furnishes the sure base of salvation in general, which is not the sense that the context requires. The Apostle by no means asserts that he has no authority over them in any

circumstances.

If they should lapse from the faith, they would again fall under tutelage and need a schoolmaster to bring them again to Christ.

66

Ver 3.-THE AFFLICTION IN ASIA. There are many opinions as to what this affliction was. The uproar of Demetrius at Ephesus, a dangerous disease, a shipwreck (2 Cor. xi. 25), some machinations of the many adversaries" (1 Cor. xvi. 9), a plot of the Jews which imperilled his life somewhere between Ephesus and Troas, have all been suggested. The circumstances and St. Paul's language seem to shew that it was his trouble about the condition and the conduct of the Church of Corinth.

1. It came upon him in Asia, and it was known to his readers. How his affliction accords with these particulars we have already

seen.

2. It must have had special reference to the Corinthians. Otherwise it could not have stood prominently in the head and front of an Epistle bearing so closely upon their peculiar circumstances and all that is said about its conducing to the r comfort and salvation would be vague and strained, instead of appropriate and natural.

3. A comparison of the terms used about this affliction in ch. i. 3-11 with those employed in other parts of the Epistle to describe his feelings about Corinthian affairs strongly favours this identification. In ch. i. 4, the grief in which he had written is called "much affliction and anguish of heart." Compare ch. ii. 12. In Macedonia again, when "his flesh had no rest" on account of his anxiety for news from Corinth, he says that he was "afflicted" (ch. vii. 5). This could scarcely have been a different affliction from that of chap. ii. The term "comfort" points still 'more decidedly in the same direction. It is very difficult to think that ch. i. 3, 4 and ch. vii. 4, 6 refer to different occasions of comfort. We have, as has been already noted in ch. i. 3-7, one form or other of the word for 'comfort' ten times in five verses, and, in ch. vii. 6, 7, 13, six times in three verses. In other words there is exactly the same harping upon comfort in connection with his deliverance from the affliction in Asia, that occurs with reference to his release from devouring anxiety about Corinth.

It is also very doubtful whether a man like St. Paul would have used such language as that of ch. i. 8, about danger or suffering which threatened his body or his life merely.

It must have been something which afflicted. his spirit as well.

Ver. 7. Many regard the second 'yea' and 'nay' as predicates of the first 'yea' and 'nay' respectively. According to this view, the rendering is," that with me my yea should be yea and my nay nay;" and the drift, 'Do I form my plans after a carnal rule, and make it my sole object, when I have once said that I will do or not do a thing, to let nothing whatever divert me from carrying out my stated purpose, through mere pertinacity or in order to maintain a false consistency?' He thus asserts his right to retract or modify any plan of proceeding which he may have announced, if he should find it good or desirable to do so. As a matter of language, no doubt, the second yea' and 'nay may be taken as predicates, as in Jas. v. 12, ἔτω ὑμῶν τὸ ναί, ναί, καὶ τὸ őv, ov. But there are strong reasons against the interpretation.

1. In ver. 18 we find the single 'yea' and 'nay' substituted for the double, and kai uniting them, so as to represent a compound of affirmation and negation, even according to the advocates of the above view; and it would be strange if kai did not serve the same purpose with regard to the double as it does with regard to the single 'yea' and 'nay in two consecutive verses, the double ' yea' and 'nay' being only a stronger form than the single, as in Matt. v. 37.

2. He was not accused of obstinacy or the dogged desire of consistency, but of weakness and of carnal cunning, and the line of defence which this interpretation attributes to him against these accusations would have been a very questionable one. The remark that he was bound to admit, in the present case, that he had substituted a 'nay' for a 'yea' is scarcely quite correct; for he had never said absolutely that he would not come, but only, that he would not come unless the Corinthians reformed their conduct (2 Cor. ii. 3). That he was always "ready to come" is proved not only by his assertions, but by the fact that he was on his way to them at the very time of his writing. The impression conveyed by vv. 18, 19, 20, 21 decidedly is that he asserts himself to be a man of his word, and not that he claims a right of replacing a ' yea' by a 'nay' whenever he thinks it desirable.

CHAP. II. 1. Merciful consideration for his readers (i. 23) was not his only reason for staying away. "But I determined, for my own sake, this, not again in grief to come to you." The rendering, according to the Received Text, would be: "not again to come in grief to you," but it has little or no authority, and probably arose out of the assumption that St. Paul had been only once in Corinth. But even it is not inconsistent with a previous visit of grief. It is arbitrary to say, on account of i. 23, that 'in grief' means 'bringing grief with him to inflict it upon them.' Nor is this sense supported by I Cor. iv. 21, where the phrase of the A. V. "with a rod" is literally "in a rod." The true parallelism of that passage to this lies in the words which follow "in a rod," viz. "in love and the spirit of meekness." As the love there meant is a love felt in the Apostle's own heart, so is the grief here. The language indicates that he is introducing a different idea from that in i. 23, nor is the beginning of the next verse against this.

2. States the reason why it was for his own sake that he took his decision. It was, that to come in grief to them would be to seal up the source of his own joy. "For if I grieve you, then who is it that gladdens me save he that is grieved by me?" It would grieve him to inflict a punishment which would grieve them. Between him and them there was a mutual relation of joy-giving (i. 24) which a mutual grief-giving would destroy.

N.B. Although there may be no actual instance of kai introducing the second clause of a compound conditional sentence, when

3 And I wrote this same unto

that clause is a direct interrogative, its occurrence here should not have created so much difficulty, because there is no reason in language why it should not be so used. It denotes the close and immediate juxtaposition in the Apostle's mind of the question with the antecedent condition, and may properly be rendered 'then' or 'in that case.' It is merely the apodotic kai and that the apodosis is a question is accidental.

The singular number has led some to think that in "he that is grieved" there is an allusion to the great offender, which would require a totally different turn to be given to the verse. 'I would not come to you in grief and grieve you in person, but I did so by letter: for if I grieve you by letter (ver. 3), there is this advantage, that he who is grieved in that way is the same who gives me joy by repenting.' Some adopt this interpretation without supposing any reference to the offender, but it lacks simplicity. The singular sums up as one person all those whom he would have pained object of his personal love (cf. xi. 4). by coming, and describes them as a single

3. States what he did in accordance with his decision, and because his readers were the proper source of his joy. "I wrote this very thing." Inasmuch as the "this" here clearly takes up the "this" of ver. 1, "this very thing" can be nothing else than his decision not to come to visit them, so long as it would be necessary for him to come in grief. Here then we have disclosed the foundation of the charge that he had written a nay” contradictory to his former "yea," and the reason why he had done so. He did not

you, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all.

4 For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know

write this in any extant letter. In the First Epistle he still declared categorically that he would come. It can only be inferred that he wrote it in a letter subsequent to the First Epistle, and that must have been the letter carried by Titus. His object was that he might, by adjourning his visit until he could make it without grief, remove what would grieve him when he did come, at the hands of those who ought to be fellowworkers of his joy, as he was of theirs. He wrote with this object in the confidence that there was an identity of joy between him and all of them. This would prompt them to take the steps requisite for preventing his grief, not simply because it was their duty, but with gladness. What the steps were he had stated in his letter, and one of them was the execution of the sentence of excommunication, for, opposing which he had, in that letter, not spared them.

4. If he had been so anxious not to grieve them, why had he written so severely? His enemies had appealed to his letter as a proof that he was a reckless disturber of the peace and happiness of the community and its individual members. He explains. The anguish out of which he wrote shews that this was a calumny. So does his object in writing, for his purpose was not that they should be grieved, but that they might know the overflow of his affection for them. Had he loved them less, he would not have felt so insuperable a repugnance to giving pain in person, nor so profound an anxiety to remedy the prevailing evils by a letter. It was from the sense of his love which he endeavoured to awaken in them by writing, that he expected to rouse them to take with energy the

desired measures.

5. The main topic of his letter, and cause of his grief, had been the case of the sinful person often mentioned (1 Cor. v. 1, ff.). Against this man he had been accused of proceeding with personal exasperation, as if the offence had been committed against him individually. He disclaims this, by declaring that not he individually, but all the Church, had been aggrieved by the offender. Yet in order not to press heavily upon the guilty but now penitent man, by representing too

strongly the heinousness of his conduct, he will not say that absolutely all the Corinthians had been grieved, but only "partly " all of them. He alludes to a section in the Church which had either all along, or in the progress of the discussion about the case, taken more lenient views and deemed it one in which pardon might be granted or some mercy shewn. The fact that there had been a portion of the community which held this view, St. Paul uses with great tact, in order to mitigate the contrite man's sense of guilt. He could not have applied for this purpose the views of the thoroughly antinomian party, nor the feelings of persons whose conduct was almost as bad as that of the chief transgressor himself. It is plain that there was another more respectable class which advocated milder treatment. The Apostle does not, of course, assert that the case in question had given him no pain, but only denies that he regarded it as involving a personal offence against him, such as could awaken a personal animosity, and it is on that account that he puts the personal pronoun first. enßupeiv, which means to be a burden to,' 'to weigh heavily upon,' see 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8. In the verse before us it has no expressed object, and perhaps ought to be rendered simply "in order that I may not oppress.'

For

But the tacit reference must be to the guilty man. See note at end of chapter.

6. Since the last letter an assembly of the Church had been held to discuss the case, and the debate had been closed by a division in which the majority had voted for punishment of the offender. It is plain that the sentence passed had been referred to the Apostle for his approval or disapproval, and the absence of any connecting particle indicates that he is now delivering his judgment upon it. What the punishment was is not stated, but it fell short of what St. Paul had prescribed, for the reasons which he assigns for pronouncing it sufficient are that it was inflicted upon such a one as the guilty man had by his contrition proved himself to be, and that it was all that the majority had thought it right to impose. Some think that no decree had been actually passed, but that the majority had practically treated the

7 So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. 8 Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.

9 For to this end also did I write,

offender as an excommunicated person. But as the word "ratify" (confirm A.V.) in ver. 8 points to a formal decision, by which he was to be restored, he must have been under some regular sentence. Whether it was excommunication for a limited time, or excommunication without delivery over to Satan, there is nothing to shew.

7-8. It appears that, with the appeal to the Apostle upon the reduced sentence, there had been submitted also a memorial, brought by Titus, or a suggestion from some members of the Church, that the punishment should be increased to the severity which had been originally prescribed. Only on this supposition can the term "contrariwise" be explained, and it is a very natural supposition, for one of the feelings which they had manifested so strongly in the presence of Titus was their exacting of punishment' (2 Cor. vii. 11). However, from the results obtained, and the nature of the case, the Apostle is in a position to recommend the opposite course, that a pardon should be granted, comfort administered, and that the Church should pass a decree for the restitution of that brotherly love which had been for a while withdrawn from the unhappy man. The first part of this verse should be taken in close connection with the preceding, for it contains no idea of obligation, such as the "ought" of the A. V. implies. The literal translation simply is "so as for you to pardon," and the drift is that, in such an instance, the punishment already imposed is enough for them, on the contrary, rather to pardon' than to increase the penalty. His object in counselling a plenary pardon was to save the condemned from being "swallowed up" by remorse. He seems to have been in danger of spiritual ruin from despair, or of dying of a broken heart, or perishing by self-destruction.

9. The adoption of his advice will be in accordance with the object of his writing. He had intended to put them upon their probation, and "ascertain their approvedness whether they were obedient on all points." This was partly his aim with regard to the sentence of excommunication delivered in the First Epistle to be executed by them in his absence. They did not answer to that proNew Test.-VOL. III.

bation, but when Timothy was at Corinth the Church seemed to have cast off its allegiance. As the immorality, of which it is always to be remembered that the one grosser case was only an example, was in flagrant contradiction to the principle of holiness essential to a Christian community, so the disregard of apostolic authority was inconsistent with the status of a true church. It was, no doubt, forcibly pointed out through Titus and his letter that the only course open to the Corinthians was immediate and complete submission. In order to test them upon this point it was a more effectual method to write than to go in person, because it left them more to the exercise of their own free will. They did answer to this testing by enforcing the necessary discipline. Having done so on one side, the Apostle now suggests that they should answer to it on another and more gracious side, by granting a pardon, and so they will shew themselves approved and obedient "on all points." It may be observed that, while he renounces lordship over their faith, he yet requires compliance with all apostolic directions.

10. "But" having ascertained their approvedness through their punishing the guilty, he can now say that their pardon, if they choose to act upon his present exhortation, draws his along with it. The right rendering and reading is:-"But (him) whom ye forgive anything so do I; for what I have forgiven (Kexáp.), if I have forgiven anything, for your sakes (I have forgiven it) before the face of Christ." It is not the forgiveness of sin that is in question, but of the offence done to the Church and its founder through the stain that had been brought upon them (ver. 5). The language implies that the prevalent disposition at Corinth was to forgive this offence, and probably the force of the present tense is him, whom ye are inclined to forgive.' With this disposition the Apostle fell in, as was clear from his advice just given, and the perfect tenses now express that he had already forgiven, if indeed forgiveness was the right term to apply to him, for he still adheres to what he said in ver. 5. He had done so, not merely in compliance with them, and because their conduct had

2 C

II Lest Satan should get an advantage of us for we are not ignorant of his devices. 1539

12 Furthermore, when I came to Troas to preach Christ's gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord,

shewed their approvedness, but "for their sakes," and in the full consciousness that Christ was cognizant and approved of what he did and of the object which he had in view. 11. This object he states in order to shew how he had acted "for their sakes." It was to prevent the Corinthians and himself from being over-reached, and having advantage taken of them by Satan, whose devices or thoughts he did not fail to see. These devices were the malignant designs of Satan's ministers in Corinth (xi. 15), with regard to the case in question. These were the extreme Judaizers, and they were playing the devil's part in the matter. Had they been honest, they must have declared themselves in favour of the penalty prescribed by the Mosaic law, which was death. But they held themselves in reserve in order to allow the Apostle to ruin his own cause. They pointed, no doubt, to the flagrant sin as the natural and inevitable fruit of St. Paul's preaching, which, by setting aside the law, opened the door, as they said, to all heathen abominations. They would find not a few Jewish believers ready to listen to them, and those whom they in fluenced may have been some of the party who advocated the severer punishment. See ver. 7. But the Apostle discerned that the end in view was to create an irreparable breach between him and the community, and to gain full possession of the field for themselves. He would save himself and his readers from this satanic machination.

The delicacy and reticence with which this very tender subject is treated in these verses deserves remark. There is no name, no specification of particulars, not a word more than is absolutely needed to make his meaning clear, not a vestige of anything calculated to reawaken irritation or give pain. Having asserted the great principle of pure morality in the Church and, in a great measure, succeeded, he is able, in the most loving and gracious manner, to pour oil into a smarting wound. The burning question is now on the way to a happy settlement.

12. "But" it had, with all its attendant circumstances, given him excessive pain. Such seems the simple connection which is greatly obscured by the "furthermore" of the A.V. Nothing can be more natural than that he should, after seeing his way to the end of a

13 I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother: but taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.

14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the

distressing matter, recur to the great affliction which it had caused him, and out of which the desired issue had sprung, in order that he may do full justice to the unspeakable relief which the news of Titus had brought him. The change which Titus reported he regards as a triumph and paints it in brilliant colours (vv. 14, 15, 16), as a contrast to the dark picture of his previous tribulation. The extent of his distress shews how different his feelings towards the Corinthians were from what his enemies represented them. He pourtrays it in strong touches. He went to Troas to preach, which was the great object of his life, but though" a door stood open" (perf. part.) to him "in the Lord" leading to labours which promised success, he could not fully avail himself of it. His spirit, that part of his nature which was least liable to perturbation, most active in his gospelwork, the centre of his religious life, lacked the requisite calm, because he did not find Titus with tidings from Corinth. The unrest is so vividly engraven on his mind, that he seems to throw himself back into the situation, for he says:-"I have not got relief to my spirit." The original is a perfect tense of an aorist form. It almost suggests the idea that he may be reproducing the very words in which he assigned to the people of Troas his reason for leaving them, I must go. I have got no relief for my spirit.' "Them" refers to the inhabitants of Troas implied in the name of their town in ver. 12.

14. No sooner has he mentioned Macedonia than he raises a hymn of thanksgiving for the blessing there received. The success achieved through Titus and announced to him in Macedonia, he regards as a turning of the tide which will lead to the victory of himself and the truth in Corinth, and to the overthrow of his enemies. He represents himself as continually waging war with Satan and his agents, and exhibited at all times, together with his fellow-labourers, as God's triumphal pageant, in which, as it proceeds through the Gentile world, God, by means of the Apostle's preaching, visibly spreads, in every place, the odour of the knowledge of Himself, like the smoke of the incense in the midst of which the conqueror's train defiled. (See note at the end of the chapter.) In the