Bibelkommentare

CHAPTER 7

2 Corinthians 7:3. For the order πρὸς κατάκρ. οὐ λέγω (Lachm.) even the testimony of B C א is not sufficient as against all the vss. and most of the Fathers.—2 Corinthians 7:8. Instead of the second εἰ καί, B has εἰ δὲ καί, and the γάρ after βλέπω is omitted by B D* Clar. Germ. (put in brackets by Lachm.); the Vulgate has read βλέπων (without γάρ), and Rückert wishes to restore the text accordingly: εἰ δὲ καὶ μετεμελόμην βλέπων ὅτι … ὑμᾶς, νῦν χαίρω. But the Recepta has far preponderant attestation, and the variations are easily explained from it. It was rightly seen that with εἰ καὶ μετεμ. there starts a new portion of the discourse (whence in B δέ was inserted as an adversative conjunction), and either the apodosis was already begun at βλέπω, whence followed the omission of γάρ, or it was rightly perceived that the apodosis only began with νῦν χαίρω, and so βλέπων was substituted as a gloss for βλέπω γάρ.—2 Corinthians 7:10. Instead of the first κατεργάζεται, Lachm. Rück. Tisch. have only ἐργάζεται, following B C D E א* 37, Justin. Clem. Or. (thrice), Chrys. Dam. Rightly; the compound has crept in on account of the one following (comp. also 2 Corinthians 7:11); it is (in opposition to Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 48) too rash to conclude from 2 Corinthians 7:11 that Paul wrote κατεργ., for there, after the previous κατεργ., the compound might present itself, naturally and unsought, to the apostle, even if he had used the simple form in the first half of 2 Corinthians 7:10.—2 Corinthians 7:11. ὑμᾶς] is to be deleted as a supplementary insertion, with Lachm. and Rück., following B C F G א* 17, Boern. Ambrosiast. Au.

ἐν τῷ πράγματι] The ἐν is wanting in witnesses of importance; bracketed by Lachm. and Rück.; deleted by Tisch. An explanatory addition to the dative.—2 Corinthians 7:12. οὐδέ] B א** 37, 73 have ἀλλʼ οὐδέ, an error of the copyis.

τὴν σπουδὴν ἡμῶν τὴν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν] B C D** E K L and many min., also Syr. Arr. Copt. Aeth. Germ. Damasc. Oec. have τὴν σπ. ὑμῶν[253] Τ. ὙΠῈΡ ἩΜῶΝ. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Matth. Lachm. and Tisch. Rejected on account of the sense by Rück. and Hofm. But it is precisely the apparent impropriety in the sense of this reading which has given rise to the Recepta, just as πρὸς ὑμᾶς seemed also unsuitable, and is therefore wanting in Syr. Erp. Arm. Aeth. Vulg. Ambrosiast. Pel. Lachmann’s reading appears, therefore, to be the correct one; it is defended also by Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 367.—2 Corinthians 7:13. ΠΑΡΑΚΕΚΛΉΜΕΘΑ ἘΠῚ Τῇ ΠΑΡΑΚΛΉΣΕΙ ὙΜῶΝ· ΠΕΡΙΣΣΟΤΈΡΩς ΔῈ ΜᾶΛΛΟΝ] Lachm. Tisch. and Rück. read: ΠΑΡΑΚΕΚΛΉΜΕΘΑ· ἘΠῚ ΔῈ Τῇ ΠΑΡΑΚΛΉΣΕΙ ἩΜῶΝ ΠΕΡΙΣΣ. ΜᾶΛΛΟΝ, according to considerably preponderating attestation. Rightly; the ἘΠΊ, twice taken in the same sense, caused ἘΠῚ Τῇ ΠΑΡΑΚΛ. ἩΜῶΝ to be attached to ΠΑΡΑΚΕΚΛΉΜΕΘΑ, and hence the position of ΔΈ to be changed; and now the sense further demanded the change of ἩΜῶΝ into ὙΜῶΝ. The Recepta is defended by Reiche.—2 Corinthians 7:14. ἠ καύχησις ἡμῶν ἡ ἐπὶ Τ.] ὑμῶν for ἡμῶν (Lachm.) is supported only by B F, with some vss. and Theoph. A mechanical repetition of ὑμῶν from what precedes.—2 Corinthians 7:16. The οὖν (Elz.) after χαίρω deleted, as a connective addition, by Griesb. and the later editors on decisive evidence.

[253] So also א, which, however, has ὑμῶν again instead of ἡμῶν, obviously through a copyist’s error, which is also found in D* F.

2 Corinthians 7:1 closes the previous section.

Since we accordingly (according to 2 Corinthians 6:16-18) have these promises (namely, that God will dwell among us, receive us, be our Father, etc.), we wish not to make them null in our case by an immoral lif.

ταύτας] placed at the head, bears the emphasis of the importance of the promise.

καθαρίσωμεν ἑαυτούς] denotes the morally purifying activity, which the Christian has to exert on himself, not simply the keeping himself pure (Olshausen). He who has become a Christian has by his faith doubtless attained forgiveness of his previous sins (Romans 3:23-25), is reconciled with God and sanctified (comp. 2 Corinthians 5:19 ff., and see on Acts 15:9); but Paul refers here to the moral stains incurred in the Christian condition, which the state of grace of the regenerate (1 Peter 1:22 f.) as much obliges him to do away with again in reference to himself (Romans 6:1 ff; Romans 8:12 ff.), as by the power of God (Php 2:12-13) it makes him capable of doing so (Romans 6:14; Romans 8:9). And no one forms an exception in this respect; hence Paul includes himself, with true moral feeling of this need placing himself on an equality with his reader.

σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος] The Christian is in the flesh, i.e. in the material-psychical part of his nature, stained by fornication, intemperance, and such transgressions and vices as directly pollute the body (which ought to be holy, 1 Corinthians 6:13 ff; 1 Corinthians 7:34); and his spirit, i.e. the substratum of his rational and moral consciousness, the seat of the operation of the Divine Spirit in him and therewith the bearer of his higher and eternal life (1 Corinthians 2:11; 1 Corinthians 5:3; Romans 8:16), is stained by immoral thoughts, desires, etc., which are suggested to him by means of the power of sin in the flesh, and through which the spirit along with the νοῦς is sinfully affected, becomes weak and bound, and enslaved to sin (comp. on Romans 12:2; Ephesians 4:23). The two do not exclude, but include each other. Observe, further, that Paul might have used σώματος instead of σαρκός; but he puts σαρκός, because the flesh, in which the principle of sin has its seat and hence the fomes peccati lies, serves as the element to which every bodily defilement ethically attaches itself. This is based on the natural relation of the σάρξ to the power of sin, for which reason it is never demanded that the σάρξ shall be or become holy, but that the body (1 Corinthians 7:34) shall be holy through the crucifixion of the flesh, through putting off the old man, etc. (Colossians 2:11). By these means the Christian no longer lives ἐν σαρκί (Romans 8:8 f.) and κατὰ σάρκα, and is purified from everything wherewith the flesh is soiled; comp. 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Romans 8:13; Romans 12:1. The surprising character of the expression, to which Holsten especially takes objection (see z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 387), is disposed of by the very consideration that Paul is speaking of the regenerate; in their case the lusts of the σάρξ in fact remain, and the σάρξ is defiled, if their lusts are actually gratified. Calovius, we may add, rightly observes: “ex illatione etiam apostolica a promissionibus gratiae ad studium novae obedientiae manifestum est, doctrinam apostolicam de gratuita nostri justificatione et in filios adoptione non labefactare pietatis et sanctitatis studium, sed ad illud excitare atque ad obedientiam Deo praestandam calcar addere.”

On μολυσμός, comp. Jeremiah 23:15; Jeremiah 3 Esdr. 8:83; 2Ma 5:27; Plut. Mor. p. 779 C.

ἐπιτελοῦντες ἁγιωσύνην] This is the positive activity of the καθαρίζειν ἑαντούς: while we bring holiness to perfection (2 Corinthians 8:6) in the fear of God. To establish complete holiness in himself is the continual moral endeavour[254] and work of the Christian purifying himself. Comp. Romans 6:22.

ἐν φόβῳ θεοῦ] is the ethical, holy sphere (Ephesians 5:21) in which the ἐπιτελεῖν ἁγιωσ. must move and proceed. Comp. Romans 11:19-22, and already Genesis 17:1. Thus the apostle closes the whole section with the same ethical fundamental idea, with which he had begun it at 2 Corinthians 5:11, where, however, it was specifically limited to the executor of the divine judgment.

[254] Although with this the moral perfection itself, which the ideal injunction of it requires, is never fully reached. It is “non viae, sed metae et patriae” (Calovius); but the Christian labours constantly at it, striving towards the goal at which “finis coronat opus.” Comp. BengeL The success is of God (Php 1:6), the fear of whom guides the Christian.

2 Corinthians 7:2. Having finished his exhortation, 2 Corinthians 6:14 to 2 Corinthians 7:1, he now repeats the same request with which in 2 Corinthians 6:13 he had introduced that exhortation (πλατύνθητε ὑμεῖς), using the corresponding expression χωρήσατε ἡμᾶς: take us, i.e. receive us, give us room in your heart (comp. Mark 2:2; John 2:6; John 21:25; 4Ma 7:6; Herod. iv. 61; Thuc. ii. 17. 3; Eurip. Hipp. 941), and then adds at once (without the medium of a γάρ) in lively emotion the reason why they had no cause whatever to refuse him this request (στενοχωρεῖσθαι ἐν τοῖς σπλάγχνοις, comp. 2 Corinthians 6:12). Chrysostom rightly as to substance explains the figurative χωρήσατε by φιλήσατε and Theophylact: δέξασθε ἡμᾶς πλατέως, καὶ μὴ στενοχωρώμεθα ἐν ὑμῖν. Comp. Theodoret. So also most of the later commentators, though the meaning was often limited in an arbitrary way (comp. Rosenmüller, Stolz, Flatt, and Pelagius), e.g.: give ear to us, and the like. Others take it: understand us rightly (Bengel, Storr, Bretschneider, Rückert, de Wette). Unobjectionable from a linguistic point of view (see Wetstein, ad Matthew 19:11); but in the exhortation of 2 Corinthians 7:1 there was nothing to be misunderstood, just as little as for the readers in the disclosure that follows (to which de Wette refers it); and if Paul, as Rückert thinks, had had it in his mind that the measures of his first Epistle had been judged unfavourably, he could not have expected any reader to gather this from the simple χωρήσατε ἡμᾶς, especially as in what follows the idea of the effects of the first Epistle is quite kept at a distance by οὐδένα ἐπλεονεκτήσαμεν.[255]

οὐδένα ἠδικήσαμεν κ.τ.λ.] This is no doubt aimed at hostile calumniations of the apostle and his companions. Some one must have said: They act wrongly towards the people! they ruin them, they enrich themselves from them! It is impossible to prove that ἐφθείραμεν applies exactly to the corruptela quae fit per falsam doctrinam (Calvin and most, following the Fathers; just as Hofmann also refers it to the inward injuring of the persons themselves, 1 Corinthians 3:17); the way in which the word is associated with ἠδικήσ. and ἐπλεονεκτ. is rather in favour of a reference to the outward position. In how many ways not known to us more precisely may the apostle and his fellow-labourers have been accused of such a ruining of others! How easily might such slanders be based on the strictness of his moral requirements, his sternness in punishing, his zeal for collections, his lodging with members of the church, the readiness to make sacrifices which he demanded, and the like! Probably his prosecution and administration of the collections would be especially blackened by this reproach of πλεονεκτεῖν. Comp. 2 Corinthians 12:17-18. Rückert refers all three words to the contents of the former Epistle: “with what I wrote you, I have done no one wrong,” etc.; so that ἠδικ. would refer to the severe punishment of the incestuous person, ἐφθείρ. to his delivery over to Satan, and ἐπλεονεκτ. to the control which Paul by this discipline seemed desirous to exercise over the transgressor and over the church. But if his readers were to know of this reference to his former Epistle, he must have expressed it (the reader could not guess it). Besides, the word ἐπλεονεκτ. is against this view, for in the N. T. it denotes overreaching for one’s own benefit as an Acts of covetousness properly so called, provided the context (as in 2 Corinthians 2:11, by ὑπὸ τοῦ Σατανᾶ) does not furnish a more general reference. And, moreover, those acts of discipline, to which Paul is supposed to refer, were acts so completely personal on the part of the apostle, that the plural expression in our passage would be quite unsuitabl.

οὐδένα] in the consciousness of innocence is with great emphasis prefixed three times; but we cannot, with Rückert, infer from this that the incestuous person is concealed under it. Comp. πάντες and πάντα, and 1 Corinthians 12:29; 1 Corinthians 13:7; Buttm. neut. Gram. p. 341 [E. T. 398].

[255] This also in opposition to de Wette’s way of completing the thought: “Impute no evil designs to me in writing the first Epistle. For such imputation I have given you no occasion in my apostolic conduct. I have wronged no one,” etc.

2 Corinthians 7:2-16. Regarding the impression made by the former Epistle and its result. A conciliatory outpouring of love and confidence serves as introduction, 2 Corinthians 7:2-4. Then an account how Paul received through Titus the comforting and cheering news of the impression made by his Epistle, 2 Corinthians 7:5-7. True, he had saddened the readers by his Epistle, but he regrets it no longer, but rejoices now on account of the nature and effect of this saddening, 2 Corinthians 7:8-12. Therefore he is calmed, and his joy is still more heightened by the joy of Titus, who has returned so much cheered that Paul saw all his boasts to Titus regarding them justified. He is glad to be of good courage in everything through them, 2 Corinthians 7:13-16.

2 Corinthians 7:3. Not for the sake of condemning do I say it, namely, what was said in 2 Corinthians 7:2. I do not wish thereby to express any condemnatory judgment, as if, although we have done wrong to no one, etc., you failed in that love to which χωρήσατε ἡμᾶς lays claim. Κατάκρισιν was taken of the reproach of covetousness (so Theodoret, and comp. Emmerling and Neander), but this is an arbitrary importation into the word. According to Rückert, πρὸς κατάκρισιν is not to be supplemented by ὑμῶν, but Paul wishes here to remove the unpleasant impression of 2 Corinthians 7:2, in which he confirms the severity of his former Epistle, so that there is to be regarded as object of κατάκρισις primarily the incestuous person, and secondarily the whole church, in so far as it has acted towards this man with unchristian leniency. This explanation falls to the ground with Rückert’s view of 2 Corinthians 7:2; the ἐστέ that follows puts it beyond doubt that ὑμῶν is really to be supplied with πρὸς κατακρ. for its explanation. According to de Wette, οὐ π. κατάκρ. λ. applies in form, no doubt, to 2 Corinthians 7:2, but in substance more to the censure, of which the expostulatory tone of 2 Corinthians 7:2 had created an expectation; in other words, it applies to something not really said, which is arbitrary, since what was said was fitted sufficiently to appear as κατάκρισις.

προείρηκα γάρ] for I have said before (2 Corinthians 6:11 f.), antea dixi, as 3Ma 6:35, 2Ma 14:8, and often in classical writers. Comp. Ephesians 3:3. This contains the proof that he οὐ πρὸς κατάκρισιν λέγει; for, if he spoke now unto condemnation, he would contradict his former word.

ὅτι ἐν ταῖς καρδ. κ.τ.λ.] Comp. Php 1:7. In 2 Corinthians 6:11 f. he has expressed not these words, but their sense. By his adding the definition of degree, εἰς τὸ συναποθ. κ.τ.λ., Paul becomes his own interprete.

εἰς τὸ συναποθανεῖν καὶ συζῇν] is usually taken (see still Rückert, de Wette, Ewald, also Osiander, who, however, mixes up much that is heterogeneous) as: so that I would die and live with you, and this as “vehementissimum amoris indicium, nolle nec in vita nee in morte ab eo quem ames separari,” Estius, on which Grotius finely remarks: “egregius χαρακτὴρ boni pastoris, John 10:12.” Comparison is made with the Horatian tecum vivere amem, tecum obeam lubens (Od. iii. 9. 24), and similar passages in Wetstein. But against this may be urged not only the position of the two words, of which the συναποθανεῖν must logically have been put last, but also the perfectly plain construction, according to which the subject of ἐστε must also be the subject of συναπ and συζῇν.: you are in our hearts in order to die and to live with (us),[256] i.e. in order not to depart from our hearts (from our love) in death, if it is appointed to us to die, and in life, if it is appointed to us to remain in life. For he, whom we love, dies and lives with us, when regarded, namely, from the idea of our heartfelt love to him, and from our sympathetic point of view feeling this consciousness of love which has him always present to our heart—a consciousness according to which we, dying and living, know him in our hearts as sharing death and life with us. And how natural that Paul, beset with continual deadly perils (2 Corinthians 6:9), should have put the συναποθανεῖν first! in which case συζῇν is to be referred to eternal life just as little as ζῶμεν in 2 Corinthians 6:9 (Ambrosiaster, comp. Osiander). Hence the thought can as little surprise us, and as little appear “tolerably meaningless” (de Wette), as the conception of alter ego. Hofmann, too, with his objection (“since they, nevertheless, in fact do not die with him,” etc.) mistakes the psychological delicacy and thoughtfulness of the expression; and wishes to interpret it—which no reader could have hit on (expressly as προείρ. does not point back further than to 2 Corinthians 6:11)—from 2 Corinthians 6:9 and 2 Corinthians 4:11 to the effect that the life of the apostle is a continual dying, in which he yet remains always in life, and that consequently it is his life so constituted which the readers share, when they are in his heart.

[256] There is no justification for departing in any passage from the telic reference of εἰς with the infinitive. Comp. on 2 Corinthians 8:6.

2 Corinthians 7:4. A further, and that a psychological, proof for the οὐ πρ. κατάκρ. λέγω.

παῤῥησία is the internal frame of mind, the good joyous confidence (see on Ephesians 3:12), without which no καύχησις, no self-boasting for the sake of the readers, would outwardly take place (ὑπέρ, as in 2 Corinthians 5:12, 2 Corinthians 8:24). To take it of the libertas loquendi (Pelagius, Beza, Luther, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, and many others, including Schrader and Ewald) is inappropriate, because by the παῤῥησία in this sense there would be no negation of πρὸς κατάκρ. λέγειν. And the taking the καύχησις of inward boasting before God (Osiander), ought to have been precluded by 2 Corinthians 7:14, comp. 2 Corinthians 9:3.

πεπληρ. κ.τ.λ.] The two clauses form a climax, so that πεπλ. is correlative with ὑπερπερ. and παρακλ. with χαρᾃ. In the use of the article with παρακλ. and χαρᾷ Paul already looks to the special comfort and joy, of which he intends to speak further (2 Corinthians 7:7). The dative of the instrument (as at 2Ma 5:5; 2Ma 7:21; 3Ma 4:10) is used with πληρ. in the N. T. also at Romans 1:29, and in classic Greek, though seldom. See Elmsley, ad Soph. Oed. Col. 16; Blomfield, Gloss. Aesch. Agam. 163; Bernhardy, p. 168. Comp. also Jacobs, ad Anthol. XI. p. 209.

ὑπερπερισσεύομαι] I am exceeding richly provided with, Mosch. vi. 13; comp. the passive in Matthew 13:12; Matthew 25:29. The present sets forth the thing as still continuously taking plac.

ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ θλίψει ἡμ.] does not belong to τῇ χαρᾷ, but to the two whole affirmations πεπληρ. τῇ παρακλ. and ὑπερπερισσ. τῇ χαρᾷ; and ἐπί is not, as Grotius thought, post, as in Herod. i. 45: ἐπʼ ἐκείνῃ τῇ συμφορῇ (see, generally, Wurm, ad Dinarch. p. 39 f.), since (comp. 2 Corinthians 1:3-11) the tribulation still continues, but in, at. See Winer, p. 367 [E. T. 490].

2 Corinthians 7:5. In all our tribulation, I say, for even after we had come to Macedonia we had no rest.

In this καί, even, Paul refers back to what was stated in 2 Corinthians 2:12-13; but it does not follow that with Flatt we should regard what lies between as a digressio.

ἔσχηκεν] as in 2 Corinthians 2:13. Still B F G K (not א), Lachmann, have the reading ἔσχεν, which appears to be original and altered into accordance with 2 Corinthians 2:13.

ἡ σὰρξ ἡμῶν] our flesh, denotes here, according to the connection, the purely human essence as determined by its corporeo-psychical nature, in its moral impotence and sensuous excitability, apart from the divine πνεῦμα, without whose influence even the moral nature of man (the human πνεῦμα with the νοῦς) lacks the capacity for determining and governing the ethical life. Comp. on Romans 4:1; John 3:6. The σάρξ with its life-principle the ψυχή is by itself morally incapable even in the regenerate man, and stands too much in antagonism to the divine πνεῦμα (see on Galatians 5:17), not to have unrest, despondency, etc., occurring even in him when he confronts the impressions of struggle and suffering. Comp. Matthew 24:41. No doubt the expression in this passage seems not to agree with the τῷ πνεύματί μου in 2 Corinthians 2:12; but there, where, besides, Paul is speaking simply of himself, he speaks only of inward unrest, of anxious thoughts in the moral consciousness; whereas here (where he includes also Timothy) he speaks of outward (ἔξωθεν μάχαι) and inward (ἔσωθεν φόβοι) assaults, so that that which lies, as it were, in the middle and is affected on both sides is the σάρξ.[257] Rückert brings in here also his groundless hypothesis regarding an illness of the apostl.

ἀλλʼ ἐν παντὶ θλιβόμενοι] Paul continues as if he had written previously: οὐκ ἤμεθα ἄνεσιν ἔχοντες, or οὐκ ἐν ἀνέσει ἤμεθα, or οὐχ ἥσυχοι ἤμεθα, or the like. Quite similar departures from the construction are found also in the classics. See Matthiae, p. 1293; Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 49. Comp. 2 Corinthians 1:7, εἰδότες, and the remark on it. It arises from vividness of excitement as the thought proceeds. Comp. Kühner, II. p. 617. Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 256 [E. T. 298].

ἔξωθεν μάχαι, ἔσωθεν φόβοι] The omission of ἦσαν gives greater prominence to the short, concise representation. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Pelagius, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, and others, also Schrader, explain ἔξωθεν and ἔσωθεν as extra and intra ecclesiam; and of this various interpretations are given; Chrysostom holding that the former applies to unbelievers, the latter to the weak brethren; Theodoret: that the former applies to the false teachers, the latter to the weak brethren; and Grotius: that the former applies to the Jews and heathen, the latter to the false teachers. But after ἡ σὰρξ ἡμῶν (see above), and on account of φόβοι, it is more in keeping with the context to refer it to the subject: from without struggles (with opponents, who may have been Christian or non-Christian), from within (from our own minds) fears. The latter are not defined more precisely; but it is in keeping with the contrast of χαρῆναι afterwards in 2 Corinthians 7:7 to think of fears regarding the circumstances of the Corinthians, and in particular regarding the effect of his former Epistle on them (comp. also 2 Corinthians 2:12). Hofmann holds, without any basis in the text, that Paul was apprehensive lest the conflicts to be undergone by him (probably with the Jews) might degenerate into persecutions.

[257] Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, I. p. 56, has wrongly objected to this interpretation that Paul would have said ἡ ψυχὴ ἡμῶν. He might have done so, hut there was no need for it; the σάρξ rather corresponds with the ἔξωθεν most naturally as that which is first affected from without.

2 Corinthians 7:6-7. Τοὺς ταπεινούς] the lowly, i.e. the bowed down. This ὁ παρακαλῶν τοὺς ταπεινούς is a general designation of God, significant in its practical bearing (comp. 2 Corinthians 1:3), so that the suffering ἡμεῖς (in παρεκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς) belong to the category of the ταπεινοί.

ὁ θεός] is brought in later by way of attraction, because ὁ παρακαλῶν … παρεκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς were the chief conceptions. Comp. Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 1.

ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ] through the arrival.

Τίτου] See Introd. § 1.

οὐ μόνον δὲ κ.τ.λ.] A delicate form of transition. Not merely through his arrival, not only through the reunion with him did God comfort us, but also through the comfort, wherewith he was comforted in regard to you (1 Thessalonians 3:7) while he announced to us, etc. When Titus informed us of your desire, etc., this information had so soothing an effect on himself that we too were soothed. Comp. Ewald. The usual view, that Paul meant to say: through the comfort which he brought to me, for he related to me, etc., and thus wrote with logical inaccuracy, is as arbitrary as Hofmann’s way of escaping the difficulty—for which he adduces erroneously 1 Thessalonians 3:10—that it must have run properly (?) in the form of παρακληθεὶς ἀνήγγειλεν. Certainly Titus had himself been comforted by what he saw in Corinth; but psychologically it was most natural that this “being comforted” on the part of Titus should be repeated and renewed by his communicating to Paul and Timothy his cheering observations and experiences, and so they too were comforted with the comfort which was afforded to Titus himself by the report which he was able to give. This interpretation—in which there is thus not to be assumed any blending of the comfort which Titus had felt in perceiving the improved state of matters at Corinth, and then in communicating it (Osiander)—is neither unnatural (Hofmann) nor turning on punctilious reflection (de Wette), but founded necessarily on the words, which Paul has not written otherwise, just because he has not conceived them otherwis.

ἐπιπόθησιν] longing, namely, to see me again among yo.

ὀδυρμόν] lamentation, for having saddened me so by the disorders tolerated in your church, especially in reference to the incestuous person. Comp. 2 Corinthians 7:11-12.

τὸν ὑμῶν ζῆλου ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ] your eager interest for me, to soothe me, to obey me, etc. There was no need to repeat the article here after ζῆλον, since we may say ζηλοῦν or ζῆλον ἔχειν ὑπέρ τινος (Colossians 4:13), in which case ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ is blended so as to form one idea with ζῆλον. Comp. on Galatians 3:26 and Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 245.

ὥστε με μᾶλλον χαρῆναι] so that I was all the more glad. The emphasis is on μἀλλον (magis in Vulgate); on its meaning, all the more, comp. Nägelsbach on the Iliad, p. 227, ed. 3. The apostle’s joy was made all the greater by the information longed for and received, since from it he learned how, in consequence of his letter, the Corinthians had on their part now met him with so much longing, pain, and zeal. Observe in this the emphatic prefixing, thrice repeated, of the ὑμῶν, which gives the key to this μᾶλλον χαρῆναι. The former Epistle had had its effect. He had previously had for them longing, pain, zeal; now, on their part, such longing, etc., had set in for him. Thus the position of things had happily changed on the part of the church, which before was so indifferent, and in part even worse, in its mood towards Paul. Billroth, following Bengel, takes it: so that I rather rejoiced, i.e. so that my former pain was not merely taken away, but was changed into joy. Comp. also Hofmann.[258] In this case μᾶλλον would be potius. But the very prefixing of the μᾶλλον, and still more the similarity of 2 Corinthians 7:13, are against this.

Theophylact, we may add, has rightly remarked that Paul could with truth write as he does in this passage, inasmuch as he wisely leaves to the readers the distingue personas.

[258] Who finds the meaning to be: “that with the apostle for his own person the comfort, which he shared with Timothy, rose into joy.” In that case ἐμέ at least must have been used instead of the enclitic με. The transition to the first person singular is caused simply by the fact, that Paul now has in view the rebuke and injunction of the former Epistle, chap. 5.

2 Corinthians 7:8 f. Information regarding this μᾶλλον χαρῆναι, explaining the ground of it. With εἰ καὶ μετεμελόμην there begins a new protasis, the apodosis of which is νῦν χαίρω κ.τ.λ., so that the βλέπω γὰρ κ.τ.λ., which stands between, assigns parenthetically the ground of the protasis. For if I have even saddened you in my Epistle, I do not regret it; if I did regret it (which I have no wish to deny) formerly (and as I now perceive, not without ground, for I learn from the accounts of Titus that that Epistle, if even for a short time, has saddened you), now I am glad, etc. Comp. Luther; Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 162, and the punctuation of Lachmann and Teschendorf; also Kling. Only in this way of dividing and interpreting this passage does the explanatory statement advance in a simple logical way (1, I do not regret; 2, if I did previously regret, now I am glad), and the imperfect μετεμελ. stand in right correlation with the present νῦν χαίρω, so that μετεμελόμην applies to the time before the present joyful mood was reached. The common punctuation, adopted also by Osiander and Hofmann, which connects εἰ καὶ μετεμελ. with the previous words, and begins a new sentence with νῦν χαίρω, breaks asunder the logical connection and the correlation of the parts, and leaves βλέπω γὰρ κ.τ.λ. (which must be the reason assigned for οὐ μεταμέλομαι, as Hofmann also correctly holds, and not for ἐλύπησα ὑμᾶς, as Olshausen, de Wette, and others would make it) without any proper reference. Bengel, indeed, wishes to take εἰ καί before πρ. ὥρ elliptically: “Contristavit vos, inquit, epistola tantummodo ad tempus vel potius ne ad tempus quidem.” But it is not the bare εἰ καί which is thus used elliptically, but εἰ καὶ ἄρα, or more often εἴπερ ἄρα, even εἰ ἄρα (see Vigerus, ed. Herm. p. 514; comp. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 440; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 521); further, πρὸς ὥραν must have logically stood before εἰ καί; lastly, the thought itself would be in the highest degree unsuitable, since Paul could not cast doubt on the genuine sadness of the readers (comp. ὀδυρμόν, 2 Corinthians 7:7, and see 2 Corinthians 7:9 ff.). The meaning would not be, as Bengel thinks, ἤθους apostolici plenissimum, but in contradiction with the context. Billroth would (and Chrysostom in a similar way) bring out a logical grounding of οὐ μεταμέλομαι by taking βλέπω as meaning: I take into consideration;[259] “I take into consideration that it has saddened you, though only for a short time, as I had intended; by allowing yourselves to be saddened, you have shown that you are susceptible to amendment” (2 Corinthians 2:2). But in this way everything, in which the probative force is supposed to lie, is imported. This is the case also with Hofmann, who makes (comp. Bengel above) εἰ καί form by itself alone a parenthetic elliptic sentence, but in a concessive sense, so that the import of the whole is held to be: “Although the Epistle has saddened them, it is a temporary, not a permanent, sadness with which it has filled them. This the apostle sees, and he therefore does not regret that he has saddened them by it.” Paul does not write in this enigmatical fashion; he would have said intelligibly: ἡ ἐπιστ. ἐκείνη, εἰ καὶ ἐλύπησεν ὑμᾶς, πρὸς ὥραν ἐλύπησεν, or, at any rate, have added to εἰ καί the appropriate verb (comp. 2 Corinthians 7:12). Such an elliptic εἰ καί is as unexampled as that which is assumed by Bengel, and both serve only to misconstrue and distort the meaning of the words. Rückert comes nearest to our view; he proposes to read βλέπων (as also Lachmann, Praef. p. xii., would), and to make the meaning: “That I have thus saddened you I do not regret, but although I regretted it (εἰ δὲ καὶ μετεμελόμην) when I saw that that Epistle had caused you … sadness, still I am glad now,” etc. But apart from the very weak attestation for the reading βλέπων, and apart also from the fact that εἰ δὲ καί would be although, however, not but although, βλέπων … ἐλύπησεν ὑμᾶς would only contain a very superfluous and cumbrous repetition of the thought already expressed in the acknowledgment εἰ καὶ ἐλύπησα ὑμᾶς, since βλέπων would not apply to the insight gained from the news brought by Titus. Ewald has the peculiar view, which is simply an uncalled for and arbitrary invention, that Paul intended to write: for I see that that Epistle, though it saddened you for a short time, has yet brought you to a right repentance; but feeling this to be unsuitable, he suddenly changed the train of thought and went on: I am now glad, etc. Neander has a view quite similar.

On πρὸς ὥραν, comp. Philemon 1:15; Galatians 2:5. The clause “although for a short time” is here a delicately thoughtful addition of sympathetic love, which has in view the fact that the sadness caused by it will only last up to the receipt of the present Epistle, which is intended to assure the readers of the apostle’s pardon and joy (comp. 2 Corinthians 2:4 ff.).

[259] Camerarius already took it as hoc intueor et considero. It is simply animadverto, cognosco (Romans 7:23). Comp. Jacobs, ad Anthol. II. 3, p. 203.

REMARK.

Some make an alteration in the meaning of εἰ καὶ μετεμελόμην: etiamsi poenituisset (Erasmus, Castalio, Vatablus, and others, including Flatt); or hold that poenitere is here equivalent to dolorem capere (Calvin, comp. Grotius); or suggest explanations such as: “Non autem dolere potuit de eo quod scripserit cum severitate propter schismata …; hoc enim omne factum instinctu divino per θεοπευστίαν; sed quod contristati fuerint epistola sua et illi, quos illa increpatio adeo non tetigit,” Calovius (comp. Grotius); or the more ingenious device of Beza: “ut significet apostolus, se ex epistola illa acerbius scripta nonnullum dolorem cepisse, non quasi quod fecerat optaret esse infectum, sed quod clementis patris exemplo se ad hanc severitatem coactum esse secum gemens, eventum rei expectaret.” But these are forced shifts of the conception of mechanical inspiration. The Theopneustia does not put an end to the spontaneity of the individual with his varying play of human emotions; hence Wetstein is so far right in remarking: “Interpretes, qui putant, et consilium scribendi epistolam (rather of writing in so hard a vein of chastisement), et ejus consilii poenitentiam, et poenitentiae poenitentiam ab afflatu Spir. sancti fuisse profectam, parum consentanea dicere videntur.” Not as if such alternation of moods testified against the existence of inspiration; but it attests its dependence on the natural conditions of the individual in the mode of its working, which was not only different in different subjects, but was not alike even in individuals where these were differently determined by outer and inner influences; so that the divine side of the Scripture does not annul the human, or make it a mere phantom, nor can it be separated from it mechanically. It is indissolubly blended with it.