Bible Commentaries

Παύλου πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολὴ δευτέρα.

A B K א, min. have only πρὸς Κορινθίους B., the most simple, and doubtless the oldest superscription.

CHAPTER 1

2 Corinthians 1:6. εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως, τῆς ἐνεργουμένης ἐν ὑπομονῇ τῶν αὐτῶν παθημάτων, ὧν καὶ ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν· καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν βεβαία ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· εἰδότες κ.τ.λ.] So Beza, ed. 3, 4, 5, Beng. and Griesb., following A C, min. Syr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Flor. Harl. Vulg. Ephr. Antioch. Ambrosiast. Pel. Beda. But Elz. (following Erasm. ed. 2[121]): Τῆς ἘΝΕΡΓΟΥΜΈΝΗς ἘΝ ὙΠΟΜΟΝῇ ΤῶΝ ΑὐΤῶΝ ΠΑΘΗΜΆΤΩΝ ὯΝ ΚΑῚ ἩΜΕῖς ΠΆΣΧΟΜΕΝ· ΕἼΤΕ ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΟΎΜΕΘΑ, ὙΠῈΡ Τῆς ὙΜῶΝ ΠΑΡΑΚΛΉΣΕΩς ΚΑῚ ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑς· ΚΑῚ Ἡ ἘΛΠῚς ἩΜ. ΒΕΒ. ὙΠῈΡ ὙΜῶΝ· ΕἸΔΌΤΕς Κ.Τ.Λ. Finally, Lachm. Tisch. Scholz, and Rück, read, with Matth., after Erasm. ed. 1 : ΚΑῚ Ἡ ἘΛΠῚς ἩΜ. ΒΕΒ. ὙΠῈΡ ὙΜῶΝ immediately after ΠΆΣΧΟΜΕΝ, but in other respects with Elz., and have the support of B D E F G K L א, min. Ar. pol. Goth. Syr. p. Slav. It. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Phot. Theophyl. Oec. The Recepta must be rejected on account of the want of ancient attestation, and the choice remains only between Griesbach’s and Lachmann’s reading. The latter is defended most thoroughly by Reiche, Comment, crit. I. p. 318 ff. But the former, sufficiently attested, appears to be the original, in so far as from it the rise of the others is easily and naturally explained. An immediate transition was made from the first ΠΑΡΑΚΛ. to the second; the intermediate words were left out, and brought in again afterwards at wrong places, so that the corruption of the text proceeded thus:—1. Original form of 2 Corinthians 1:6 as in Griesb. 2. First corruption: ΕἼΤΕ ΔῈ ΘΛΙΒΌΜΕΘΑ, ὙΠῈΡ Τῆς ὙΜῶΝ ΠΑΡΑΚΛΉΣΕΩς, Τῆς ἘΝΕΡΓΟΥΜΈΝΗς ἘΝ ὙΠΟΜ. ΤῶΝ ΑὐΤῶΝ ΠΑΘΗΜ. ὯΝ Κ. ἩΜΕῖς ΠΆΣΧΟΜΕΝ· ΚΑῚ Ἡ ἘΛΠῚς ἩΜῶΝ ΒΕΒΑΊΑ ὙΠῈΡ ὙΜῶΝ. 3. Erroneous restoration: εἴτε δὲ θλιβόμεθα … ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλ. Anothe erroneous restoration (“ex judicio eclectico,” Beng. Appar.) is contained in the Received text. 4. The ΚΑῚ ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑς, still wanting, was finally added, in part rightly only after the first ΠΑΡΑΚΛ., in part wrongly only after the second ΠΑΡΑΚΛ. (B, 176), in part wrongly after both.—2 Corinthians 1:8. ὙΠῈΡ Τῆς ΘΛ.] A C D E F G א, min. Bas. Chrys. Theodoret, Antioch. have ΠΕΡῚ Τ. ΘΛ. So Lachm. Rück. But ΠΕΡΊ offered itself as more curren.

ἩΜῖΝ] is wanting in preponderant witnesses. Suspected by Griesb., rejected by Lachm. Rück. A superfluous gloss on ΓΕΝΟΜ.—2 Corinthians 1:10. ΚΑῚ ῬΎΕΤΑΙ] is wanting in A D* Syr. Clar. Germ. Vulg. ms. Chrys. Ambrosiast. So Rück. But B C א, 73, 93, 211, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. ms. Tol. Boern. Ath. Damasc. have ΚΑῚ ῬΎΣΕΤΑΙ. So Lachm., but in brackets. Thus the Recepta, reverted to even by Tisch., has certainly preponderating testimony against it; still it retains the considerable attestation of D*** E F G K L, and most min. Vulg. Syr. p. Theodoret, Theophylact, Oec. Or. int. Jer., and the subsequent ῥύσεται might very easily be written at once after καί instead of ῥύεται, so that subsequently, owing to the erroneous restoration of what was left out, the spurious καὶ ῥύσεται in some cases remained, but in others was dropped without the genuine καὶ ῥύεται being put in its place.—2 Corinthians 1:11. εὐχαρ. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] The reading εὐχαρ. ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, though preferred by Beng., recommended by Reiche, and adopted by Tisch., has weaker attestation, and does not suit the sense.—2 Corinthians 1:12. ἁπλότητι] A B C K א* min. Copt. Arm. Clem. Or. Damasc. have ἁγίοτητι. So Lachm. Rück. Rightly; ἁπλότητι, though defended by Reiche and Tisch., must be considered as a gloss of more precise definition; it was from our very Epistle well known and current, whereas ἁγίοτης was unfamiliar (only elsewhere in Hebrews 12:10).—2 Corinthians 1:13. The first ἤ is wanting in A, min. Bracketed by Rück. But appearing superfluous, and not being understood, it was omitted.—2 Corinthians 1:16. διελθεῖν] A D* F G, 80, Copt. Chrys. Damasc.: ἀπελθεῖν. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Rück. Rightly; it was more natural to introduce the reminiscence of 1 Corinthians 16:5 than that of Romans 15:28.—2 Corinthians 1:17. βουλόμενος] Elz. and Tisch. have βουλεύομενος, against preponderant evidence. Gloss in accordance with what follows.—2 Corinthians 1:18. ἐγένετο] Lachm. Scholz, Rück. Tisch. have ἔστιν, as Griesb. also recommended, in accordance with a great preponderance of testimony. ἐγένετο, which Reiche defends, came in from 2 Corinthians 1:19.—2 Corinthians 1:20. καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ] A B C F G א, min. vss. and Fathers have διὸ καὶ διʼ αὐτοῦ. So Lachm. Rück. The Recepta arose in this way: ΔΙΌ fell out by an omission of the copyist (so still D* Clar. Germ.), and was then added to ΔΙʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ after the previous ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ as a gloss, which accordingly came into the text. This alteration was the more natural, as the two definitions ΔΙʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ and ΔΙʼ ἩΜῶΝ might seem not to accord. The liturgical reference of the ἈΜΉΝ does not appear a sufficient occasion for the insertion of ΔΙΌ, nor for the change from ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ into ΔΙʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ, particularly after the ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ which went before and was left unglossed. This in opposition to Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 56, and Reiche, Comment. crit. I. 331 ff.

[121] Luther and Castalio have translated according to this reading.

2 Corinthians 1:1-2. Address and greetin.

διὰ θελ. Θεοῦ] See on 1 Corinthians 1:1.

καὶ Τιμόθ.] His relation to this Epistle is the same as that of Sosthenes to the first Epistle: he appears, not as amanuensis, but as (subordinate) joint-sender of it. See on 1 Corinthians 1:1.

ὁ ἀδελφ.] as at 1 Corinthians 1:1.

σὺν τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσι κ.τ.λ.] Grotius: “Voluit P. exempla hujus epistolae mitti ad alias in Achaia ecclesias.” So also Rosenmüller, Emmerling, and others. But, in that case, would not Paul have rather written σὺν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις πάσαις? Comp. Galatians 1:2. And are the contents of the Epistle suited for an encyclical destination? No; he means, in agreement with 1 Corinthians 1:2, the Christians living outside of Corinth, scattered through Achaia, who attached themselves to the church-community in Corinth, which must therefore have been the sole seat of a church—the metropolis of the Christians in the province. The state of matters in Galatia was different.

Under Achaia we must, according to the sense then attached to it, understand Hellas and Peloponnesus. This province and that of Macedonia comprehended all Greece. See on Acts 18:12.—2 Corinthians 1:2. See on Romans 1:7.

2 Corinthians 1:3. Ὁ Θεὸς κ. πατ. κ.τ.λ.] God, who is at the same time father of Jesus Christ. See on 1 Corinthians 15:24; Romans 15:6. Against the connection of τοῦ κυρίου κ.τ.λ. also with ὁ Θεός (Hofmann), see on Ephesians 1:3.

ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν] אֲבִי הַרַחֲמִים, i.e. the Father, whose fatherly frame of mind and disposition is compassionateness,—the compassionate Father (μάλιστα ἴδιον Θεοῦ καὶ ἐξαίρετον καὶ τῇ φύσει συγκεκληρωμένον, Chrysostom). Comp. on 1 Corinthians 2:8 and Ephesians 1:17. It is the qualitative genitive, such as we find in the language of the Greek poets (Seidl. ad Electr. 651; Herm. ad Viger. p. 890 f.). Rückert (comp. before him Theodoret) takes it as the genitivus effecti: “The Father from whom all compassion comes” (comp. 2 Corinthians 13:11; Romans 15:5; Romans 15:13, al.). But, since οἰκτιρμοί (comp. Plato, Polit. p. 305 B) is the subjective compassion (Tittm. Synon. 69 f.), it would have to be explained: “The Father who works in us compassion, sympathy,” and this sense would be altogether unsuitable to the connection. On the contrary, τῶν οἰκτιρμ. is the specific quality of the Father, which dwells in Him just as the Father of Christ, and in consequence of which He is also Θεὸς πάσης παρακλ.; and this genitive is that of the effect which issues from the Merciful One: “The compassionate Father and God who worketh every consolation.” This rendering, differing from that of the first genitive, is demanded by 2 Corinthians 1:4 (in opposition to Hofmann); comp. 2 Corinthians 7:6; Romans 15:5. As to οἰκτιρμοί, see on Romans 12:1. Observe that the characteristic appellation of God in this passage is an artless outflow of the experience, which was still fresh in the pious heart of the apostle, 2 Corinthians 1:8-10.

2 Corinthians 1:3-11. A conciliatory introduction,—an effusion of affectionate emotion (comp. Ephesians 1:3) out of the fulness of special and still recent experience. There is no hint of a set purpose in it; and it is an arbitrary supposition, whether the purpose be found in an excuse for the delay of his journey (Chrysostom, Theophylact), or in a confirmation of his apostolic standing (Beza, comp. Calovius, Mosheim), or in an attestation of the old love, which Paul presupposes also on the part of the readers (Billroth), and at the same time in a slight alienation which had been suggested by his sufferings (Osiander).

2 Corinthians 1:4. Ἡμᾶς] Where Paul in this Epistle does not mean himself exclusively, but wishes to include Timothy also (or others, according to the context), although often only as quite subordinate, he speaks in the plural. He does not express himself communicativè, but in the singular, where he gives utterance to his own personal conviction or, in general, to anything concerning himself individually (2 Corinthians 1:13; 2 Corinthians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 1:17; 2 Corinthians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 2:1-10; 2 Corinthians 2:12-13; 2 Corinthians 7:4; 2 Corinthians 7:7 ff., al.). Hence the frequent interchange between the singular and plural forms of expression.[122]

Chrysostom already gives the force of the present παρακαλῶν correctly: ὍΤΙ ΟὐΧ ἍΠΑΞ, ΟὐΔῈ ΔῚς, ἈΛΛᾺ ΔΙΗΝΕΚῶς ΤΟῦΤΟ ΠΟΙΕῖ … ΔΙῸ ΕἾΠΕΝ Ὁ ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛῶΝ, ΟὐΧ Ὁ ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΈΣΑς.

ἘΠῚ ΠΆΣῌ Τῇ ΘΛΊΨΕΙ] concerning all our affliction. The collective sufferings are regarded as one whole. Afterwards, on the other hand, ἐν πάσῃ θλ.: in every affliction. ἐπί marks the ethical foundation, i.e. here the cause, on account of which. See Matthiae, p. 1373. Comp. 2Ma 7:5 f.; Deuteronomy 32:36. According to Rück., παρακαλ. denotes the delivering, and hence he takes ἐπί of the circumstances: in. See Matthiae, p. 1370. But throughout the passage παρακ. means to comfort; and it is quite an open question, how the comforting takes place, whether by calming or by delivering. God did both in the apostle’s cas.

εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι κ.τ.λ.] in order that we may be able, etc. For he, who for himself received comfort from God, is by his experience placed in the position of being able to comfort others. And how important was this teleological view of his own sorrows for the apostolic calling! “Omnia sua P. ad utilitatem ecclesiae refert,” Grotiu.

τοὺς ἐν πάσῃ θλίψει] is erroneously and arbitrarily taken as equivalent to ΠΆΝΤΑς ΤΟῪς ἘΝ ΘΛΊΨΕΙ (see Emmerling, Flatt, Rückert). It means: those to be found in every trouble, the all-distressed; not: those to be found in whatever sort of trouble (Hofmann), but ἐν παντὶ θλιβόμενοι, 2 Corinthians 4:8, 2 Corinthians 7:5.

ΔΙᾺ Τῆς ΠΑΡΑΚΛ. Κ.Τ.Λ.] i.e. through communication of our own comfort, which we experience from God. This more precise determination of the sense is demanded both by the preceding mention of the purpose εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι κ.τ.λ., and by the ΑὐΤΟΊ. Olshausen, it is true, holds that Paul conceives the comfort to be a real power of the Spirit, which may again be conveyed to others by the recei2Colossians 1 :But there is no analogy in the whole N. T. for this conception; for Matthew 10:13 is merely a concrete illustration of the efficacy or non-efficacy of the ΕἸΡΉΝΗ ὙΜῖΝ.

Ἧς] Attracted, as in Ephesians 1:6; Ephesians 4:1, because one can say ΠΑΡΆΚΛΗΣΙΝ ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΕῖΝ. See Gieseler in Rosenmüller, Repert. II. p. 124; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 247 [E. T. 287]. The attracted genitive instead of the dative in other cases is very rare. See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 5.

αὐτοί] ipsi, for our own selves, in contrast to the others to be comforted.

[122] Even in the plural mode of expression, however, he has always himself and his own relations primarily in view; and, owing to the versatility of his mode of conception, it is often quite a matter of accident whether he expresses himself singulariter or communicative. Hence the interchange of the two modes of expression in one sentence, e.g. 2 Corinthians 11:6 f.

2 Corinthians 1:5. Ground assigned for the ἧς παρακαλούμεθα αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τ. Θεοῦ.

περισσεύει εἰς ἡμᾶς] is abundant in relation to us, i.e. it is imparted to us above measure, in a very high degree. Comp. Romans 5:15.

τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ] are not the sufferings for Christ’s sake (so Pelagius and most), which cannot be expressed by the simple genitive, but the sufferings of Christ (Winer, Billroth, Olshausen, Neander, Ewald, Hofmann), in so far as every one who suffers for the gospel suffers the same in category as Christ suffered. Comp. Matthew 20:22; Php 3:10; Colossians 1:24; Hebrews 13:13; 1 Peter 4:13. See also on Romans 8:17. Hence Cornelius a Lapide, Leun, and Rückert render correctly in substance: “quales passus est Christus.” But Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, Calovius, and others are wrong, who render: “the sufferings, which Christ endures in His members;” comp. de Wette and Osiander. For the conception of a Christ continuing to suffer in His members is nowhere found in the N. T., not even in Acts 9:4, and is contrary to the idea of His exaltation. See on Colossians 1:24.

διὰ τοῦ Χ.] through His indwelling by means of the Spirit. See Romans 8:9-10; Ephesians 3:17; Colossians 1:29, al.

2 Corinthians 1:6-7. Δέ] leading on to the gain, which the two, this affliction and this comforting, bring to the readers.

Be it that we are afflicted, we are afflicted for the sake of YOUR consolation and salvation; it redounds to this, that you are to be comforted and advanced in the attainment of Messianic salvation. In how far? According to Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Calovius, Wetstein, and many, including Rosenmüller, Flatt, Emmerling, Reiche: through the example of the apostle in his confidence toward God, etc. But the context has as little of this as of what is imported by Billroth and Olshausen: “in so far as I suffer in the service of the gospel, through which comfort and salvation come to you;” so also Hofmann. Rückert, without ground, gives up all attempt at explanation. Paul himself has given the explanation in 2 Corinthians 1:4 by εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι ἡμᾶς παρακαλεῖν κ.τ.λ. Hence the sense of the definition of the aim ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλ. κ. σωτ.: “in order that we may be enabled to comfort you, when ye come into affliction, and to further your salvation.” For this end we are put in a position by experience of suffering, as well as by that, which is its other side, by our experience of comfort in the school of suffering (εἵτε παρακαλούμεθα κ.τ.λ.).

ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμ. παρακλ. τῆς ἐνεργ. κ.τ.λ.] i.e. in order to be able to give you the comfort, which is efficacious, etc. Paul does not again add κ. σωτηρίας here, because he has still to append to παρακλήσεως a more precise and detailed explanation, after which it was impracticable to bring in καὶ σωτηρίας; and it could be left out all the more readily, as it did not belong essentially to the representatio.

τῆς ἐνεργουμ. ἐν ὑπομ. κ.τ.λ.] which is efficacious in patient endurance of the same sufferings, which we also suffer. ἐνεργουμ., as in the whole N. T. (2 Corinthians 4:12; Romans 7:5; Galatians 5:6; Ephesians 3:20; Colossians 1:29; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:7; Jam 5:16), is middle, not passive (3 Esdr. 2:20; Polyb. i. 13. 5, ix. 12. 3), as it is here erroneously taken by Oecumenius, Theophylact, Castalio, Piscator, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and others, including Rosenmüller, Emmerling, Billroth, Rückert, Ewald.[123] For the distinction between active (personal efficacy) and middle in Paul, see Winer, p. 242 [E. T. 273].

ἐν ὑπομονῇ] denotes that by virtue of providing which the παράκλησις is efficacious. It is therefore the working of the Christian ΠΑΡΆΚΛΗΣΙς, which we experience when Ἡ ΘΛΊΨΙς ὙΠΟΜΟΝῊΝ ΚΑΤΕΡΓΆΖΕΤΑΙ, Romans 5:3.

ΤῶΝ ΑὐΤῶΝ ΠΑΘΗΜΆΤΩΝ, ὯΝ Κ.Τ.Λ.] in so far, namely, as they are likewise sufferings of Christ. The sufferings appointed to the readers are meant, which do not differ in kind from the sufferings of Paul (and Timothy) (ὧν κ. ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν). Billroth, Olshausen, Neander understand the sufferings of the apostle himself, in so far as these were jointly felt by all believers as their own in virtue of their fellowship of love with him. Compare Chrysostom on 2 Corinthians 1:7, also de Wette, who refers it partly to the foreboding, partly to the sympathetic joint-suffering. But, then, Paul would have been utterly illogical in placing the καί before ἩΜΕῖς; for it would, in fact, be sufferings which the readers also had suffered (with Paul through their loving sympathy). How erroneous this exposition is, is shown, besides, by 2 Corinthians 1:4. It does not appear from this passage, we may add, that at that time the Corinthians had otherwise to endure affliction for the gospel’s sake. Paul has rather in view the case of such affliction occurring in the future, as the following καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς κ.τ.λ. proves. Comp. on 2 Corinthians 13:11.

ΚΑῚ Ἡ ἘΛΠ. ἩΜ. ΒΕΒ. ὙΠ. ὙΜ.] is not to be placed in a parenthesis, with Griesbach and others, since ΕἸΔΌΤΕς is connected not with ΠΆΣΧΟΜΕΝ, but with Ἡ ἘΛΠῚς ἩΜῶΝ. The contents of 2 Corinthians 1:6, namely, is not the expression of a present experience undergone by the readers, but the expression of good hope as to the readers for the future, that what is said by εἴτε δὲ θλιβόμεθα … πάσχομεν will be verified in their case in afflictions which would come on them for Christ’s sake, so that they would in that case obtain from the apostle, out of his experience of suffering and consolation, the comfort which through patience is efficacious in such sufferings. Therefore he continues: and our hope is firm on account of you. ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν does not belong either simply to Ἡ ἘΛΠ. ὙΜ., or simply to ΒΕΒΑΊΑ (Billroth), but to the whole thought of Ἡ ἘΛΠ. ὙΜ. ΒΕΒ. On ὙΠΈΡ, comp. Polyb. xi. 20. 6, xiv. 1. 5, and the contrary expression ΦΟΒΕῖΣΘΑΙ ὙΠΈΡ ΤΙΝΟς, propter aliquem in metu esse.

εἰδότες] refers, according to a common anacolouthon, to Ἡ ἘΛΠῚς ἩΜ., in which ἩΜΕῖς is the logical subject.[124] See Stall-baum, ad Apol. p. 21 C, Phaedr. p. 241 D, Phaedo, p. 81 A; Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 49. Comp. on Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 2:2. It introduces the certainty on which rests the hope just expressed: for we know that you, as you are sharers of the sufferings, are sharers also of the consolation. To have a share in the sufferings, and also in the consolation, to be excepted neither from the one nor from the other, is the appointed lot of the Christian. Paul knows this in regard to his readers, and he grounds on it the firm hope for them, that if they shall have their share in bearing sufferings, they will in that case not lack the effectual consolation; to impart which consolation he is himself qualified (2 Corinthians 1:4) and destined (2 Corinthians 1:6) by his own experience of suffering and consolation. Accordingly, κοινωνοὶ κ.τ.λ. is contextually not to be explained of an ideal, sympathetic communion, and that in the sufferings and consolation of Paul (ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ παθήματα τὰ ἡμέτερα ὑμέτερα εἶναι νομίζετε, οὕτω καὶ τὴν παράκλησιν τὴν ἡμετέραν ὑμετέραν, Chrysostom. Comp. Theodoret, Grotius, Billroth, Olshausen, and others), but τὰ παθήματα and ἡ παράκλησις are to be taken generically. In both kinds of experience the Christian has a share; he must suffer; but he is not excluded from the consolation, on the contrary, he partakes also in it.

[123] The passive interpretation would be necessary with the reading of Lachmann, since salvation is the goal of the state of grace, and hence is wrought (Php 2:12-13; Matthew 10:22; Jam 1:12); but nowhere is it conceived and represented as working in patience, and the like. This tells against that reading.

[124] With Lachmann’s reading it is referred by Reiche and Ewald to the Corinthians (ὑμῶν); since you know, etc.

2 Corinthians 1:8. Οὐ γ. θέλ. ὑμ. ἀγν.] See on Romans 1:13; Romans 11:25; 1 Corinthians 12:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:13.

ὑπὲρ τῆς θλίψ.] regarding (de) the affliction, concerning the same. See Bernhardy, p. 244; Kühner, II. § 547, 2.

ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ] as in 1 Corinthians 16:19. What particular affliction is meant, and at what place it happened, we do not know. The readers, who must have known it, may have learnt it from Titus or otherwise. Perhaps it was the ἀντικείμενοι πολλοί, 1 Corinthians 16:9, who had prepared for him the extraordinary trial. The tumult of Demetrius in Ephesus, Acts 19:23 ff. (Theodoret, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Michaelis, Vater, Schrader, Olshausen, Osiander, Ewald, and others), is not to be thought of, since Paul was not in personal danger there, Acts 19:30, and immediately after the tumult set out on his journey to Greece, Acts 20:1. Heumann, Emmerling, Rückert, Bisping, suggest a severe illness. Against this it may be urged that, according to 2 Corinthians 1:5, it must have been a πάθημα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (for the special experience must be held as included under the general one previously spoken of), as well as that Paul speaks in the plural. Both grounds tell at the same time against Hofmann, who thinks of the shipwreck, 2 Corinthians 11:25, to which, in fact, ἐν τ. Ἀσίᾳ, 2 Corinthians 1:8, is not suitable, even if we ventured to make a mere stranding on the coast out of the incident. Besides, the reading ῥύεται, 2 Corinthians 1:10, militates against thi.

ὅτι καθʼ ὑπερβ. κ.τ.λ.] that we were burdened to the uttermost beyond strength, a statement of that which, in regard to the affliction mentioned, is not to be withheld from the readers. καθʼ ὑπερβολήν defines the degree of ἐβαρ. ὑπὲρ δύναμ. See Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 1 f. (“ut calamitates vires meas egregie superarent”). The view which regards the two expressions as co-ordinate (Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, Estius, and many, including Flatt, Rückert, Osiander, Hofmann): so heavy that it went beyond our ability, would place alongside of each other the objective greatness of the suffering and its disproportion to the subjectivity (see de Wette): still the position of ἐβαρ., as well as the want of a καί before ὑπέρ, is more favourable to the view which takes ἐβαρ. ὑπ. δύν. together; and this is also confirmed by the subjectivity of the following ὥστε ἐξαπορ. κ.τ.λ. The suffering made itself palpable to him as a πειρασμὸς οὐκ ἀνθρώπινος (1 Corinthians 10:13). Rückert, moreover, has no ground for thinking that ἐβαρήθ. is inappropriately used of persecutions, attempts to murder, and the like, and that ὑπὲρ δύναμιν is also opposed to it. βαρύς, βαρέω, and βαρύνω are used of all troubles by which we feel ourselves burdened. See the passages from Homer in Duncan, Lex., ed. Rost, p. 202; comp. Plat. Crit. p. 43 C; Soph. Trach. 151; Theocr. xvii. 61, and expressions like βαρύμοχθος, βαρύποτμος, βαρυπενθής, βαρυδαίμων, and the lik.

ὥστε ἐξαπορ. κ.τ.λ.] so that we became quite perplexed even (καί) in regard to life, placed in the highest perplexity even with regard to the preservation of our life, ἐκ strengthens the simple verb, iv. 8. Polyb. i. 62. 1, iii. 47. 9, 48. 4. The genitive (τοῦ ζῆν) is the usual case in Greek with ἀπορεῖν, in the sense of having lack of something; seldom is it found in the sense of being perplexed about something (Dem. 1380, 4; Plat. Conv. p. 193 E).

2 Corinthians 1:8-11. Out of his own (and Timothy’s) experience of suffering and comfort, Paul now informs his readers of something special which had lately befallen the two in Asia. The fact in itself he assumes as known to them, but he desires to bring to their knowledge the consoling help of God in it. There is nothing to indicate a reference to an utterance of the church (Hofmann) concerning the event.

2 Corinthians 1:9. Ἀλλά] is the simple but, the contrast of the negation contained in ἐξαπορηθῆναι, which contrast, nevertheless, no longer depends on ὥστε: the independent position makes it all the weightier. There is therefore the less ground for taking ἀλλά as nay indeed, with Hofmann, and making it point to the following clause of purpose, whereby the chief clause αὐτοὶ κ.τ.λ. would be arbitrarily forced into a position logically subordinate—viz., “if we ourselves, etc., it was to serve to the end, that we,” et.

αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς] for our own selves in our own consciousness—i.e. apart from what might take place from without, through divine interference, to cause a change in our position. This certainty in their own heart, however, could not but exclude all self-confidence; hence ἵνα μὴ πεποιθότες κ.τ.λ.

ἀπόκριμα] not equivalent to κατάκριμα (so most, following Hesychius), but to responsum (Vulgate, Billroth), the award, decision. Comp. ἀπόκρισις. So in Suidas (see Wetstein) and Josephus, Antt. xiv. 17 (in Kypke). Chrysostom says well: τὴν ψῆφον, τὴν κρίσιν, τὴν προσδοκίαν τοιαύτην γὰρ ἠφίει τὰ πράγματα φωνήν· τοιαύτην ἀπόκρισιν ἐδίδου τὰ συμβάντα, ὅτι ἀ̓ποθανούμεθα πάντως.

As to ἐσχήκ., observe the perfect habuimus, which represents the situation as present. Comp. on Romans 5:2.

ἵνα μὴ κ.τ.λ.] divinely appointed aim of the αὐτοὶ … ἐσχήκαμεν. Comp. 1 Corinthians 1:15.

τῷ ἐγείροντι τοὺς νεκρ.] is to be referred not only to the future awaking of the dead, but to the awaking of the dead in general, as that which is exclusively God’s doing. This characteristic of God is the ground of the confidence. For the awaker of the dead must also be able to rescue from the danger of death (2 Corinthians 1:10). Comp. Romans 4:17; Hebrews 11:19. See on Rom. l.c. “Mira natura fidei in summis difficultatibus nullum exitum habere visis,” Bengel. Hence Paul, in spite of the human ἐξαπορηθῆναι, 2 Corinthians 1:8, could yet say of himself, 2 Corinthians 4:8 : οὐκ ἐξαπορούμενοι.