincerity excluded, 1) all subtle manœuvering and indirect modes of teaching, which, in the end, seldom succeed. Such straightforwardness is more than a match at last for all the involved windings of deceit; 2) all teaching on the ground of mere authority. The truth he taught commended itself to men’s consciences, and made them feel a flash which kindled all into light at once. Of his words men said, not, ‘How can that be proved?’ but, ‘It is the truth of God, and needs no proof.’

2 Corinthians 1:15-22. Paul defends himself from the charge that he had trifled with his word, on the broad ground that, as a spiritual Christian, he could not do so. It would have been acting according to the flesh, whereas he was in Christ; and Christ was the Christian’s yea, the living truth, and so his life. To be veracious was therefore simply the result of a true life: the life being true, the words and sentiments must be veracious. To be established in Christ, anointed, is to be free from self and selfish motives. A blow is therefore struck at the root of all instability. The course of such a man, like that of the sun, can be calculated. Observe, too, that all this arose, not from his Apostleship, but from the Christianity, which the Corinthians shared with him. It was the gift of the Spirit, which was “God’s seal” to mark him for God’s own, and an “earnest” which assured him of his future glory. The true are His, and none else are blessed. We need not ask, therefore: Will the true, pure, loving, holy man be saved? for he is saved, he has heaven, it is in him now. He has a part of his inheritance now, and he is soon to possess the whole].

Footnotes:

2 Corinthians 1:12; 2 Corinthians 1:12.—Instead of the 2d ἡμῶν, Alford and Scrivener (in Wordsworth) say that Cod. Sinait., in the ed. by Tisch. of 1863 has ὑμῶν by the first hand and ἡμῶν by the second. In the edit. of 1865 by Tisch. no notice is taken of any variation here.]

[11]Rec. has ἁπλότητι instead of ἁγιότητι, and it is strongly sustained [by D. E. F. G. L. Sin. (cor.3), the Latt. Syr. Vulg. and Goth. vss. Chrys., Theodt., Jerome, Ambrosiast, Theophyl. and Oecum. Tisch. has restored it in his later ed. and says: “Probabilius est ἁγιότητι utpote quod esset multo plus quam ἁπλότητι, aliena manu inlatum quam sublatum esse.” Paul uses it more commonly especially in 2 Cor.]. And yet ἁγιότητι is adopted by Lachmann [Alford and Stanley] after A. B. C. K. M. [Sinait. (cor.1), the Copt. and Arm. vss., Clem., Orig., Damasc. and Didymus]. It is a more uncommon word, and so (some have argued) less likely to be inserted, and is used nowhere else except in Hebrews 11:10 and 2Ma 15:2.

[12][Many recent editors (Tisch., Bloomf., Alf., Stanl., Wordsw.) insert τοῦ before the first θεοῦ after A. B. C. D. E. Sin., with a number of vss. and Fathers. Bloomfield thinks that internal evidence is also strongly in its favor].

2 Corinthians 1:13; 2 Corinthians 1:13.—The reading of the Rec. is satisfactorily attested. There are no sufficient critical authorities for the omission of either ἀλλ’ or ἥ or ἅ.

[14]According to the best authorities, καὶ before ἔως should be omitted.

2 Corinthians 1:14; 2 Corinthians 1:14.—The last ἡμῶν is an addition by a later hand. [Sinait., and B. et al. have it. Alford inserts it, Bloomf. and Wordsw. omit it, and Stanley brackets it as suspicious.]

2 Corinthians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 1:15.—The best authorities put πρότερον before ελθειν; Rec. puts it before ἵνα. [Tisch. and Wordsw. read: πρότ. ἐλθ. πρὸς ὑμᾶς; Bloomf. retains the Rec. but inserts τὸ before πρότερον; Lachm., Meyer, Alf., Stanl. and Kling read: πρότ. πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν; Sinait. omits πρότερον altogether, and reads: ἐβουλ. πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθε͂ιν.]

[17][For ἔχητε, Alford has σχῆτε with B. C. and Sin., but Tisch. thinks that the latter was conformed to the tense of ἐβουλόμην.]

2 Corinthians 1:16; 2 Corinthians 1:16.—Rec. has διελθεῖν; Lachmann, with good authorities, has ἀπελθε͂ιν. The former was possibly derived from 1 Corinthians 16:5. [Tisch. thinks that “διελθεῖν was disliked by some transcribers because the διὰ seemed sufficiently implied in δι’ ὑμῶν; hence ἀπελθεῖν or ἐλθεῖν (which is found also in many MSS.), seemed more appropriate. Comp. Romans 15:28, where no one has taken the liberty of changing ἀπελεύσομαι δι’ ὑμῶν.”]

2 Corinthians 1:17; 2 Corinthians 1:17.—Rec. has βουλευόμενος with many authorities, in some respects, of great weight. The original reading was probably βουλόμενος (Lach. after A. B. C. [Sin.] et al.) The other was probably a correction from the following sentence. [With quite equal plausibility Tisch. suggests that “the ἐβουλόμην of the previous sentence was more likely to have induced a change than the subsequent βουλεύομαι.”]

2 Corinthians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 1:18.—The weight of evidence is decidedly in favor of ἔζτιν instead of ἐγένετο in the Rec., which was probably an accommodation to the following verse. [Alford thinks it a correction to suit the supposed reference to the past. But Bloomf. thinks that ἔστιν is quite as likely to be a correction to suit what the critics thought a required reference to the present, not recollecting that the imperfect is often used to designate habitual action, so as to be nearly equivalent to the present. He also adds, as a confirmation of this view, that one ancient MS. (Cod. C.) has ἔστι instead of ἐγένετο in 2 Corinthians 1:9, where it is manifestly a critical alteration. The authorities, however, in favor of ἔστιν (A. B. C. D. F. Sin., &c.) are altogether satisfactory.]

2 Corinthians 1:20; 2 Corinthians 1:20.—Rec. has καὶ ἐν αὐτω; Lachm., after the oldest MSS. [A. B. C. F. G. Sin., Vulg., Goth., Copt. Damasc. &c], has διὸ καὶ δἰ αὐτοῦ. Meyer thinks that διὸ has accidentally been left out (a number of MSS. have καὶ δἰ αύτοῦ); and that the words were then conformed to those just preceding. [De Wette thinks that Lachmann’s reading originated in Theodoret’s comment: οὖ δὴ χάριν καὶ δἰ αὐτοῦ τόν τῆς εὐχαριστίας αὐτῷ προσφέρομεν ὕμνον; but it is not certain from this what must have been the text on which Theodt. commented (see note to Migne’s Theodt., p. 383). Alford concedes that the weight of external authority is with Lachm., but thinks that in that case ἡμῶν must mean ἡμῶν καὶ ὐμῶν, which without notice it could hardly do.]

[22][The word συνέιδησις, signifies etymologically, a man’s knowledge of or conversation with himself. Hugo de St. Victor says: Quando cor se noscit, appellatur conscientia; quando præ’er se alia noscit, appellatur scientia. It refers, however, only to that part of our self-consciousness which is practical, moral and religious, viz. ρη to what ought or ought not to be done. Thus far it is only what Antoninus (Florentinus) called συντή: σις, i. e., careful watching or observation, “the phylactery, or keeper of the records,” and hence a witness with a faithful testimony, as in the text. Beyond this, it is, as in Romans 2:15, a judge of that which is right or wrong in these records, as the facts are understood. Finally, it rewards or punishes by the pleasure or pain which its decisions produce, as in the text it was Paul’s rejoicing. Origen includes all this when he calls συνέδ. “a pedagogue to admonish the soul of better things, to chastise her for her faults and to reprove her.” The Schoolmen turned these three Scriptural functions into a syllogism. The inspired writers make faith indispensable to a good conscience, to give us right views of our relations, and so of our duties and sins. They sometimes speak of one being judged by another man’s conscience, inasmuch as the decisions we have passed upon our own conduct may be applied to another’s. Bp. Jer. Taylor’s Ductor Dub. B. I. Chap. 1; Schenkel, Art. Gewissen in Hertzog’s Encyc; McCosh. Div. Gov. III. 1. 4; Chalmers, Mor. Phil. Chap. 5; Rothe, Theol. Eth. I. § 147.] [Tyndale renders ἁπλότης: “singleness.” on which Trench remarks (Synn. 2d Ser. p. 23) that it would be impossible to improve it. Its literal meaning is: simplex, einfaltig, one-folded. Suicer: “animus alienus a versutia, fraude, simulations, dolo malo, et studio nocendi aliis.” Bengel defines εἰλικρινεία, “sincerity, without the admixture of any foreign quality.” Trench (Synn. 2d Ser. p. 172) and Ellicott (Philippians 1:20) prefer Stallbaum’s derivation from εἵλη and κρίνω, according to which it means: “that which is cleansed by much rolling and shaking to and fro in a sieve;”—“not that which is proved by being held up to the sunlight, but the purged, the winnowed, the unmingled.”]

[23][There is a peculiar play upon the Greek words ἀνα- and ἐπι γινώσκετε which is well brought out by Chrysostom: ἀναγινώσκοντες γὰρ ἒπιγινώσκετε, ὅτι ἅ σύνιστε ἡμῖν ἐν τοῖς ἐργοῖς, ταῦτα καὶ ἐν τοῖς γράμμασι λέγομεν· καὶ οὐκ ἐναντοιταί ὑμῶν ἡ μαρτυρία ταῖς ἐπὶστολαϊς, ἀλλὰ συνᾴδει τῆ , ἤν προλαβόντες έϊχετε περὶ ἡμῶν. “For as ye read ye acknowledge that we write the very things which ye are conscious that we are in our conduct; and this your testimony is not contradicted by what we write but what ye previously knew of us corresponds with what ye read.” Migne’s Chrys., Vol. X., p. 405. The idea of the Apostle is: we have no esoteric meaning, no meaning at one time which we have not always, none in speaking or acting which we have not in these Epistles, none indeed which you will not find in the confessions you are in the habit of reading publicly in your meetings. Conybeare thinks that Paul was referring to some insinuations that he wrote to some private individuals in a different strain from that of his public letters. Bengel and Hodge think that ἐπιγνώσις is more than ἀναγνώσις, inasmuch as the former combines the ideas of recognition and complete knowledge. Comp. 2 Corinthians 3:2, and 1 Corinthians 13:12; for not only the force of the words γινώσκω and ἐπιγν, but also the use of the Aorist for the present.]

[24][Wordsworth remarks that Paul “does not say (2 Corinthians 1:15), that it was his settled purpose. βούλευμα, nor yet his θέλημα or will, to visit them. See Matthew 1:19, where ἐβουλῄθη signifies only; was minded, and Philemon 1:13 where ἐβουλόμην signifies: it was my wish, where the wish was finally controlled and overruled by the will. He does not say he wrote that he was resolved to pass by them into Macedonia but only that he was wishing (imperf.) to do so. In 2 Corinthians 5:17, there is a contrast between βούλομαι and βουλεύομαί, and his defence is, that instead of being lightminded, his wishes were controlled by his will, which was regulated by right reason and the will of God, so that his βουλήματα were clearly subject to his βουλεύματα.”]

[25][The original word here used (and which is found in the New Testament only here, and in 2 Corinthians 5:5, and Ephesians 1:14) is one of the few Hebrew words which passed into the Greek and Latin languages. As the founders of ancient commerce in the West, the Phenicians introduced it among the Greeks (ἀῤῥαβών), from whom it passed into Italy (arrhabo, arrha), Gaul (Fr. arrhes), and even England (Earl’s, or more properly, Arle’s money). The Sept. use the same Greek word for עֵרָבוֹן in Genesis 38:17-18; Genesis 38:20, and yet it appears to have had a meaning in Greek somewhat distinguishable from that which it bore either in Hebrew or in other languages. In these it had the general signification of pledge (Genesis 38:17 ff.), surety (Proverbs 17:18), and even hostages, (2 Kings 14:14). The Greek derivative seems to have been restrained to signify only the deposit or part payment (Hesych, πρόδρομα) which the purchaser made to the vender on taking possession of his property (Suidas, Lexicon). It was therefore identical in kind with the payment which was due, whereas other kinds of pledges might be something of a totally different nature. Blackstone notices the legal significance of an earnest, as a payment which places the buyer and the seller in a position to enforce the carrying out of the contract, (Comm. ii. 30). Comp. also Robertson (Lect. XXXV), who points out that “Baptism is a pledge of heaven—‘a sign and seal’—while the Spirit of truth is an earnest of heaven, and heaven begun.” Smith’s and Kitto’s Dictt. Art. Earnest; Robinson’s Heb. Lexicon].

[26][Maalschatz, is the gift which is presented to the bride at tier betrothal, by her affianced spouse, as a pledge that he will at some future time bring her to his home].