view better entitled to consideration, is that the Apostle is assigning, in affectionate irony, the reason of his self-devotion, in which case the perfectly admissible rendering 'since,' must be adopted (Herod. vii. 46). But i admits also of being idiomatically translated by though,' according to a use of it called by some grammarians concessive.' 'If' is used similarly in our own language: If you are learned, do not be arrogant.' If ἀγαπῶ, not ἀγαπῶν, were the true reading and the clause were taken interrogatively it would yield a good and simple sense. 'If I love you more superabundantly, am I the less loved?' Is that reasonable?

16. He had been charged with declining support himself for the dishonest purpose of obtaining it more largely through his agents, and the imputation was connected with his endeavours to expedite the collection through Titus and others. For the sake of argument he allows the charge in order to see how it tallies with facts. "But be it so; I did not become a burden to you; yet (per_contra), being a crafty villain, I caught you by guile." The original for "crafty villain'" means strictly one who chooses with shrewd discernment the aptest means for attaining unprincipled ends (Arist. Eth. Nic. VI. xii. 9). For the rendering "caught " see xi. 20.

17. How stand the facts? "Any one of those I despatched to you did I, through him, over-reach you?" The original asks feelingly a question which demands a negative answer, its real force being:-'do not say that I did.'

pre

18. Appeal to examples. The mission of Titus is not that alluded to in viii. 17, upon which he had not yet been actually despatched, but that on which he had " viously initiated" (viii. 6) the making up of the collection. Who the "brother" was, is not certain, but he was probably the person so strongly recommended under the same designation in viii. 22, and now on the point of accompanying Titus again in the same capacity. "Was it not by the same spirit

gain of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps?

19 Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto you? we speak before God in Christ: but we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying.

20 For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such

that we walked?" expresses the inward law which regulated their conduct, and which was the guidance of the Holy Spirit, excluding every covetous and interested motive. "Was it not in the same footsteps?" passes from the directing principle in the heart to the outward walk, of which those who witnessed it could very well judge. The Apostle speaks quite confidently of the incontrovertibleness of these proofs, and it would appear therefore that Titus had taken no part of the collection into his own keeping, much less conveyed anything to St. Paul. He probably prevailed upon the Corinthians to comply with the counsel given them in 1 Cor. xvi. 2, and perhaps to a general fund.

establish

19. The apology and boasting, now completed, have to be guarded from a misappre hension. It was easy for his readers to glide into the tribunal and imagine that theirs was the judgment-seat from which sentence had to be delivered. "Ye are this long time (Táλaι with many MSS. not máλ) thinking that it is to you we are making our defence." Not so. "It is before God, in Christ, that we speak." It would have been impossible, under any circumstances, for an Apostle to place himself before a human bar (1 Cor. ii. 15; iv. 3) for judgment, but it was peculiarly necessary to repudiate the jurisdiction of that section of his readers which he is now addressing, because they had shewn a bias in favour of his accusers. He takes the sting out of his repudiation, however, by his closing words:-"but the whole, beloved, (is) for your edification." mined, so far were they tottering and it was So far as his authority in Corinth was undernecessary to reconsolidate his position in order that theirs might be restored and secured.

20. He has reason to labour for their edification, for he entertains the twofold fear that he may find them, when he comes, not such as he wishes, and may himself therefore "be found for them not such as they wish." His fear about them again takes a double direction, one towards the Judaizers on the

right (v. 20), the other towards the heathenizers on the left (v. 21). Both parties wished to see him as they thought they had seen him on his second visit, weak and without energy. Instead of that and instead of being a fellowworker of their joy, he apprehends that he may have to wield a severe rod of discipline. The first class of dreaded evils are those party-divisions which he had to rebuke and threaten in the First Epistle (i. 10-13; iii. 35; iv. 21). The list is:-strifes, jealousy, outbursts of anger, intrigues, calumnies open and secret, inflated airs of superiority, and finally, the disastrous result of all these to the Church, "disturbances" which destroy its established organization. It appears from this dark calendar that, although the chief developments since the First Epistle had been those of Judaism and of heathenism, and the main struggle was between these two great streams, against both of which St. Paul and his adherents had to contend, yet other currents of rivalry had not ceased to be active. Partizanship was in fact an habitual part of the mental and moral life of a society like that of Corinth.

99

21. His fear with regard to those who lived in pagan immorality is: "lest again, when I come God shall humble me before you, and I shall have to mourn for many of those who were sinners before and did not repent over the uncleanness and fornication and licentiousness which they practised." It is plain that the "again goes with the "humble" and not with the "conie," because, if it belonged to the latter, it would have absolutely no meaning, and it would have been quite sufficient to say 'when I come.' As it is, it emphasises, by standing first, a second humiliation and implies that the Apostle had already suffered one, viz., on his second visit. It has already been seen (Introd. p. 378), that the first humiliation was caused by the moral evils which he had gone to check, but found it expedient or possible only to rebuke, not to punish. The persons rebuked are the

and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.

66

same that he now mentions. They were in a state of sin before his second visit and did not come to repentance, when he was there, although threatened. To find them persisting and setting his word at nought (x. 10) would be humbling enough, but the scorn of the Judaizers for not applying sharp discipline, which was a part of his previous humiliation, he did not intend to incur again, but still he dreads a pain of another kind. He had, no doubt, learned from Titus, that many" of the immoral persons were none the better for his warnings and over these he fears that he will have to mourn. This cannot mean a mourning of mere pity and sorrow, as if these men were carried away by the infirmities of nature. The original term properly denotes mourning for the dead, and here signifies grief for those who will suffer the chastisement which he declares (xiii. 2) that he will inflict. As they belonged to the same class with the notable offender of 1 Cor. v., it may be inferred that he contemplates passing the same sentence of excommunication upon them that he did upon him, and so would have to sorrow over them as severed and, for a while at least, dead members of the visible Church. This view is pointedly corroborated by the language of 1 Cor. v. 2. "Ye are puffed up and did not rather mourn, that he who did this deed should be removed from the midst of you;" and again, by 1 Cor. v. 7, "purge out the old leaven," with reference to the same subject. See also v. 13. The obscurity which has overhung this verse has arisen mainly from the fact of expositors not accepting the simple meaning of an aorist, and therefore rendering, 'who shall not have repented,' i.e. ' when I come again,' instead of "who did not come to repentance,” i.e. when I was last at Corinth. It is thus obvious why he anticipates having to mourn only over many of those that did not repent, and not over all, for some had clearly repented since he was there (ch. vii.). There is a very perceptible ring of forestalled grief in the three terrible words towards the close of the verse.

rate defence of it (Com. Crit. tom. i. 390345), though obviously incorrect in several points, may yet be consulted with advantage. But neither it nor Klöpper's strong protest

is sufficient to overthrow the external evidence in favour of καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ, οὐ συμφέρον μέν, evooμai dé, which is as follows: For det B.D.E.F.G. 17. 37. Vulg. Syrr. Goth. Arm. For ovμpépov μév, Sin. B.F.G. 17. Pesch. Memph. Goth. Arm. For dé instead of yáp after evooμai, Sin. B.F.G. 17. Vulg. Memph. Arm. Against such an array of authorities Meyer's observation, that μév—dé is an obvious importation made to displace the difficult yap and that ovμépov for ovμpépei falls with pér-dé, will not stand. Meyer does not succeed in eliciting from his reading an interpretation either consistent with Greek usage or with the context.

ST. PAUL'S STAKE FOR THE FLESH.

On

7. Of the passages adduced as bearing upon this subject, the most important and perhaps the only two in which the reference to it is unquestionable are:-2 Cor. xii. 7; and Gal. iv. 13, 14. The others are 1 Cor. ii. 3; 2 Cor. 1, 8; x. 10; 1 Thess. ii. 18. 2 Cor. x. 10, see Introduction and the notes. The right reading and rendering of Gal. iv. 13, 14 is:-" But ye know that by reason of an infirmity of my flesh I preached the gospel to you on the former visit; and your temptation in my flesh ye did not utterly despise (set at nought) nor loathe." The drift of the first of these clauses is that on the former of two visits, he had not purposed preaching in Galatia, but did so because he was detained there by his peculiar affliction. The drift of the second clause which is rather irregularly expressed, is that the Galatians did not scorn his infirmity nor regard it with abhorrence, although it constituted a temptation to them to repudiate the Gospel, when preached by one so afflicted. This passage and 2 Cor. xii. 7 taken together point to the following results.

1. The affliction was bodily. The proof of this is not the expression "stake for the flesh," which only describes figuratively a means for the mortification, whether conceived as impaling or crucifixion, of the carnal principle of pride which over-exalts a man. The decisive phrase is "in my flesh," which shows that the seat of the affliction was the material substance of the body. This is confirmed by the language which follows, for the effect of shocking and revolting those who witnessed it, which is pointed to in the word 'loathe,' could only be produced by visible symptoms. "Infirmity of my flesh" also suggests most naturally, although not necessarily, that the infirmity attached to the body. From its tendency to bring him into contempt the Apostle looked upon it as a grievous impediment to his ministry. The words "smite with the fist"

(2 Cor. xii. 7) indicate the violence and the suddenness of its approaches and his deten tion in Galatia, where he had not meant to stay, shews that he could not forecast its coming on and apparently also that its aftereffects were of some duration. The current impression that it was attended by agonising pain is not positively justified by anything that is stated. It probably arose, in part, from a misunderstanding of "stake for the flesh," in part from a notion that only bodily pain could mortify spiritual pride, whereas a liability to bodily humiliation would do this even more effectually: and, in part, from the expression "an angel of Satan to smite me with the fist," taken in conjunction with the undoubtedly scriptural view that to inflict torture upon men is Satan's congenial occupation.

2. It was an adjunct of his visions and special revelations in two ways, inasmuch as it served a disciplinary purpose in connection with them, and because its particular visits were the immediately antecedent if not the conditional accompaniments of the visions and revelations themselves. This last relation is not only indicated by the Apostle's general statement but appears more distinctly from the fact that the answer "my grace is sufficient for thee" is exactly one of the special revelations in question, and it is reasonable to suppose that it was given in direct reply to the third prayer for deliverance, uttered at a moment when he was painfully sensible of the pressure of his bodily trial. It is to be borne in mind that he is speaking in 2 Cor. xii. of visions and revelations experienced by him while in an ecstatic condition, i.e., when the connection between the inner spiritual man and the body was either in complete abeyance or actually for a while severed, and this strongly commends the supposition that the abnormal state of body was a transition-stage to the ecstasy. The three petitions would, in this case, be made, when the Apostle, under some painfully humbling physical conditions, felt his conscious union with his material organism dissolving and the Lord's answer to the third petition would be heard by him when one of the ecstatic states had set in. See Klöpper's remarks on this point. The ecstasy, the visions and revelations, and the peculiar affection of the body, would thus be coincident in time, possibly of the same duration, and, in a certain sense, the complements of each other.

Considerable light is thrown upon the subject by the incidents of the conversion, of which the Apostle's own account, given in Acts xxvi. 11-18 is important, because it proves incontestably that his very first vision and revelation of the Lord was accompanied by bodily effects of an altogether unusual and

overpowering kind. First the divine radiance shone round about him suddenly like lightning (Acts xxii. 6 èέaíons nepiaσrpáva), and he fell to the ground stricken blind, at which moment it may be safely assumed that he lost all consciousness of earthly things. Whilst he lay, he had a vision of the glorified Saviour, for he said: "Who art thou, Lord?" Then ensued an express revelation, of which St. Luke, in Acts ix. 4-6, gives only an imperfect report, because the Apostle himself says that the Lord declared to him, in or, to speak strictly, immediately after (eides) "the heavenly vision," that he had appeared to him in order to make him " a minister and a witness of the things which be saw." The vision and the revelation therefore must have been very extensive in their scope.

When he "was raised" from the ground (Acts ix. 8), "though his eyes were open," he could not see and those who were with him led him by the hand into Damascus. There he remained three days in abstinence from meat and drink and during that time he had a vision of Ananias (Acts ix. 12). When he recovered his sight, there fell from his eyes as it were scales. After such a convulsion of his entire nature and long want of sustenance he was in a state of weakness and prostration (Acts ix. 19). The Lord also intimated to him in this his first vision and revelation that further like experiences were in store for him (Acts xxvi. 16 Ev Te openσoμaí σo), and if it could be inferred with any certainty that they were attended by similar physical accompaniments, the stake for the flesh might be the liability to a recurrence or the actual recurrence of the bodily state just described, which however is not probable. But, in any case, his conversion furnishes a most striking illustration of the manner in which he may have received his supernatural communications at the precise time when he was under the actual application of the stake for the flesh. Its close conjunction with the visions and revelations does not justify the conclusion that the suffering which it brought and the divine communications alternated with one another during the ecstasy, so that the ecstatic, like the waking life of the Apostle was a copy of the life of his Master in its contrary aspects of humiliation and suffering and of exaltation and glory (Klöpper). If the stake for the flesh was felt during the ecstasy, he could not have said that he did not know whether he was in the body or out of the body, for a sense of bodily suffering must imply the presence of the body. Some good expositors fail to make it clear, whether they regard the Apostle's ecstatic experiences as the reflex of his waking thoughts and sensations, or as objective realities quite independent of his

own mind and feelings. But there is not the shadow of a doubt that St. Paul himself thought what he heard and saw and suffered to be actual facts. Some valuable matter on ecstasy may be seen in Delitzsch's Bibl. Psych. ch. v. See pp. 417-433 E.T., closely bearing on St. Paul's case. One clear result of the intimate union of the stake with the visions and revelations is that the occasions of his suffering from it cannot be regarded and spoken of as if they came on like the attacks of a malady. They coincided with the times at which he stood in need of special disclosures of the divine will and, as has been already observed, the date "fourteen years ago" points to directions given him previously to quitting Arabia for a new province of ministerial work.

3. It is necessary to insist that, when St. Paul ascribes to the stake a twofold relation to the invisible world and sees in it a concurrence of divine and of Satanic agency, the latter controlled by the former, he is neither speaking figuratively nor merely stating his own personal impressions in accordance with popular views, but affirming what he knew to be a truth, and his statement is amply supported by other representations in Scripture. The words of Delitzsch are correct and applicable :-"The power of wrath of this (the Satanic) kingdom over men only reaches so far as God permits it; and this permission is measured by his Holy will and grace, which make all created powers, whether of wrath or of love, minister to himself."

This admixture of Satanic action makes the attempt precarious to identify the stake with any known malady or ailment, such as acute headache, earache, a complaint in the eyes, or epilepsy. The view which chiefly claims consideration under this head, although there is an ancient and sustained tradition in favour of headache, is that it was epilepsy. Both Jews and pagans deemed epilepsy a supernatural visitation, and hence its name morbus divinus, or sacer. Another designation of it, morbus comitialis, rested upon the same idea, for if anyone was seized with it in the Roman Forum during an election it was supposed to be the intervention of a god and business was suspended. The original for loathe,' in Gal. iv. 14, means literally to “spit out;" and it it curious that epilepsy was also called “morbus qui sputatur,” because those present were" accustomed to spit upon the epileptic or into their own bosoms, either to express their abomination or to avert the evil omen for themselves." Persons may become subject to epilepsy at middle age by a great shock, physical or moral or both, such as St. Paul's conversion was. Almost all medical writers on epilepsy mention a patient who before a

seizure imagined that he saw a figure approach and smite him a blow on the head, after which he lost consciousness. This has a resemblance to the expression "smite with the fist," which might well represent the suddenness of epileptic attacks. Those who happen to have seen a person seized with epilepsy while officiating in divine service will comprehend the language of Gal. iv. 14 and how natural it would be for St. Paul to regard any bodily liability at all resembling it as a terrible hindrance to his ministry. After epileptic convulsions have ended there often ensues an insensibility and patients sometimes fall into a profound stupor or coma, which has been known to last as long as a week. This symptom would harmonise with the Apostle's forced stay in Galatia. Still it is doubtful whether any of these points are more than superficial agreements. An epileptic remembers nothing of what passed during the fit, whereas St. Paul had the most vivid recollection of everything. Epilepsy, frequently suffered, generally impairs the intellect, and the cases of Julius Cæsar, Mahomet and Buonaparte, who are quoted as instances of high intellectual power remaining in spite of epilepsy, are not deemed by medical authorities to be of much value.

An attempt has been made to find an analogy of nature for the Apostle's cross from a different point of view, viz., by taking his visions and revelations for the starting point. A large number of instances are upon record of religious visionaries, as they are called, and ecstatical persons, who have seemed to themselves to be translated into the invisible world and to have seen and heard its inhabitants and transactions as sensibly as they could have seen and heard anything with their bodily

organs. They have for the most part a strong conviction that they are under the immediate guidance and influence of spiritual beings during the disclosures made to them. The body is in many cases in a state resembling that of catalepsy, in which the will exercises no power over it; the expression of the eyes, though open, is extinguished; the limbs are like those of an automaton, and remain unaffected by the law of gravitation in any attitude in which they may be placed; and the face is like that of a dead person. Delitzsch, speaking with reference to St. Paul, says: "What is experienced in such ecstasies is a prelude of that separation of the soul from the body which results in death, during which separation the body is usually found in a cataleptic condition."

It may be questioned whether such inquiries and speculations as these, although interesting, can lead to any solid results, on account of the perfectly exceptional character of the Apostle's case. There is reason to think that no malady or bodily disorder brought about by demoniacal agency is ever identical with ordinary disease. If similarities are traceable, they are rather symptomatic than essential affinities. There are not sufficient data for determining what peculiar ingredient characteristic of Satanic malignity there was in the Apostle's affliction, but it would seem to have been something calculated to overwhelm him with ignominy rather than to excruciate him with pain. It is consolatory to know that, however hard it was to bear, the grace of Christ enabled him ultimately to rejoice and glory in it as a means whereby the power of the Lord more fully tabernacled upon him and invested him with the true strength for doing his Master's work.

CHAPTER XIII.

1 He threateneth severity, and the power of his apostleship against obstinate sinners. 5 And advising them to a trial of their faith, 7 and to a reformation of their sins before his coming, 11 he concludeth his espistle with a general exhortation and a prayer.

CHAP. XIII. 1. He may be found by them not such as they wish, on account of the strict measures which he means to adopt, should his fears about them be realised. He indicates the firmness of his purpose by a sententious omission of connecting particles. "This is the third time I am coming to you." The stress lies upon the numeral, and the drift is that, having already twice experienced leniency, when he was personally present

HIS is the third time I am

Toming to you. In the mouth

of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. '36 2

2 I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second

among them, they must now be prepared for sterner procedure. Both the literal purport of the words and the argument they involve imply a second visit actually made, because only forbearance already exercised in fact on two previous occasions, could shew the reasonableness of trenchant discipline on a third. As the first visit lasted a year and a half, there was, no doubt, abundant occasion for admonishing offenders of all kinds with