聖書注解書

CHAPTER 4

2 Corinthians 4:4. αὐγάσαι] A, 10, 17, 23, 31, and several Fathers have διαυγάσαι; C D E, 73, Or. (once) Eus. al. have καταυγάσαι. So Lachm. on the margin. Two more precise definitions to accord with the context. The αὐτοῖς that follows (in Elz.) has decisive evidence against it, and is an addition.—2 Corinthians 4:6. λάμψαι] Lachm. reads λάμψει, following A B D* א* 67** Aeth. But the evidence of almost all the Versions and all the Fathers is against it; and how easily λάμψει might occur to the copyists through remembrance of the direct address in Genesis 1:3!

The omission of the following ὅς (D* F G 36, It. Chrys. and several Fathers), as well as the weakly-supported readings ὡς, οὗτος, and ipse, are corrections arising from not understanding the sens.

τοῦ θεοῦ] Lachm. reads αὐτοῦ, on no preponderating evidence. A change for the sake of the style; for if it had been αὐτοῦ originally, there would have been no uncertainty whatever about the reference, and so no reason for glossing it by τοῦ θεοῦ.

Ἰησοῦ] is to be deleted, according to A B 17, Or. (once) al., with Lachm. Tisch. and Rück.—2 Corinthians 4:10. τοῦ Ἰησοῦ] Elz. has τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, against decisive testimony.—2 Corinthians 4:12. ὁ θάν.] Elz. has ὁ μὲν θάν., against decisive testimony.—2 Corinthians 4:14. διὰ Ἰησοῦ] Lachm. Tisch. Rück. and also Reiche (Comm. crit. I. p. 351 f.) have σὺν Ἰησοῦ, following B C D E F G א* 6, 17, 31, Copt. Slav. Vulg. It. Tert. Ambros. Pel. Rightly; the σὺν Ἰησοῦ appeared unsuitable in point of time to the resurrection of the dead.—2 Corinthians 4:16. ὁ ἔσωθεν] Lachm. and Rück. read ὁ ἔσω ἡμῶν, following preponderating evidence, indeed; but it is evidently a change in accordance with what goes before.—2 Corinthians 4:17. After ταραυτίκα, D* E F G 31, Syr. Arr. Arm. Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers have πρόσκαιρον καί. A gloss, which has crept in, of παραυτίκα. Comp. Theodoret: διὰ τοῦ παραυτίκα ἔδειξε τὸ βραχύ τε καὶ πρόσκαιρον.

REMARK.

In the Codex Alexandrinus all from 2 Corinthians 4:13, ἐπίστευσα, to 2 Corinthians 12:6 inclusive, is wanting through mutilation.

CONTENTS.

Continuation of the theme begun in 2 Corinthians 3:12 f. (2 Corinthians 4:1-6); relation of the external state, so full of suffering, to the glory of the office (2 Corinthians 4:7-18).

2 Corinthians 4:1. Διὰ τοῦτο] Paul now reverts, it is true, to what had been begun in 2 Corinthians 3:12 f., but had, owing to the comparison with Moses and the discussion thence arising about the hardening of the Jews and the freedom contrasted with it (2 Corinthians 3:14-18), remained without further elucidation, but reverts in such a way that he attaches it to what immediately precedes by διὰ τοῦτο. Therefore, since the Christians are so highly privileged as was specified in 2 Corinthians 3:17-18, we become, in the possession of the office, which ministers to this Christian freedom and glorification … not dejected.

καθὼς ἠλεήθ.] a modal definition, full of humility (comp. 1 Corinthians 15:10; 1 Corinthians 7:25), to ἔχουτες τ. διακ. ταύτ.: “having this ministry in accordance with the (divine) mercy imparted to us.” The important practical bearing of this addition is aptly indicated by Bengel: “Misericordia Dei, per quam ministerium accipitur, facit strenuos et sinceros.”

οὐκ ἐκκακοῦμεν] Lachmann, Teschendorf, and Rückert, following A B D* F G א, read ἐγκακοῦμεν (comp. 2 Corinthians 4:16; Luke 18:1; Galatians 6:9; Ephesians 3:13; 2 Thessalonians 3:13). But this appears to be a correction, since only ἐγκακεῖν, and not ἐκκακεῖν (which is here the reading of C D*** E K L), occurs for certain out of the N. T. and the Fathers and ancient lexicographers. Polyb. iv. 19. 10; Theodotion, Proverbs 3:11; Symmachus, Genesis 27:46; Numbers 21:5; Isaiah 7:16. Comp. ἐγκάκησις, Symmachus, Psalm 119:143. Probably ἐκκακεῖν was at that time only in oral use, and came first through Paul and Luke into the language of ecclesiastical writings. It means, however, to become cowardly, to lose courage. Hesychius, ἠδημόνησεν· ἐξεκάκησεν; Suidas, ἐξεκάκησα· ἀπηγόρευσα. The contrast in 2 Corinthians 4:2 is not adverse to this signification; for the becoming dejected through any kind of difficulties (with Pelagius, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Beza, and others, to think only of sufferings is arbitrary) leads easily to κρυπτὰ τῆς αἰσχύνης, while bold, brave, unweakened courage disdains such things. Comp. the demeanour of Luther. Hence Rückert is mistaken in holding that, for the sake of the contrast, we must assume the general signification: to abandon oneself to badness, a signification which cannot elsewhere be made good for ἐγκακ. or for ἐκκακ. (in Polybius, iv. 19. 10, ἐνεκάκησαν means, “they were lazy”). Chrysostom is in substance correct: οὐ κστσπίπτομεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ χαίρομεν καὶ παῤῥησιαζόμεθα. The opposite is the preservation of the holy ἀνδρία (1 Corinthians 16:13).

2 Corinthians 4:2. Contrast to οὐκ ἰκκακοῦμεν in reference to antagonistic teacher.

ἀπειπάμεθα] we have renounced, we ham put away from us. Comp. Homer, Il. xix. 35, 75; Plato, Legg. xi. p. 928 D; Polyb. xiv. 9. 6; and in the middle, in this sense, Herod. i. 205, iv. 120, vii. 14; often in Polyb.; also Callim. Hymn, in Dian 174: ἀπὸ δʼ εἴπατο τέθμια Ταύρων, Aelian, H. N. vi. 1 : τὴν ἀκόλαστον κοίτην ἀπείπατο παντελῶς πᾶσαν. Regarding the aorist middle, ἀπειπάμην, see Thomas M. p. 57; Moeris, p. 29; Kühner, I. p. 817, ed. 2.

τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς αἰσχύνης] as in 1 Corinthians 4:5, τὰ κρ. τοῦ σκότους, the hidden things of shame, i.e. what shame (the sense of honour, verecundia) hides,[188] does not allow to come to the light. This is to be left quite general: “All that one, because he is ashamed of it, does not permit to become manifest,” but, on the contrary, κρυφῇ καλύπτει καρδίᾳ (Soph. Antig. 1239); ἃ κρύπτειν δεῖ καὶ συσκιάζειν αἰσχυνομένους καὶ ἐρυθριῶντας, Chrysostom. All special limitations, such as to secret plans and intrigues (Beza, Grotius, and others, including Emmerling ancl Billroth), or to the disfiguring (Calvin) or hiding (de Wette) of the truth, or to secret fear of men (Ewald), or to hidden, disgraceful arts of fleshly wisdom (Neander), or to secret means and ways to which the preacher of Christianity, who is ashamed of Christianity, has recourse (Hofmann), or even to circumcision (Theodoret), or to promises not made good (Chrysostom), or to a hypocritical habit (Theophylact), or even to obscoenas voluptates (Estius, Krebs), are without warrant; for Paul proceeds from the general to the particular, so that it is only in what follows, when referring more pointedly to his opponents, that he adduces particular forms of the κρυπτὰ τῆς αἰσχύνης.

μὴ περιπ. κ.τ.λ.] so that we walk not, etc. The apostle means his demeanour in the ministry.

δολοῦντες τ. λόγον τ. θεοῦ] adulterating the word of God. Lucian, Herm. 59; LXX. Psalm 15:3. It is done by alterations and foreign admixtures. Comp. 2 Corinthians 2:17, 2 Corinthians 1:12.

τῇ φανερώσει τῆς ἀληθ. through the manifestation of the truth (comp. 1 Corinthians 12:7), i.e. by making the truth contained in the gospel (the truth κατʼ ἐξοχήν) public, or, in other words, a clearly presented object of knowledge. The contrast gives a special occasion here for designating the contents of the gospel by Ἡ ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ. On the subject-matter, comp. Romans 1:16.

ΣΥΝΙΣΤΏΝΤΕς ἙΑΥΤΟΎς] The emphasis of the contrast lay in τῇ φανερ. τ. ἀλ.; but, on the contrary, through nothing else than through the proclamation of the truth commending ourselves. But even in this “commending ourselves” there clearly lies a contrasting reference to the antagonistic teachers, who accused the apostle of self-praise (2 Corinthians 3:1), but on their part not merely by letters of recommendation, but even by intrigues (ἐν πανουργίᾳ, 2 Corinthians 11:3, 2 Corinthians 12:16; Ephesians 4:14; Luke 20:23) and by adulteration of the gospel (ΔΟΛΟῦΝΤΕς ΤῸΝ ΛΌΓ. Τ. ΘΕΟῦ) sought to make themselves honoured and beloved among others. Comp. 1 Thessalonians 2:3-4. Overlooking this, Rückert recommends for ΣΥΝΙΣΤ. the general meaning of laying down, setting forth, proving (Romans 5:8).

πρὸς πᾶσαν συνείδ. ἀνθρώπ.] πρός used of the ethical direction. The essential meaning is, indeed, not different from ΠΡῸς ΤῊΝ ΣΥΝΕΊΔΗΣΙΝ ΠΆΝΤΩΝ ΤῶΝ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ (for which it is often taken, even by Rückert), but it is otherwise conceived, namely: “to every human conscience.” Comp. Romans 2:9. Note how Paul here ascribes to every man the capacity of moral judgment, and thus also the knowledge of the moral law as the propositio major of the inference of conscience. If now, however, refractory minds, through perverted moral judgment or moral stubbornness, were unwilling to recognise this de facto self-recommendation made uniformly and without προσωποληψία, the matter remained the same on the part of the apostle; hence it is not, with Grotius, to be explained only of the “bonae conscientiae,” against the meaning of the word.

ἐνώπ. τοῦ θεοῦ] applies to ΣΥΝΙΣΤῶΝΤΕς … ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ: so that this our self-recommendation is made in God’s presence. This denotes the highest sincerity and honesty in the subjectivity of the person acting, who knows that God (τὸν τοῦ συνειδότος ἐπόπτην, Theodoret) is present as eye-witness. Comp. 2 Corinthians 2:17, 2 Corinthians 7:12; Galatians 1:20.

[188] αἰσχύνη in the subjective sense (Plato, Def. p 416: φὁβος ἐπὶ προσδοκίᾳ ἀδοξίας). See, especially, Sir 4:21; Sir 20:20 f., Sir 41:16. Comp. Dem. 43, 6 : τοῖς ἐλευθέροις μεγίστην ἀνάγκην εἶναι τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν πραγμάτων αἰσχύνην. The objective interpretation, disgrace, Php 3:19 (“which brings disgrace,” de Wette; Osiander, “shameful secrecy”), would make it necessary to import the thought: “if it becomes manifest.” Zeger: “quae manifestata probro sunt perpetranti.”

2 Corinthians 4:3. Against the assertion just made, ἀλλὰ τῇ φανερώσει τῆς ἀληθείας … θεοῦ, it might be objected: “and yet your gospel is κεκαλυμμένον! is by so many not at all known as the ἀλήθεια!” Wherefore Paul continues, “even if that were the case, still it is so only with regard to the ἀπολλύμενοι whom the devil has blinded, and hence cannot be urged against the former assertion.”

εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔστι κεκαλ.] In this admission the placing of ἔστι before κεκαλ. conveys the meaning: but if even it is the case that, etc. The figurative κεκαλ. was suggested by the still fresh remembrance of 2 Corinthians 3:14.

τὸ εὐαγγ. ἡμῶν] the gospel preached by us, the Pauline gospel.

ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμ.] i.e. among those who (for certain) are liable to eternal ἀπώλεια. See on 2 Corinthians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 1:18. ἐν is not nota dativi (Flatt), nor yet quod attinet ad (Bengel), but inter, in their circle. Rückert takes it: in their hearts, on account of 2 Corinthians 3:15. So also Osiander. But against the analogy of 2 Corinthians 2:15; besides, according to 2 Corinthians 3:15, it is the heart of the ἀπολλύμενοι, and not the gospel, which must be represented as the veiled subject. It has not at all reached the hearts of the persons concerned.

2 Corinthians 4:4. A statement to establish the ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμ. ἐστι κεκαλ., so that ἐν οἶς is equivalent to ὅτι ἐν τούτοις (comp. on 2 Corinthians 3:6): in whom the devil has made blind, i.e. incapable of the perception of the truth, the thoughts of the unbelieving (νοήματα, as in 2 Corinthians 3:14[189]). It is his work to make the unbelieving blind, as respects the bringing forward their power of thought to confront the light of the gospel; and this his characteristic ἔργον he has carried out in the ἀπολλύμενοι; in their souls he has succeeded in his devilish work of blinding the thoughts of the unbelieving. Observe, accordingly, that the conception of the ἀπολλύμενοι is a narrower one than that of the ἄπιστοι. Not with all ἄπιστοι does the devil gain in presence of the preaching of the gospel his object of blinding them and making them ἀπολλύμενοι; many so comport themselves towards this preaching that they become believing and σωζόμενοι (1 Corinthians 14:24 f.; Acts 13:48; Acts 2:40; Acts 2:47; Matthew 13:8; Matthew 13:23). Hence τῶν ἀπίστων is neither aimless (the objection of Hofmann), nor is it, with Rückert, to be referred to a negligence of expression, so that Paul would, in order to round off the sentence and to make his opinion quite clearly prominent, that the ἀπολλύμενοι are the ἄπιστοι, have appended the appositional clause ungrammatically and tautologically. Fritzsche, whom Billroth follows, takes τῶν ἀπίστ. proleptically: “hoc effectu ut nullam haberent fidem.” But the proleptic use of adjectives (see on 1 Corinthians 1:8) is nowhere found with the genitive of an adjective used substantively; it must have run ἐτύφλωσε τὰ νοήματα ἄπιστα.[190] Comp. 1 Thessalonians 3:13; Php 3:21. Quite arbitrarily, most of the older expositors (also Grotius, Wolf, Emmerling, Flatt) explain it in such a way that ΤῶΝ ἈΠΊΣΤΩΝ fills the place of an apposition to ἘΝ ΟἿς. In that case it must have run: ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ἈΠΊΣΤΟΙς (see, especially, Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 173). According to Ewald, Paul has inserted the addition τῶν ἀπίστ., as if he meant thereby merely to say: “the Gentile thoughts,” because the Jews regarded the Gentiles only as the unbelievers. But such a reference would have needed all the more a precise indication, as the reader had to find in τοῖς ἀπολλυμ. Gentiles and Jews, consequently in τῶν ἀπίστ, no special reference to the Gentile character. According to Hofmann, ἐν οἷς is intended to be the domain within which, etc., and this domain is in view of the preaching of the apostle the Gentile one, in which there has taken place that which this relative clause asserts of the unbelieving. To this the context is opposed, which gives no justification whatever for limiting the ἀπολλύμενοι to the sphere of the Gentile world; they form, in general, a contrast to the σωζόμενοι, as also at 2 Corinthians 2:15, 2 Corinthians 1:18, and to the ἩΜΕῖς ΠΆΝΤΕς, 2 Corinthians 3:18, who are just the σωζόμενοι. Finally, it is to be observed as a mere historical point, that Irenaeus (Haer. iv. 48), Origen, Tertullian (contra Marc. iv. 11), Chrysostom, Augustine (c. advers. leg. ii. 7. 8), Oecumenius, Theodoret, Theophylact (also Knatchbull), with a view to oppose the dualism of the Marcionites and Manichaeans, joined τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου with ΤῶΝ ἈΠΊΣΤΩΝ (infidelium hujus saeculi).

ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτ.] the God of this (running on till the Parousia) period. On the subject-matter, comp. John 8:44; John 12:31; John 14:30; Ephesians 2:2; Ephesians 6:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:9 f. The devil, as ruling principle, is called god. Comp. Php 3:19. Among the Rabbins, also, it is said: “Deus primus est Deus verus, sed Deus secundus est Samael,” Jalkut Rubeni, f. 10. 4, ad Genesis 1:27. Comp. the passages in Eisenmenger, Entdecht. Judenth. I. p. 827, where he is called the strange god and the other god. There is not something ironical in the expression here (Olshausen), for that would be quite alien to the connection; on the contrary, with the utmost earnestness the great anti-Christian power of the devil is intended to be made palpably evident. Comp. Benge.

εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι κ.τ.λ.] Purpose of the devil: in order that the illumination should not shine, etc. For that which illumines does not shine for the blinded.[191] Hence it is quite unnecessary to explain αὐγάσαι, to see, or to have an eye upon (Luther, Grotius, Emmerling, Rückert, Ewald, Hofmann), which signification (more exactly, to direct the light of the eyes to anything) undoubtedly occurs in Greek poets (Soph. Phil. 217; Eur. Rhes. 793; more frequently in the middle, as Iliad, xxii. 458; Elmsley, ad Bacch. 596; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VIII. p. 338), but is foreign even to the LXX. (Leviticus 13:25 f., Leviticus 13:28; Leviticus 13:39; Leviticus 14:56). Besides, the simple αὐγάζειν does not occur in the classic writers with the neuter meaning fulgere (though the compounds καταυγάζειν and διαυγάζειν, which are the readings of several uncials, do so occur), but only in the active sense: irradiate, illumine, as e.g. Eur. Hcc. 637.

φωτισμός] illumining, is found in Sextus Empiricus, 522. 9; Plut. Mor. 920 D; more often in the LXX., in Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. Without figure, the meaning is: in order that the enlightening truth of the gospel might not he known and appropriated by them.

τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ] The glory of the exalted Christ (comp. 2 Corinthians 3:18) is here denoted as the contents of the Messianic preaching; elsewhere (1 Corinthians 1:18) it is the word of the cross. Both meanings are used according to the requirement of the context, and both rightly (Romans 4:25; Romans 5:10, al.); for the δόξα is the consequence of the death of the cross, by which it was conditioned (Php 2:6 ff.; Romans 8:34, al.; Luke 24:26; often in John), and it conditions the future completion of the work of the cross (Php 2:10 f.; Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25; 1 Corinthians 15; Colossians 3:3 f.).

ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τ. θεοῦ] for Christ in the state of His exaltation[192] is again, as He was before His incarnation (comp. John 17:5), fully ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ and ἴσα θεῷ (Php 2:6), hence in His glorified corporeality (Php 3:21) the visible image of the invisible God. See on Colossians 1:15; comp. Hebrews 1:3. It is true that in the state of His humiliation He had likewise the divine δόξα, which He possessed κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης (Romans 1:4), which also, as bearer of the divine grace and truth (John 1:14), and through His miracles (John 2:11), He made known (John 14:9); but its working and revelation were limited by His humiliation to man’s estate, and He had divested Himself of the divine appearance (Php 2:7 f.) till in the end, furnished through His resurrection with the mighty attestation of His divine sonship (Romans 1:4), He entered, through His elevation to the right hand of God, into the full communion of the glory of the Father, in which He is now the God-man, the very image and reflection of God, and will one day come to execute judgment and to establish the kingdom.

Aim of the addition: “hinc satis intelligi potest, quanta sit gloria Christi,” Bengel; it is the highest and holiest of all, and of the knowledge of it Satan deprives those whom he blinds!

[189] Comp. Homer, Od. xx 346: μνησπῆρσι δὲ Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη … παρέπλαγξε νόημα, Pind. Ol. vii. 133, xii. 13; Plat. Phaed. p. 96 C; Lucian, Nigr. 4.

[190] According to Fritzsehe, the unbelief appears as effect of the blinding, consequently as a refusal of belief, as ἀπείθεια. In our view, it appears as defectus fidei and the devil steps in with his blinding, and makes out of the ἄπιστοι the υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας (Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6). As regards the contents of the thought, therefore, the two views are not contradictory.

[191] Hofmann very wrongly, since he himself recognises the lofty poetic turn of the words, objects that this explanation would require the (not genuine) αὐτοῖς.

[192] For it is the exalted One of whom Paul is thinking. Comp. Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, p. 212 f.

2 Corinthians 4:5. What his gospel (τὸ εὐαγγ. ἡμῶν) proclaimed, he has just described as that which is most glorious and sublime, namely, the δόξα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν κ.τ.λ. And that nothing else than this is the lofty contents of his preaching, he now establishes, and that under an antithetic point of view, which (comp. 2 Corinthians 3:1) takes into account hostile calumny. This antithetic aim so fully justifies the reference of the γάρ to what immediately precedes, and the emphasis laid on Χριστ. Ἰησ. as κύριον, as well as the contents of 2 Corinthians 4:6, so obviously confirms it, that we have no warrant for going back with γάρ to 2 Corinthians 3:1, even if we include 2 Corinthians 4:3-5 (Hofmann).

ἑαυτοὺς κηρύσσ.] In virtue of the contrast that follows (Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 25), κυρίονς might be supplied (de Wette and others, also my own view hitherto), and with this 2 Corinthians 1:24 might be compared. But since it was self-evident that he did not preach himself as Lord, and this could not be attributed to him even by his opponents, however much they may have accused him of selfish conduct, it is better (comp. Hofmann) to let the expression retain its quite general character: not ourselves, not our own persons, their insight, standing, repute, and other interests, do we make the contents and aim of our preaching.

κύριον] as Lord. In this lies the whole great confessional contents of his preaching, which absolutely excludes all desire for self-assertion; comp. Php 2:11; 1 Corinthians 12:3. This κύριον also is to be left quite in its generality,[193] so that the following ὑμῶν has no joint reference to it (Hofmann).

διὰ Ἰησοῦν] This it is by which the relation of service to the readers (δούλους ὑμῶν) is conditioned. For on His account, not irrespectively of Him, we are your servants. Comp. 1 Corinthians 4:1. To do the will of Jesus, and to carry on His work—this it is which determines us to be your servants, i.e. to do our labour for your service; only in this respect, in this relation of service to you, do we preach ourselves, which, therefore, is something quite different from the ἑαυτ. κηρυσσ. before denied.

[193] The whole majesty of Christ (ver. 4) lies in this one predicate.

2 Corinthians 4:6. Confirmation of the above, and not simply of the concluding words of 2 Corinthians 4:5 (ἑαυτοὺς δὲ δούλους κ.τ.λ.), but of the entire 2 Corinthians 4:5. For it is God who has bestowed on us such enlightenment, and for such behoof as is declared in 2 Corinthians 4:6; how should we not be far exalted above the preaching of ourselves instead of Christ as the Lord, and how could we proclaim ourselves otherwise than simply in the relation of serviceableness to you, serviceableness for Christ’s sake!—“For God, who bade light shine out of darkness, it is who caused it to shine in our hearts, in order that we should make the knowledge of the divine glory give light in the presence of Christ.” Apart from this figurative clothing, the sense is: For it is God, the creator of light, who bestowed on us the spiritual light communicated to us, not that we might retain it for ourselves without further communication, but that we should convey the knowledge of the divine glory to others in making this knowledge manifest to them in Christ, whom we teach them to know. As to the construction, ὅς is not to be taken as equivalent to οὗτος (Vorstius, Mosheim, Morus, Rosenmüller, Schrader; comp. Theodoret and Luther), nor is ὅς to be deleted (Rückert hesitates between the two), but ἐστί is to be supplied, and supplied before ὃς ἔλαμψεν (so, rightly, most of the commentators[194]), not immediately after ὁ θεός (Valla, Erasmus, Vatablus, Estius, Bengel, Vater, Ewald), because it is only with ὃς ἔλαμψεν that the important idea is introduced, and because Paul has written ὅς and not ὃς καί. On account of the ὃς κ.τ.λ. that follows it is impossible, with Hofmann, to regard the sentence on ὅτι ὁ θεός as far as λάμψαι (“for it is God who … has bidden to shine”) as a complete and perfect sentenc.

ὁ εἰπὼν ἐκ σκότονς φῶς λάμψαι] qui jussit, etc. Reminiscence of Genesis 1:3,[195] in order to prepare for the following Ὃς ἜΛΑΜΨΕΝ Κ.Τ.Λ., which is meant to appear as analogous to the physical working of God in the creation. “Saepe comparantur beneficia creationis veteris et novae,” Grotius. The emergence of the light of the holy truth in Christ from amid the sinful darkness of untruth (Hofmann) is not as yet spoken of; this spiritual fact only finds its expression in what follows, and has here merely the way prepared for it by the corresponding physical creation of ligh.

ἐκ may doubtless mean immediately after (Emmerling), see Heindorf, ad Prot. p. 463; Jacobs, ad Ael. p. 464; but in the N. T. it does not so occur, and here “forth out of darkness” is far more in keeping with graphic vividness, for such is the position of the matter when what is dark becomes lighted up; comp. LXX. Job 37:15.

ὃς ἔλαμψεν ἐν τ. καρδ. ἡμ.] This Ὅς cannot be referred to Christ, with Hofmann, who compares irrelevantly Hebrews 5:7 (where Christ is in fact the chief subject of what immediately precedes), but it applies to God. Whether ἔλαμψεν is intransitive (Chrysostom and most expositors): he shone, which would have to be explained from the idea of the indwelling of God by means of the Holy Spirit (John 14:23; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 14:25), or whether it is factitive: who made it (namely, φῶς) shine (Grotius, Bengel, Emmerling, Fritzsche), as ἀνατέλλειν is used in Matthew 5:45, and even ΛΆΜΠΕΙΝ in the poets (Eur. Phoen. 226, and the passages in Matthiae, p. 944; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 58, VII. p. 378, VIII. p. 199; ad Del. Epigr. p. 62; Lobeck, ad Adj. p. 94, ed. 2), is decided from the context by the preceding physical analogy, which makes the factitive sense in keeping with the εἰπὼν λάμψαι most probable. If the progress of thought had been: “who himself shone” (Chrysostom, Theodoret), the text must have run, ὃς αὐτὸς ἔλαμψεν. God has wrought in the hearts of the apostolic teachers, spiritually creating light, just as physically as at the creation He called light out of the darkness. Hofmann, in consequence of his referring Ὅς to Christ, wrongly explains it: “within them has been repeated that which took place in the world when Christ appeared in it.” On the point itself in reference to Paul, see Galatians 1:16.

πρὸς φωτισμὸν κ.τ.λ.] for the purpose of lighting (2 Corinthians 4:4), etc., equivalent to πρὸς τὸ φωτίζειν τὴν γνῶσιν κ.τ.λ., in order that there may lighten, etc., by which is set forth the thought: “in order that the knowledge of the divine glory may be conveyed and diffused from us to others through the preaching of Christ.” For if the knowledge remains undiffused, it has not the nature of a thing that lightens, whose light is received by the eyes of me.

ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ] belongs to ΠΡῸς ΦΩΤΙΣΜΌΝ, but cannot be explained in persona Christi, i.e. in nomine Christi, as Estius explains it after the Latin Fathers, but it specifies where the knowledge of the divine glory is to lighten: in the presence of Christ. For Christ is εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ, and Christians see unveiled the glory of Christ, 2 Corinthians 3:18. He, therefore, who converts others to Christ makes the knowledge of the divine glory become clear-shining to them, and that in the countenance of the Lord, which is beheld in the gospel as the reflection of the divine glory, so that in this seen countenance that clear-shining knowledge has the source of its light (as it were, its focus). Probably there is in ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ a reminiscence of 2 Corinthians 3:7. The connection of ἘΝ ΠΡΟΣΏΠῼ ΧΡ. with ΠΡῸς ΦΩΤΙΣΜΌΝ has been justly recognised by Estius, and established as the only right one by Fritzsche (Dissert. II. p. 170, and ad Rom. I. p. 188), whom Billroth follows, for the usual way of connecting it with τῆς δόξης τ. θεοῦ (comp. also Hofmann: “the glory of God visible in Christ”) would of necessity require τῆς repeated after ΘΕΟῦ, since ΔΌΞΑ is not a verbal substantive like ΦΩΤΙΣΜΌς, and consequently, without repeating the article, Paul would necessarily have written Τῆς ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ΔΌΞΗς ἘΝ ΠΡΟΣΩΠ. ΧΡ. (see Krüger, §§ 50, 9, 9, and 8). The objection of de Wette against our view—an objection raised substantially by Hofmann also—that the ΓΝῶΣΙς is the subjective possession of the apostle, and cannot therefore become light-giving in the face of Christ, leaves out of consideration the fact that the ΓΝῶΣΙς is objectivised. Conveyed through preaching, the γνῶσις of the divine glory gives light (it would not give light otherwise), and its light-giving has its seat and source of issue on the countenance of Christ, because it is this, the glory of which is brought to view in the mirror of preaching (2 Corinthians 3:18).

Note, further, how there is something clumsy but majestic in the entire mode of expression, πρὸς … Χριστοῦ, especially in the accumulation of the four genitives, as in 2 Corinthians 4:4.

[194] Comp. also Buttmann, neatest. Gramm. p. 338 [E. T. 395].

[195] Ewald, following the reading λάμψει, supposes an allusion to Isaiah 60:1, Job 12:22, or to some lost passage.

2 Corinthians 4:7 ff. The apostle now (on to 2 Corinthians 4:10) turns to the relation which the outward position, seemingly quite incongruous, bears to so glorious a calling. This pertained to the completeness of his Apologia, and to him—even without special attacks of opponents on this side—it thus most naturally suggested itself! We must put aside the supposition that his opponents had reproached him with his bodily weakness and persecutions (see, especially, Calvin, Estius, Mosheim, Flatt, Emmerling) as testimonies against genuine apostleship, since such a reproach, which must have affected not him only, but the apostolic teachers in general, is in itself quite improbable, and no trace of it is found in the whole of the following section. Still this section also is certainly not without indirect polemic bearing; for Paul, owing to the peculiarity of his apostolic character, had borne and suffered far more than the rival Judaistic teachers; and hence there was in the relation of his afflictions to his working quite a peculiar holy triumph for him over his foes. Compare the noble effusion in 2 Corinthians 12:21.

2 Corinthians 4:7. Δέ] merely carrying on the train of thought: Now to compare our outward position with this high vocation, we have, et.

τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦτον] is referred either, in accordance with 2 Corinthians 4:6, to the light kindled by God in the heart (Grotius, Flatt, Rückert, and others), or to the ministerium evangelii (Calvin, Estius, Bengel, Emmerling, and others). According to 2 Corinthians 4:6, the inward divine enlightening (πρὸς φωτισμὸν κ.τ.λ.) is meant, and this definition of aim (πρὸς φωτ.) embraces in itself the ministerium evang.

ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν] in vessels of clay. Contrast with θησαυρόν, because, for such a treasure, some more costly and lasting vessel seems suitable. Comp. the opposite in Arrian, Epict. iii. 9 : χρυσᾶ σκεύη, ὀστράκινον δὲ λόγον. We may add that Paul, who, in fact, speaks here not of himself alone (observe the plur. σκεύεσιν, and 2 Corinthians 4:6, κσρδίαις), wishes not to affirm some special weakness of himself, but to say generally: Though we have so glorious a trust, yet is our body, the outward organ of our working, subject to the lot of being easily destructible. Following Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Theodoret, most commentators have rightly found in σκεύεσιν a figurative designation of the body; while Billroth and Rückert, following Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and others, understand the whole personality. Against the latter view we may urge as well the characteristic ὀστρακίνοις, which can refer only to the corporeal part (comp. Genesis 2:7; 1 Corinthians 15:47), as also 2 Corinthians 4:16; 2 Corinthians 5:1 ff. For examples of the use of ὀστράκινον σκεῦος[196] for the easily destructible corporeality (as Artemidorus, vi 25: θάνατον μὲν γὰρ εἰκότως ἐσήμαινε τῇ γυναικὶ τὸ εἶναι ἐν ὀστρακίνῳ σκεύει), see Wetstei.

ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ κ.τ.λ.] The design of God in this, namely, in order that the abundant fulness of power, which comes to be applied, namely, in our ministry working πρὸς φωτισμὸν κ.τ.λ., 2 Corinthians 4:6, in spite of all sufferings and persecutions (see what follows), may appear as the property of God, and not as proceeding from us. The context furnishes that special reference of the ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμ. The opposite of the conception of ὑπερβολή is ἔλλειψις (Plato, Protag. 356 A, Def. p. 415 A, al.).

καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν] καὶ μὴ ἡμεῖς νομιζώμεθα κατορθοῦν ἐξ ἑαυτῶν τι, ἀλλὰ πάντες οἱ ὁρῶντες τοῦ θεοῦ λέγωσιν εἶναι τὸ πᾶν, Theophylact.

The ᾖ is to be taken logice of the being, which presents itself to cognition; as often with Paul (Romans 3:26; Romans 3:4; Romans 3:19; Romans 7:13). Rückert denies this, but comes back himself to the same view by giving the meaning thus: God wishes to be the One, and to be recognised as such, who alone, etc. The explanation of Tertullian, the Vulgate, Estius, according to which τῆς δυνάμ. is connected with τοῦ θεοῦ, is against the order of the word.

[196] To this category does not belong Plato, Phaedr. p. 250 C, which passage is compared by Osiander, but there the body is figuratively presented as mussel (ὄστρεον).