Paul deprecates the necessity of asserting his authority and of exercising his power to punish the disobedient, vs. 1-6. He confronts his opposers with the assertion of divinely derived power, vs. 9-11. He shows that he claims authority only over those who were committed to his care, vs. 12-18.

PAUL’S ASSERTION OF HIS AUTHORITY AND VINDICATION OF HIS APOSTOLIC PREROGATIVES.

The remarkable change in the whole tone and style of this portion of the epistle, from the beginning of the 10th chapter to near the end of the 13th, has attracted the attention of every careful reader. The contrast between this and the preceding portions of the epistle is so great, that some have concluded that they are separate letters, written at different times and under different circumstances. There is no external authority for this conjecture, and it is not only unnecessary, but inconsistent with the facts of the case. The same topics are presented, and there is in 12:18 reference to the mission of Titus, spoken of in the earlier chapters. It is an adequate explanation of the change in question, that in chs. 1-9, Paul had in his mind, and was really addressing, the faithful and obedient portion of the church, whereas he has here in view the unreasonable and wicked false teachers and their adherents, who not only made light of his authority, but corrupted the gospel, which he was appointed to propagate and defend.

He therefore naturally assumes a tone of authority and severity. Satisfied of his divine mission, and conscious of supernatural power, he cautioned them not to rely too much on his forbearance. He was indeed as a man humble, and, if they chose, insignificant; but there was slumbering in his arm an energy which they would do well not to provoke. He had no desire to exercise in Corinth the authority with which Christ had invested him for the purpose of bringing down all opposition. He would give them a fair trial, and wait to see how far they would be obedient, before he punished their disobedience, vs. 1-6. They should not judge by appearance, or set themselves up on the ground of their fancied advantages, because whatever they had, he had in larger measures vs. 7, 8. He had no intention to frighten them by his epistles — which they said were written in a tone he would not dare to assume when present — for they would find that, when occasion called for it, he could be as bold when present as when he was absent, vs. 9-11. They were subject to his apostolic authority. He usurped nothing in exercising the powers of his office over the churches which he had himself founded. He did not interfere with the jurisdiction of the other apostles, or undertake the special oversight of churches founded by others.

Macedonia and Achaia were within the sphere of his operations, and he hoped to preach the gospel far beyond those limits in regions where it had never been heard, vs. 12-16. His confidence was not self-confidence, but confidence in God. His self-commendation amounted to nothing, unless the Lord commended him. Paul constantly felt that in himself he could do nothing, but in the Lord he could do all things, vs. 17, 18. 1. Now I Paul myself beseech you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence (am) base among you, but being absent am bold toward you.

He enters without any preamble or circumlocution on his new subject, and places himself face to face with his unscrupulous opponents. He says, I Paul myself. He usually employs the first person plural when speaking of himself. Here, and throughout this context, he makes his individuality prominent in saying I. This is rendered the more emphatic by the addition of the word myself; aujto , I myself, the man whom you so despise and calumniate. Comp. Galatians 5:2; Ephesians 3:1; Philemon 19.

In this case the expression is so emphatic that many suppose that Paul here began to write with his own hand; as though he were so excited, that he seized the pen from his amanuensis, and says, ‘I Paul myself now write to you.’ This, however, is unnecessary, and unsustained by any thing in the context. Beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ. That is, the meekness and gentleness which belonged to Christ, and which, therefore, his disciples are bound to imitate. To beseech by (dia> ), is to beseech on account of, or out of regard to. The request is enforced by a reference to the obligation of Christians to be meek and gentle as was their Lord. Matthew 11:29; Isaiah 42:2. In Romans 12:1, we have a similar expression, “I beseech you by the mercies of God.” See Philippians 2:1. The words prao>thv and ejpiei>keia differ very much as our words meekness and gentleness do; the former referring more to the inward virtue, the latter to its outward expression. As Christians are bound to be meek and gentle, Paul begged the Corinthians not to force him to be severe. He describes himself as his opposers described him, as craven when present, and a braggart when absent. Who in presence am base among you. In presence, kata< pro>swpon , coram, before, towards the face of any one, here opposed to ajpw>n , absent. The word tapeino>v , literally, low ; then lowly, humble. It is commonly used in a good sense.

Our Lord says of himself that he was, tapeinoa| , lowly in heart , and his followers are always described as the lowly . But the word also means downcast , as in 7:6, and thence it sometimes expresses depression when it is the effect of the want of courage. This is its meaning here. But being absent am bold towards you . Bold, in the sense opposite to base, or craven. This word also (qarre>w ) is commonly used in a good sense, 5:6. It is only the context which gives it a different shade of meaning. Paul was regarded by his enemies as in heart a coward, and his boldness as merely, assumed when there was no danger to confront. No one (except Ruckert) now believes this. True heroism was never more fully exemplified than in the life of this apostle, who against numbers, wealth and power, always was true to his convictions; who encountered all manner of dangers and sufferings in the service of Christ, and whose whole conduct showed that he was ready not only to be bound, but to die for the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 21:13. 2. But I beseech (you), that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh .

The particle (de> ), but , serves to resume the exhortation in the first clause of v. 1. There it is (parakalw~ uJma~v ) I exhort you, here it is (de>omai ) I beseech. This shows that uJma~v and not qeo>n is to be supplied, as the object of the verb. The sense is, ‘I beseech you ,’ not, ‘I pray God .’ What Paul beseeches of them is, that they would not force him to have recourse to severity. This he expresses by saying, to< mh< parwthat I may not be bold when present . The article (to> ) serves to render the object of the verb more prominent; and parw>n is in the nominative because the subject of both verbs is the same. To be bold , i.e. to act with decision and courage; to exhibit the character which the opponents of the apostle said he assumed only when absent. With the confidence , i.e. with the conviction of his right to exercise the authority which he claimed, and with the consciousness of power to carry his decisions into effect. Wherewith I think ; logi>zomai , which means to reckon, to reason, and then, as here, to purpose. Paul had determined in his own mind that if persuasion failed to bring his opponents to a right state of mind, he would resort to that power with which God had armed him to put down all opposition. The Vulgate gives the word logi>zomai a passive sense, qua existimor , ‘which I am thought, or supposed to assume.’ So Luther, “die man mir zumisset,” which men ascribe to me. Bengel and many other commentators adopt the same interpretation. This has the advantage of giving logi>zomai and the following participle logizome>nouv the same sense. But it is objected to this interpretation that it would require ajpw>n to be used. ‘The confidence wherewith I am thought when absent to assume.’ The common interpretation, therefore, is to be preferred. To be bold. The word is here not qarrh~sai as before, but tolmh~sai , to dare ; to act without fear and without regard to consequences. Paul had determined, if forced to it, to set his opponents at defiance and to act with utter disregard of all they could say or do. The persons against whom he had determined to exercise this severity, were those who think of us , he says, as if we walked according to the flesh . The word flesh sometimes means the body, sometimes it expresses the secondary idea of weakness, sometimes, and most frequently in Paul’s epistles, our corrupt nature. Beza gives it here the second of these meanings. He understands Paul as describing his opponents as those who regarded him as weak and cowardly, or, as invested with nothing more than human powers (non alio praesidio freti, quam quod prae nobis ferimus), so that, as Bengel says, “they may despise us with impunity.” But this is not only inconsistent with the scriptural use of the word “to walk,” which, in its figurative sense, refers to moral deportment, but also with the familiar use of the phrase (kata< sa>rka ), after the flesh . See the next verse, and Romans 8:1,4,5,13.

The persons referred to were those who regarded the apostle not only as an ordinary man, but as acting under the control of his corrupt nature, governed by selfish or malicious feelings, and relying on himself. 3. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh .

There is here, so to speak, a play on the word flesh , which is used in somewhat different senses. Paul did indeed walk in the flesh, he was a man, and a mere man, not only invested with a body, but subject to all the infirmities of human nature; but he did not war after the flesh. What was human and worldly neither determined his conduct, nor was the ground of his confidence. The phrase to be in the flesh has various meanings according to the connection in which it is used. In 1 Timothy 3:15, it is said, “God was manifested in the flesh,” i.e. in human nature. In Romans 8:8,9, to be “in the flesh,” means to be in an unrenewed state.

In Philippians 1:22,24, “to live,” or, “to abide in the flesh,” means to live, or abide, in the body. Here the phrase has substantially the same meaning, but with the accessory idea of weakness and exposure to temptation. ‘Though he was a man, and therefore compassed with the infirmities incident to humanity, yet, Etc.’”Hic,” says Calvin, “Ambulare in carne significat in mundo versari; quod alibi dicit, habitare in corpore (supra 5, 6). Erat enim inclusus in corporis sui ergastulo: sed hoc non impediebat quominus Spiritus sancti virtus mirifice se exsereret in ejus infirmitate.”

Instead of the general expression “to walk,” Paul uses, in the second clause, the more specific term, “to war.” We war not ; ouJ strateu>omeqa .

Strateu>w means to go to war, to make a campaign; strateu>omai means, to serve as a soldier, to fight. The war here referred to, is that which the apostle waged against error and every thing opposed to the gospel. This war, he says, he did not conduct (kata< sa>rka ) after the flesh ; that is, governed by the flesh, or relying on it. He was not guided by the principles of ordinary men, who act under the influence of their corrupt nature; neither did he depend for success on any thing the flesh (i.e. human nature) could afford. He was governed by the Spirit and relied upon the Spirit. “What Paul says of himself, is true of all the faithful ministers of Christ. They bear about an incomparable treasure in earthen vessels.

Therefore, although they are compassed with infirmities, nevertheless the spiritual power of God is resplendent in them.” — Calvin. The connection of this verse, as indicated by the particle ga>r (for ), is either with the middle clause of the preceding verse, ‘I am determined to be bold towards the opponents of the truth, for though I walk in the flesh, I do not war after the flesh;’ or, as is often the case in Paul’s epistles, the ga>r refers to a thought omitted. ‘Some think that I walk after the flesh — that is not true — for though I walk in the flesh, I do not war after it.’ The latter seems the more natural and forcible. 4. (For the weapons of our warfare (are) not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds ).

This proves that the main idea intended by warring after the flesh is warring with human weapons, relying on human resources. In the war in which Paul was engaged, his confidence was not in himself, not in human reason, not in the power of argument or eloquence, not in the resources of cunning or management, but simply and only in the supernatural power of God. ‘We war not after the flesh, for our weapons are not carnal.’ That is, such as the flesh, or human nature, furnishes, and which therefore in their own nature are carnal, or human. By weapons is, of course, to be understood all the means which the apostle employed in the defense and propagation of the truth. Those means, he says, were mighty through God .

The words are dunata< tw|~ qew|~ which are variously explained. Some, as Beza, Grotius and others, give the dative the force of the ablative — mighty by God — afflatu Dei , as Erasmus expresses it. Others regard the expression as a Hebraic superlative. Others say the meaning is, mighty for God, i.e. for his use, weapons which are powerful in his hand. The common explanation is, ‘mighty to God,’ i.e. such means as even God himself regards as mighty; mighty in his estimation. Of Nineveh it is said it was, po>liv mega>lh tw|~ qew|~ a city great to God, a version which strictly answers to the Hebrew. Reference is also made to Acts 7:20, where Moses is said to have been ajstei~ov tw|~ qew|~, beautiful to God , i.e. in his sight; and 2 Peter 3:14. These weapons were divinely powerful to the pulling down of strong holds , proresin ojcurwma>twn. The last word is most appropriately rendered strong holds, as it is from ojcuro>v (from e]cw ) , haltbar , what may be held, what is secure from assault. The opposers of the gospel felt that they were so entrenched, so protected by the fortresses which they occupied, that they despised the ministers of Christ and derided their efforts. What these strong-holds were the apostle tells us in what follows. This verse is properly marked as a parenthesis, not only in our version, but in almost all the critical editions of the Greek Testament, because the grammatical construction of v. 5 connects it immediately with v. 3 5. Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ .

As just intimated, the participle kaqairou~ntev (pulling down ) depends on the verb strateu>omeqa at the end of v. 3. ‘We war — pulling down, etc.’ According to this view v. 3 is parenthetical. Ruckert, De Wette and others, however, on the ground that v. 4 contains the main idea, which is carried out in v. 8, prefer considering the construction of the passage as irregular, the participle being used here as in 9:11, 13. They therefore connect this verse with what immediately precedes. ‘Our weapons are mighty — in that we pull down, etc.’ What the apostle was thus confident he could cast down were imaginations (logismou>v ), thoughts , i.e. the opinions, or convictions of those who set themselves and the deductions of their own reason against the truth of God. Compare 1 Corinthians 1:17-31, and Romans 1:21-23. And every high thing (u[ywma ) every tower, or fortress; the same as ojcu>rwma in v. 4. Not persons, but thoughts, are intended by this figure. It is every thing which the pride of human reason exalts against the knowledge of God ; i.e. that revelation of himself which God has made in the gospel. 1 Corinthians 3:18-20. The conflict to which the apostle here refers is that between truth and error, between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of the world. When the gospel was first proclaimed it found itself in conflict with all the forms of religion and philosophy then prevailing among men. To the wise of this world the gospel appeared as foolishness. It was, however, the wisdom and power of God. The conflict then begun has continued ever since, and is now as deadly as at any former period. Men of science and philosophers are as confident in their conclusions, and as much disposed to exalt themselves, or their opinions against the knowledge of God as ever. There is no doubt as to the issue of this contest. It is a contest between God and man, in which, of course, God must prevail. The instructive lesson which the apostle designs here to inculcate is, that this warfare must not be conducted on the part of the advocates of the gospel, with carnal weapons. They must not rely upon their own resources and attempt to overcome their enemies by argument. They must not become philosophers and turn the gospel into a philosophy. This would be to make it a human conflict on both sides. It would be human reason against human reason, the intellect of one man against the intellect of another man.

Paul told the Corinthians in his former epistle, that he did not appear among them as a philosopher, but as a witness; he came not with the words of man’s wisdom; he did not rely for success on his powers of argument or of persuasion, but on the demonstration of the Spirit. The faith, which he labored to secure, was not to be founded on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God; not on arguments addressed to the understanding, but on the testimony of God. That testimony has the same effect which intuition has. It reveals the truth to the mind and conscience as self-evident; and therefore it cannot be resisted. A rationalistic Christian, a philosophizing theologian, therefore, lays aside the divine for the human, the wisdom of God for the wisdom of men, the infinite and infallible for the finite and fallible. The success of the gospel depends on its being presented, not as the word of man, but as the word of God; not as something to be proved, but as something to be believed. It was on this principle Paul acted, and hence he was in no degree intimidated by the number, the authority, the ability, or the learning of his opponents. He was confident that he could cast down all their proud imaginations, because he relied not on himself but on God whose messenger he was. And bringing into captivity every thought , pajn no>hma , This word means either thought , or the mind , that which thinks. 3:14; 4:4; Philippians 4:7. Hence it may be translated thought, as it is in our version; or as in the Vulgate, “omnem intellectum,” every understanding, and by Luther, “alle Vernunft.” Although the modern commentators make an outcry against this latter translation, it really differs little from the former. It does not matter much whether we say that human reason must be subjected, or that all the products of human reason (every thought) must be subjected. It amounts to the same thing. Both forms of statement are equally true. It is the indispensable condition of salvation that our understanding should be brought into captivity, led submissive, as though bound, into the obedience of Christ, eijv thChrist is conceived of as a place, or fortress, into which the captive is led. The sense is the same as the dative, th~| uJpakoh|~ tou~ Cristou~ , would have expressed. We must renounce dependence on our own understanding and submit implicitly, as obedient children, to the teaching of Christ. He who would be wise, must become a fool. Corinthians 3:18. 6. And having in a readiness to revenge an disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

And having in a readiness; ejn eJtoi>mw| e]contev holding ourselves ready, i.e. being ready. He had the ability and the determination to do what he declares he would do. Compare eJtoi>mwv e]cw , 12:14. The participle e]contev is connected by kai> with kaqairou~ntev of the preceding verse. ‘We war — casting down all that opposes itself — and ready, etc.’ To avenge all disobedience; ejkdikh~sai , to maintain, or to exact justice, or satisfaction, to punish. An disobedience, i.e. every case of disobedience.

The gospel, being the word of God, is divinely efficacious, and is certain ultimately to triumph over all opposition. This, however, does not imply that all will obey it. In the apostolic churches, there were those who corrupted the word of God, Judaizing or philosophizing teachers and their followers, who refused to obey the truth. Such persons Paul announced his ability and his determination to punish. They were in the church, for what, he said in his former epistle, have I to do to judge them that are without? 1 Corinthians 5:12. They had voluntarily submitted themselves to his jurisdiction, and he therefore had a legitimate authority over them. What was the nature of the punishment which he threatened, he does not intimate. It may be that he purposed nothing more than excommunication. The fact, however, that the apostles were armed with supernatural power, that they exercised that power for the punishment of offenders, 1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:20, and the whole tone of the passage are in favor of the assumption that Paul was determined to use all the means at his command to suppress the insolence, and to destroy the power of the corrupters of the truth in Corinth. He gives what he had said a special application by adding, when your obedience is fulfilled. That is, he would not resort to severity until all other means had failed, and until it had become fully manifest who among the Corinthians would submit to God, and who would persist in their disobedience. 7. Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ’s, let him of himself think this again, that, as he (is) Christ’s, even so (are) we Christ’s.

Abrupt transitions are characteristic of this epistle. Paul having in the preceding verses so strongly asserted his apostolic authority and supernatural power, turns to those who denied the validity of his claims, and calls upon them to give a reason for skepticism. He was thus led to vindicate his title to the apostolic office and to his special jurisdiction over the church of Corinth. This vindication extends to 12:18. After which he resumes the subject broached in the preceding verses of this chapter, viz., what he purposed to do when he again visited Corinth. Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? ta< kata< pro>swpon ble>pete . This clause may be taken interrogatively, as by most commentators, or imperatively, or declaratively. If interrogatively, the sense may be, ‘Do ye regard, or take into view, only what is external? Do you judge of me from my personal appearance, manner, and speech?” It would seem that a judgment founded on such grounds as these, led the false teachers to regard the apostle with contempt. Or, the meaning is, ‘Do you regard only external advantages? Such as being a minister of Christ, being a Hebrew, an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, etc.’ 11:22. In favor of this view is the use of pro>swpon in this epistle, 5:12; <471101> 11:1; See also Matthew 22:16; Mark 12:14; the parallel passage in 11:18 (where kata< thrka answers to kata< pro>swpon here): and the context, which goes to show that the things which Paul’s opponents regarded, and on which they prided themselves, were their supposed external advantages. Those who take ble>pete as imperative understand the passage thus: ‘Look at what is before your eyes, i.e. at what is evident to all. If you are thus and so, so am I.’ Calvin and others take the verb as in the indicative. ‘Ye do regard what is external — and therefore despise me.’ The first interpretation, for the reasons stated, is to be preferred. If any man trust to himself . The use of ti>v (any one), in this passage, and of the singular number in vs. 10 and 11, and in 11:4, has led to the conjecture that there was in Corinth one particular opponent of the apostle to whom in this whole context he refers. But it is evident from the general drift of the epistle that it was a whole class of persons who had arrayed themselves against Paul’s authority. Trust to himself , pe>poiqen eJautw|~ , is persuaded concerning himself, that he is Christ’s . What that means is somewhat doubtful. It may be taken in the most general sense, ‘If any thinks that he is a Christian,’ i.e. belongs to Christ as every believer does; or, ‘If any man thinks that he is a minister of Christ;’ or, ‘If any man thinks that he stands in a peculiar relation to Christ.’ It is probable from 1 Corinthians 1:10 that there were certain persons in Corinth who said, ‘We are of Christ,’ as claiming some nearer connection with him than that which belonged to other believers or to other ministers. Whether this claim rested on their having seen Christ in the flesh, or on relationship to his kinsmen, is mere matter of conjecture. Still as the claim existed, it is most likely referred to here. Let him of himself , i.e. without its being suggested by others. The fact was so plain that it needed not to be asserted. Let him think this again , i.e. let him consider the matter again. The last reflection will convince him that as he is Christ’s so are we. There was no relationship which these false teachers could rightfully claim to Christ to which Paul was not equally entitled. They were in no respect his superiors. They had no advantage which did not belong equally to him. 8. For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed .

Paul might have said much more than he had said in what precedes. He was not only all that his opponents claimed to be, but more. He had an authority and power to which they could make no pretensions. He therefore here says that if he had set forth higher claims, he should not be ashamed — facts would not prove those claims to be unfounded. For though , eja>n te ga, for even in case , etc. The connection is with the words “we are Christ’s.”’We are Christ’s in all the senses in which you can claim to be, for we have received more from him.’ The greater includes the less. Somewhat more , perisso>tero>n ti , i.e. somewhat more than was claimed in vs. 3-6, or more than ‘being in Christ,’ which might be said of others as well as of the apostle. Paul had an authority which extended beyond the limits of any claim which he had yet advanced. Exousi>a includes the ideas of power and authority. The apostle had authority (i.e. the right to rule) and he had ability, inherent power, to enforce that authority. Which the Lord hath given (or rather, gave ) to us . The authority in question was given when he was constituted an apostle, with not only a commission to exercise dominion, but a grace, or inward gift of the Spirit, rendering him infallible as a teacher and investing him with supernatural power. The giver of this authority and power was the Lord, i.e. Christ.

Christ, therefore, as the author of supernatural gifts, is a divine person, for to give such gifts is a prerogative of God. The design for which Paul was not endowed, was not his own exaltation, not the accomplishment of any worldly end, not, as he says, “for your destruction,” i.e. not that he might be able to put down his personal enemies, but for edification , i.e. the building up of the church in holiness and peace. Power in the church comes not from the civil magistrate, nor from the people, but from Christ only.

He is, as Calvin says, Solus Dominus et Magister. And this power can be legitimately exercised only for the edification of the church. When exercised for other objects, or for the destruction of the church, then it should be disowned and resisted. Even an apostle, or an angel from heaven, who should preach any other gospel — teach or require any thing contrary to the word of God — would be accursed. And of this contrariety, from the necessity of the case, and from the authority of Scripture, the people, i.e. those who are required to believe and obey, are (at their peril) to be the judges. If they reject a true apostle, their sin is as great as if they gave ear to false teachers. Having the inward teaching of the Spirit, they know of the doctrine whether it be of God. 9. That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters.

The connection of this clause ( i[na mh< do>xw ) is somewhat doubtful. If it belongs immediately to the preceding words, the sense is, ‘I should not be ashamed — in order that I should seem,’ i.e. God would so order it that I should not appear as an empty boaster. But this is evidently unnatural.

The design of God in sustaining the apostle, and giving him a victory over the enemies of the truth, was something higher than preserving him from being regarded as a boaster. A very large number of commentators connect this verse with the 11th, throwing the 10th into a parenthesis. ‘That I may not seem to terrify you — let such an one think, etc.’ But neither in this way is the connection natural or logical; and v. 11 evidently refers to v. 10, and would not be intelligible if that verse were omitted; verse 11, therefore, is not a parenthesis. A clause with i[na , as we have seen before in this epistle, (compare also Galatians 2:10,) often depends on some word or words omitted but easily supplied from the context. In this case we may supply, ‘This I say.’ ‘This I say in order that I may not appear, etc.’ So Luther (“Das sage ich aber”), Beza, and many others. As if I would terrify, wJv a\n ejkfobei~n. This is the only instance in the New Testament where xv after a conjunction is used with the infinitive. Winer resolves it into wJv a\n ejkfoboi~mi uJma~v , tanguam velim vos terrere, which agrees with our translation. These particles serve to soften the expression, and are equivalent to as if perhaps, or, so to speak. There is evident allusion to the false representations made by the false teachers, that Paul wrote in the authoritative tone which he assumed merely to frighten his readers, having neither the power nor the purpose to carry his threats into execution. By letters, or, by letters, i.e. the letters which he had already written or intended to write. 10. For (his) letters, say they, (are) weighty and powerful; but (his) bodily presence (is) weak, and (his) speech contemptible.

There was reason for his not wishing to appear as assuming a tone of threatening in his letters, for this was the very reproach cast upon him. His letters, they say, (fhsi>n> , here, as often, used impersonally, ‘one says,’ sagt man,) are weighty (barei~ai , i.e. impressive) and powerful, (ijscurai> ,) including the ideas of vigor, authority and severity. But his bodily presence is weak. This passage, probably more than any other, has given rise to the impression, in accordance with a tradition neither very ancient nor well sustained, that Paul was small in stature, weak and unattractive in his personal appearance. The words here used, however, even supposing that this language of his enemies expressed the truth, do not necessarily imply this. The phrase hJ parousi>a tou~ sw>matov probably refers not to his personal appearance, but to his deportment. He wrote boldly, but acted feebly. There was not that energy and decision in his acts which one would expect from his language. This was the representation of his enemies; the truth of which, however, the apostle denies. The same remark applies to the next clause, his speech contemptible. This does not refer to feebleness of voice, but to the impression made by his oral instructions and addresses. He dared not assume any such authority in speaking to the people that he did in writing to them. The whole history of the apostle, his unceasing labors, his constant journeyings, his innumerable sufferings which he sustained so heroically, prove that he was not physically a main of feeble constitution.

And his own declarations, as well as his clearly revealed character, prove that there was no such want of correspondence between his letters and his actions as the false teachers in Corinth, to whom he was probably personally unknown, endeavored to make the people believe. 11. Let such an one think this, that such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such (will we be) also in deed when we are present . Let such an one , i.e. any one, not necessarily implying that there was only one person who had set himself up in opposition to the apostle. That such as we are in word , etc. It was admitted that his letters were energetic. He assures them that, when present, his deeds would correspond to his words. His denunciations would not prove idle threats. 12. For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise .

In confirmation of his declaration that his acts would be found to correspond with his words, he adds, ‘For I am not like those, who having nothing to recommend them, commend themselves.’ We dare not (ouj tolmw~men , we cannot bring ourselves to, or, we cannot prevail on ourselves to. Romans 5:7; 1 Corinthians 6:1) make ourselves of the number , or compare ourselves ; (ejgkri~nai h\ sugkri~nai , enroll ourselves among, or place ourselves by,) some who commend themselves . The reference is obviously to the false teachers, whose only reliance was self-laudation. So far this verse is plain. The latter part of the passage is exceedingly difficult, and has been very variously explained. There are three classes of interpretation, two of which proceed on the assumption of the correctness of the common text, and the third is founded on a different reading. According to the first general view, the aujtoi< refers to the apostle himself. He is assumed to contrast himself, in this verse, with his opponents. The sense, according to some then is, ‘They commend themselves, but we, measuring ourselves by ourselves, (i.e. we do not overestimate ourselves, but determine our importance by our performances,) and comparing ourselves with ourselves, not with these wise men.’ According to this view, sunia~sin , at the end of the verse, is a participle, and is used ironically in reference to the false teachers. To this interpretation it is objected, 1. That sunia~sin would require the article in orderto express the meaning given to it; and 2. That it is plainly inconsistent with the hJmei~v de> of the next verse, which are antithetical to the aujtoi< of this verse. ‘They do so — but we do so.’ Others, who make the latter part of this verse refer to the apostle, refer sunia~sin , also to him. ‘We measure ourselves by ourselves, and compare ourselves with ourselves, we who, as they say, are unwise.’

Then the hJmei>v de> of verse 13th refers to this last clause. ‘They say we are unwise, but we, etc.’ This, however, is liable to the same objections, and gives a sense unsuited to the context. According to the second interpretation, aujtoi< in this verse refers to the false teachers, with whom, in the next verse, Paul contrasts himself, (hJmei~v de> ,) and sunia~sin is the third person plural, as from the verb sunie>w , as in Matthew 13:13. ‘They measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves with themselves, are not wise; but we, etc.’ This is the view of the passage adopted by our translators, after Chrysostom, Calvin, and Luther. It is also sanctioned by De Wette, Meyer, and Ruckert, and many others.

These false teachers commended themselves confined their views to themselves, despised or disregarded all others, intruding into other men’s labors. Paul, on the contrary, boasted not of himself; he relied only on God and his grace, and he kept himself within his own limits, not appropriating to himself the fruits of the labors of other men. The third mode of interpreting this passage assumes that the text afforded by the Western, as distinguished from the Eastern manuscripts, is correct. Those authorities omit ouj suniou~si , hJmei~v de> , so that aujtoi> (hJmei~v ) is the nominative to kauchso>meqa in v. 13, if that verb be retained. ‘They commend themselves; but we, measuring ourselves by ourselves, and comparing ourselves with ourselves, will not boast as to things beyond our measure.’

Fritsche and Billroth, on the authority of the Codex Clarom., omit also kauchso>meqa , and connect the participles metzou~ntev and sugkri>nontev with kaucw>menoi of v. 15 thus bringing out substantially the same sense, but rendering the sentence longer and more complicated.

The meaning afforded by this new reading is simple and pertinent. Since, however, the critical authorities by which it is supported are comparatively few and of a secondary class, the great body of editors adhere to the common text. If that text is correct, then the interpretation given in our English version is the most natural and suitable. Calvin applies this whole passage, with his usual vigor, to the monks of his day. Hujus loci expositio non aliunde petenda est quam a monachis: nam quum sint omnes fere indoctissimi asini, et tamen oblongae vestis et cuculli causa docti censeantur: si quis tenuem modo gustum elegantioris literaturae habeat, plumas suas instar pavonis fastuose extendit: spargitur de eo mirabilis fama, adoratur inter sodales. At si seposita cuculli larva ventum fuerit ad justum examen, deprehenditur vanitas. Cur hoc? Verum quidem est vetus proverbium: Audax inscitia: sed inde praecipue monachalis insolentissimus ille fastus, quod se metiuntur ex se ipsis: nam quum in eorum claustris nihil sit praeter barbariem, illic nihil mirum, si regnet luscus inter caecos. 13. But we will not boast of things without (our) measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you.

The words eijv ta< a]metra may be taken adverbially, equivalent to ajme>trwv, immoderately, beyond what is proper; or, since in the latter part of the verse, me>tron is used literally, they may be explained as in our version, in reference to things beyond our measure, i.e. beyond the limits of my apostolic labors. This idea is clearly presented in the following verses; but here the contrast with the preceding verse favors the former explanation. The false teachers set no limits to their boasting — self-conceit and not facts determined the character and amount of their assumptions, and therefore their claims were inordinate. Paul expresses his determination to limit his claims to his actual gifts and labors. According to the measure of the rule, kata< to< me>tron tou~ kano>nov , i.e. according to the measure determined by the rule, or line, that is, the measure allotted to him. The kanw>n is the rule, or measuring line, which, so to speak, God used in determining the apostle’s gifts and sphere of activity. Paul’s boasting, therefore, was not immoderate, but confined to just limits.

According to Beza kanw>n is used metonymically for that which is measured; certum et definitum spatium; the district or diocese measured off to him. But this is not consistent with the ordinary meaning of the word, or with the context. Which God hath distributed to us; ou= ejme>risen hJmi~n oJ qeotrou, for me>trou oJ ejme>risen oJ qeo>v by attraction. This clause is in apposition with kano>nov , and explains what was the rule or line which determined the sphere of his activity. It was not something self-assumed, or self-applied, but something which God had appointed; a measure, he adds, to reach even unto you. It is agreeable to Paul’s manner to include two or more related ideas in the same form of expression. To boast according to the measure assigned him, may mean to regulate his boasting according to his gifts; or, to boast in reference to what was done within the limits assigned him in preaching the gospel. Both ideas are here united. In opposition to the false teachers, who not only boasted of gifts which they did not possess, but appropriated to themselves the fruits of other men’s labors by intruding into churches which they had not founded, Paul says he did neither one nor the other.

His boasting was neither immoderate, nor was it founded on what others had done. He invaded no man’s sphere of labor. It was his settled purpose to preach the gospel where Christ had not been named, and not to build on another man’s foundation. Romans 15:20. Acting on this principle he had the right to regard Corinth as legitimately within his field. His assigned limit of labor reached at least that far. He had founded the church in that city; others had built thereon. 1 Corinthians 3:10. The Corinthians were his work in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 9:1. Over them, therefore, if over no others, he had the authority of an apostle. It is plain, on the one hand, from the New Testament that the apostles had a general agreement among themselves as to their several fields of labor. Paul was to go to the Gentiles; Peter, James and John to the Jews. Galatians 2:9. But it is no less plain that they were not confined to any prescribed limits. They had not, as modern bishops or pastors, each his particular dioceses or parish.

As their authority did not arise from their election or appointment to a particular church or district, but from their plenary knowledge, infallibility, and supernatural power, it was the same everywhere, and in relation to all churches. Hence we find Paul writing to the church in Rome which he had never visited, as well as to others who had never seen his face in the flesh, with the same authority with which he addressed churches which he had himself planted. Peter addressed his epistles to churches within Paul’s sphere of labor; and, according to all tradition, St.

John presided during the latter years of his life over the churches in Asia Minor, founded by the apostle to the Gentiles. Still it was a matter of courtesy that one apostle should not intrude unnecessarily upon the sphere already occupied by another. Paul, at least, determined that he would not build upon another man’s foundation. 14. For we stretch not ourselves beyond (our measure), as though we reached not unto you; for we are come as far as to you also in (preaching) the gospel of Christ .

This verse is generally regarded as a parenthesis, although some commentators make it the beginning of a new sentence. It is logically connected with the last clause of v. 13. ‘God assigned us a measure extending to you, for not, as not reaching to you, do we unduly stretch ourselves out;’ uJperektei>nomen eJautou>v , do we overstretch ourselves .

The present tense is used, because the reference is to the sphere of the apostle’s authority. For we have come as far as you , (ejfqa>samen .) ‘Our authority extends to you, for we have come to you in preaching the gospel.’ That is, Corinth was included in the region throughout which he had been the first to preach Christ. The word fqa>nw properly means, to come, or be, beforehand; to anticipate; and then, in the aorist, to have come already. See Matthew 12:28; Philippians 3:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:16. This sense may be retained here. ‘We have already come even unto you.’ He had already reached them and expected soon to reach beyond them; see v. 16. 15. Not boasting of things without (our) measure, (that is), of other men’s labors; but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you, according to our rule abundantly.

If verse 14 is parenthetical, then this verse is connected with the 13th. ‘We will boast according to our measure — not boasting immoderately.’ Of other men’s labors . This is explanatory of the eijv ta< a]metra . He did not boast of what other men had done. If the connection is with the 14th verse, the participle kaucw>menoi most naturally depends on ouj uJperek tei>nomen , ‘We do not stretch ourselves unduly — not boasting, etc.’ The reproach to the false teachers here implied is of course obvious. They had done what Paul refused to do. They came to Corinth after the church had been gathered, assumed an authority to which they were not entitled, and endeavored to destroy the influence of the apostle to whom the church owed its existence, and the people their hope of salvation. Jam, says Calvin, liberius pungit pseudo-apostolos, qui quum in alienam messem manus intulissent, audebant tamen iis obtrectare, qui sudore ac industria locum illis paraverant. But having hope , when your faith is increased. This clause the Vulgate renders, ‘Habentes spem crescentis fidei vestrae.’ This interpretation the words aujxanome>nhv th~v pi>stewv (your faith being increased ) do not admit. Corinth was not the limit which Paul had fixed for his field of labor.

He had the purpose, as soon as the state of the Corinthians would allow of his leaving them. That we shall be enlarged by you , ejn uJmi~n megalunqh~nai , Luther, Calvin, Beza, and others, connect ejn uJmi~n with the preceding clause —’Your faith being increased among you.’ Beza says this is required by the opposite clause, as the advantage was mutual. They were to grow in faith among themselves, he was to enlarge his boundaries.

But in this case the words ejn uJmi~n are redundant. They belong to the following word, and are to be rendered either by you , or, among you . This depends on the sense given to megalunqh~nai . This word is used either literally, as in Matthew 23:5, “They make broad their phylacteries;” or figuratively, as in Luke 1:58, “The Lord hath made great his mercy toward her.” In every other case where it occurs in the New Testament it means to praise, to declare great. Luke 1:46, “My soul doth magnify the Lord.” So in Acts 5:13; 10:46; 19:17; Philippians 1:20. This meaning of the word is very commonly retained here. ‘I hope to be honored by you abundantly.’ But the object of the apostle’s hope was neither to be glorified by them, nor among them. Besides, the following clause (‘according to our rule’) does not agree with this interpretation. The word, therefore, is to be taken in its more literal sense —’He hoped to be enlarged abundantly (eijv perissei>an ) according to his rule.’ That is, he hoped to preach the gospel far beyond Corinth, agreeably to the line of action marked out for him. The ejn uJmi~n may then be rendered, vobis adjuvantibus. They would aid Paul in his future labors. The same idea is brought out by rendering the clause thus, ‘To become great among you as to that which is beyond.’ 16. To preach the gospel in the (regions) beyond you, (and) not to boast in another man’s line of things made ready to our hand.