The apostle apologizes for the self-commendation which was forced upon him, vs. 1-15. He contrasts himself and his labors with the assumptions of the false teachers, vs. 15-33.

REASONS FOR HIS SELF-COMMENDATION, VS 1-15.

He had just condemned all self-commendation, yet he was forced to do what had the appearance of self-laudation. The Corinthians were in danger of being turned away from Christ by having their confidence in Paul undermined by the misrepresentations of his enemies. It was therefore necessary for him to present the grounds which he had for claiming authority over them, and for asserting his superiority over his opponents.

Yet so repugnant was this task to his feelings, that he not only humbly apologizes for thus speaking of himself, but he finds it difficult to do what he felt must be done. He over and over begins what he calls his boasting, and immediately turns aside to something else. He begs them to bear with him while he proceeds to praise himself, v. 1, for his doing so sprang from the purest motive, love for them and anxiety for their welfare, vs. 2, 3. An anxiety justified by the readiness with which they bore with those who preached another gospel, v. 4. He thus spoke because he was on a par with the chief apostles, and not behind those who among them claimed to be his superiors, v. 5. They might have higher pretensions as orators, but in knowledge and in every thing that really pertained to the apostolic office he was abundantly manifest among them, v. 6. His refusal to avail himself of his right to be supported by those to whom he preached was no offense to them, and no renunciation of his apostleship, vs. 7-9. He was determined to refuse any pecuniary aid from the Christians in Achaia, not because he did not love them, but because he wished to cut off all occasion to question his sincerity from those who sought such occasion, and because he desired to put the false teachers to the same test of disinterestedness, vs. 10-12. These teachers claimed to be apostles, though they had no more right to the office, than Satan had to be regarded as an angel of light, vs. 13-15. 1. Would to God ye could bear with me a little in (my) folly: and indeed bear with me .

The self-commendation of the false teachers was the fruit of conceit and vanity; with the apostle it was self-vindication. Although so different in character and design, they had one element in common. Both included self-laudation. Both, therefore, are designated by the same word, boasting; and both, therefore, he calls ajfrosu>nh , a want of sense. Would to God , in the Greek simply, o]felon , oh that, I would . In fact, however, every such exclamation is, in the pious mind, a prayer; and, therefore, the rendering, ‘I would to God,’ is neither irreverent nor inaccurate. Oh that ye could bear with me , (ajnei>cesqe , Hellenistic form, instead of hjnei>cesqe .) The pronoun mou~ properly belongs to the verb, and not to the following mikro>n ti , as if the sense were, a little of my folly . The meaning is, ‘Bear with me (mikro>n ti ajfrosu>nhv ), as to a little of folly.’ This reading is, on the authority of the majority of MSS., adopted by the later editors.

Knapp and others read, mikronh , a little as to folly; Which amounts to the same thing. And indeed bear with me . So Calvin, Beza, and many others, who take ajne>cesqe as the imperative. This clause is then a repetition of the first, only more vehemently expressed. The former is a wish, the latter a supplication or demand. But the context does not require this vehemence. A more appropriate sense is afforded by taking the word in the indicative, ‘But indeed ye do bear with me;’ i.e. the request is not necessary, I know you are disposed to suffer me to speak as I see fit. 2. For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that may present (you as) a chaste virgin to Christ .

This is the reason either why they should bear with him, or why he was assured that they would do so. That is, the connection is either with the first and principal clause of v. 1, or with the latter clause. It makes but little difference. The sense is better if the connection is with the first clause. ‘Bear with my folly — for I am jealous over you.’ Zhlw~ gaw may mean, I ardently love, or more specifically, I am jealous. The latter, as the figure of marriage is used, is probably the sense in which the apostle uses the word. With godly jealousy ; zh~lov qeou~ may mean a zeal of which God is the object, as in Romans 10:2; comp. John 2:17. In that case Paul intends to say that the feeling which he had for the Corinthians was a pious feeling. It was no selfish or mercenary interest, but such as arose from his desire to promote the honor of God.

Or, the meaning is, a zeal of which God is the author; or, a zeal which God approves; or, the zeal which God has. As the people of God are so often represented in the Bible as standing to God in a relation analogous to that of a wife to a husband, so God is represented as being jealous, i.e. moved to deep displeasure when they transfer their love to another object. Isaiah 54:5; 62:5; Ezekiel 16; Hosea 2. In this view, the apostle means to say, that he shares in the feeling which God is represented as entertaining towards his church. The translation given in the English version includes all the meanings above mentioned; for a godly jealousy (or zeal) is a pious zeal, it is a zeal of which God is both the object and the author, and it is such a zeal as he has. For I have espoused you to one husband. It was natural for the apostle to feel this jealousy over them, for he stood in a most intimate relation to them. Their union with Christ was his work. 1 Corinthians 4:15; <460901> 9:1. He may compare himself in this verse to a father who gives his daughter to the bridegroom. To this it is objected that Paul became the father of the Corinthians by their conversion; whereas the relation here referred to subsisted before their conversion or espousal to Christ. It is commonly assumed that the allusion is to the office of “the friend of the bridegroom,” John 3:29, (paranu>mfiov ) whose business it was to select the bride, to be responsible for her conduct, and to present her to the bridegroom. In this sense Moses was called paranu>mfiov by the Rabbis, as it was through him the people entered into covenant with God. In either way the sense is the same. Paul’s relation was so intimate with the Corinthians as the author of their espousals to Christ, that he could not fail to feel the deepest interest in their fidelity. I have espoused you. The verb aJrmo>zw in the active voice is used of the father who betroths his daughter; in the passive of the bride who is betrothed; in the middle voice it is generally used of the man who pledges himself to a woman. The middle form, however, is sometimes used, as in this verse, (hJrmosa>mhn ,) in the active sense. To one husband. The marriage relation from its nature is exclusive.

It can be sustained only to one man. So the relation of the church, or of the believer, to Christ is in like manner exclusive. We can have but one God and Savior. Love to him of necessity excludes all love of the same kind to every other being. Hence the apostle says he had espoused (betrothed) them to one man. This was done in order, in due time, to present them as a chaste virgin unto Christ. As in Ephesians 5:27, this presentation of the church to Christ as his bride, is said to take place at his second coming, this passage is commonly understood to refer to that event. Paul’s desire was that the Corinthians should remain faithful to their vows, so as to be presented to Christ a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle, on that great day. He dreaded lest they should, in that day, be rejected and condemned as a woman unfaithful to her vows. 3. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

The apostle adheres to his figure. Though they were betrothed to Christ, he feared that their affections might be seduced from him and fixed on some other object. Men are not jealous until their apprehensions are excited. They must have some reason, either real or imaginary, for suspecting the fidelity of those they love. The ground of the apostle’s jealousy was his fear. He feared (mh>pwv ) lest peradventure. They had not yet turned aside, but there was great danger that they might yield to the seductions to which they were exposed. There was one standing example and warning both of the inconstancy of the human heart, and of the fearful consequences of forsaking God. Eve was created holy, she stood in paradise in the perfection of her nature, with every conceivable motive to secure her fidelity. Yet by the subtility of Satan she fell. What reason then have we to fear who are exposed to the machinations of the same great seducer. As the serpent beguiled Eve; i.e. Satan in the form of a serpent. The serpent, i.e. the well-known serpent of which Moses speaks. The New Testament writers thus assume, and thereby sanction, the historical verity of the Old Testament record. The account of the temptation as recorded in Genesis is regarded by the inspired writers of the New Testament not as a myth, or as an allegory, but as a true history. Comp. 1 Timothy 2:14; Revelation 12:9,15. Beguiled, ejxhpa>thsen , thoroughly deceived. All seduction is by means of deception. Sin is in its nature deceit. The imagination is filled with false images, and the foolish heart is darkened. Eve was thus deceived by the subtilty of Satan. She was made to disbelieve what was true, and to believe what was false. Man’s belief, in a very large sphere, is determined by his feelings. The heart controls the understanding. The good believe the true; the evil believe the untrue. This is the reason why men are accountable for their faith, and why the wicked are led captive by Satan into all manner of error. Eve was deceived by exciting unholy feelings in her heart. Paul’s apprehension was lest the Corinthians, surrounded by false teachers, the ministers of Satan, should in like manner be beguiled. What he feared was that their minds should be corrupted . It was a moral perversion, or corruption, that he apprehended. Your minds , ta< noh>mata uJmw~n , The word no>hma means first thought ; then that which thinks, the understanding; and then, the affections or dispositions. Philippians 4:7. Our translation, “your minds,” as including the idea both of thought and feeling, is the most appropriate rendering. Corrupted from , is a pregnant expression, meaning corrupted so as to be turned from. The simplicity that is in Christ ; ajpo< th~v aJplo>thtov th~v eijv ton , ‘from singleness of mind towards Christ.’ That is, the undivided affection and devotion to Christ which is due from a bride to her spouse. The allusion to the marriage relation is kept up. Paul had compared the Corinthians to a virgin espoused to one man, and he feared lest their affections might be seduced from Christ and transferred to another. 4. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or (if) ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with (him).

There are two entirely different views of the meaning of this verse, depending on the view taken of the connection. If the association of ideas is with the preceding verse, so that this passage assigns the reason of the fear there expressed, the meaning is, ‘I am afraid concerning you, for if a false teacher comes and preaches another gospel, you readily bear with him.’ It is a reproof of their credulity and easiness of persuasion to forsake the truth, analogous to that administered to the Galatians. Galatians 4:6-8; 5:8. But if this verse is connected with the main subject as presented in v. 1, then the sense is, ‘Bear with me, for if a false teacher preaches another gospel you bear with him.’ This is to be preferred, not only because the sense is better as more consistent with the context, but also because ajne>comai means to endure, to put up with , and supposes that the thing endured is in itself repulsive. In this sense the word is used twice in v. 1, and should be so taken here. ‘If a man preaches a new Christ ye would put up with his self-laudation, therefore, you should put up with mine.’ The proper force of the verb (ajne>comai ) is also against the interpretation given by Chrysostom and followed by many later commentators. ‘If any one really preached another gospel (i.e. communicated to you another method of salvation), you would do well to bear with him and receive him gladly.’ But all this is foreign to the context.

The thing to be endured, was something hard to put up with. It was what the apostle calls folly. For if he that cometh , oJ ejrco>menov , the comer , any one who happens to come. The reference is not to any one well known false teacher, but to a whole class. Preaches another Jesus ; not another Savior, but another person than the son of Mary whom we preached. That is, if he sets forth some other individual as the true deliverer from sin. Or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received . The gift of the Holy Ghost was secured by the work of Christ. He redeemed us from the curse of the law — in order that we might receive the promise of the Spirit. Galatians 3:13,14. The indwelling of the Spirit, therefore, as manifested by his sanctifying and miraculous power, was the great evidence of the truth of the gospel. Hence the apostle, to convince the Galatians of the folly of apostasy to Judaism, says, “This only would I learn of you. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” Galatians 3:2; and in Hebrews 2:4, he says, God bore witness to the gospel by the gifts of the Holy Ghost. The apostle here supposes the impossible case that a like confirmation had attended the preaching of the false teachers. ‘If,’ he says, ‘they preach another (a]llov ) Jesus, and in proof that he is truly a Savior, ye receive a different (e[terov ) spirit, i.e. a spirit whose manifestations were of a different kind from those of the Spirit who attests my preaching,’ etc. Or another (e[terov , a different) gospel, which ye have not accepted . In the former clause the verb ejla>bete (ye received), in the latter ejde>xasqe (ye accepted), because, as Bengel says, Non concurrit voluntas hominis in accipiendo Spiritu, ut in recipiendo evangelio. That is, man is passive in receiving the spirit, and active in accepting the gospel. Ye might well bear with him. The word is ajnei>cesqe in the imperfect.

The tense which the context would seem to demand is the present, ajne>cesqe , a reading which Lachmann and Ruckert, on the authority of the MS. B, have introduced into the text. The other leading verbs of the verse are in the present, ‘If one preaches another Jesus, and ye receive another Spirit, and accept another gospel, (in that case,) ye do bear with him.’

Instead, however, of saying, ‘ye do bear with him,’ the apostle is supposed purposely to soften the expression by saying, ‘ye might well bear with him;’ the particle ajn being, as often, understood. In this way he avoids the direct charge of tolerating the conceited boasting of the false teachers. Others, as Meyer and Winer, assume an irregularity, or change of construction. 5. For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.

The sense here again depends on the connection. If the ga>r refers to v. 4, the reference must be (as so often occurs in Paul’s writings) to a thought omitted. ‘Ye are wrong in thus bearing with the false teachers, for I am equal to the chief apostles.’ This, however, is not in harmony with the context. Paul’s design is not so much to reprove the Corinthians for tolerating the folly of the false teachers, as to induce them to bear with his.

He felt it to be necessary to vindicate himself, and he therefore prays them to bear with him a little in his folly. To this point every thing here refers.

They should thus bear with him. 1. Because he was jealous over them with a godly jealousy. 2. Because they would bear with any who really preached another gospel, were that possible. 3. Because he was on a part with the chief apostles. The connection, therefore, is not with v. 4, but with the main subject as presented in v. 1.

This also determines the question, Who are meant by the chiefest apostles? If the connection is with v. 4, then the expression is to be understood ironically in reference to the false teachers. ‘Ye do wrong to tolerate them, for I am in no respect behind those superlative apostles.’ So Beza, Billroth, Olshausen, Meyer, and the majority of the moderns. The reason given for this is, that there is no controversy with the true apostles in this connection, and therefore nothing to call for such an assertion of his equality with them as we find in Galatians 2:6-11. There is, however, no force in this reason if the connection is with v. 1. ‘Bear with me in my boasting, for I am not behind the chiefest apostles.’ In this view the reference to the true apostles is pertinent and natural. Paul says, mhdenai, that as to nothing, in no one respect, had he fallen short, or was he left behind by the chiefest apostles, neither in gifts, nor in labors, nor in success had any one of them been more highly favored, nor more clearly authenticated as the messenger of Christ. He was therefore fully entitled to all the deference and obedience which were due to the chiefest apostles. The expression tw~n uJperli>an ajposto>lwn , is not in itself bitter or ironical. This is a force which must be given by the connection; it does not lie in the words themselves. It is not equivalent to the yeudapo>stoloi of v. 13, and therefore there is no more reason why the true apostles should not be called oiJ uJperli>an ajpo>stoloi than oiJ dokou~ntev ei+nai> ti in Galatians 2:6. The argument, therefore, which the Reformers derived from this passage against the primacy of Peter is perfectly legitimate. Paul was Peter’s equal in every respect, and so far from being under his authority, he not only refused to follow his example but reproved him to this face. Galatians 2:11. 6. But though (I be) rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been thoroughly made manifest among you in all things.

In Corinth, where Grecian culture was at its height, it had been urged as an objection to Paul that he did not speak with the wisdom of words. Corinthians 1:17. He was no rhetorician, and did not appear in the character of an orator. This he here, as in the former epistle, concedes. If that were an objection, he had no answer to make other than that his dependence was on the demonstration of the Spirit, and not the persuasive words of man’s wisdom. 1 Corinthians 2:4. Eij de< kai> is concessive. ‘But if, as is true, I am rude in speech;’ ijdiw>thv tw|~ lo>gw|~ , untrained, or unskillful in speech. The word ijdiw>thv means a private person as opposed to a patrician; an uneducated, or unskillful man, as opposed to those who were specially trained for any service or work, corporeal or mental. What Paul concedes is not the want of eloquence, of which his writings afford abundant evidence, but of the special training of a Grecian.

He spoke Greek as a Jew. It is not improbable that some of his opponents in Corinth, although themselves of Hebrew origin, prided themselves on their skill in the use of the Greek language, and made the apostle’s deficiency in that respect a ground of disparagement. But not in knowledge .

He was no ijdiw>thv th~| gnw>sei . Having been taught the gospel by immediate revelation from Christ, Galatians 2:12, he had complete possession of that system of truth which it was the object of the apostleship to communicate to men. He therefore everywhere asserts his competency as a teacher instructed of God and entitled to full credence and implicit confidence. 1 Corinthians 2:6-11; Ephesians 3:4,5. But we have been thoroughly made manifest among you in all things . In this clause, after fanerwqe>ntev , ejsme>n is to be supplied; ejn panti< rendered thoroughly , is in every point, or in every respect; ejn pa~sin , in all things , so that in every point in all departments he was manifest, i.e. clearly known; eijv uJma~v , as it concerns you, (not among you, which would require ejn uJmi~n ). So far from being deficient in knowledge, he stood clearly revealed before them as thoroughly furnished in every respect and in all things as an apostle of Jesus Christ. In nothing did he fall behind the very chief of the apostles. Luther’s translation of this clause is, Doch ich bin bei euch allenthalben wohl bekannt. It is in this view a correction of what goes before. ‘I am not deficient in knowledge. Yet I am in all respects perfectly known by you; there is no need to tell you what I am.’ Beza and Olshausen give the same explanation. This, however, does not agree with what follows in the next verse. Others again, understand the apostle is here asserting his well established character for purity of purpose and conduct. ‘My whole conduct is perfectly open and straightforward for you to see.’

There is, however, no impeachment of his conduct referred to in the context, and therefore no call for this general assertion of integrity. It is better to restrict the passage to the point immediately in hand. ‘He was not behind the chief apostles; but although rude in speech, he was not deficient in knowledge, and was manifest before them in all things, i.e. in all things pertaining to the apostolic office.’ Instead of fanerwqe>ntev the MSS. B, F, G, 17, read fanerw>santev , which Lachmann, Ruckert and Tischendorf adopt. This alters the whole sense. The meaning most naturally then is, ‘I am not deficient in knowledge, but have manifested it in every point in all things.’ The majority of critical editors retain the common text, which gives a sense equally well suited to the connection. 7. Have I committed an offense in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely ?

Our version omits the particle h] (or ), which is necessary to indicate the connection. Paul was clearly manifested as an apostle. ‘Or ,’ he asks, ‘is it an objection to my apostleship that I have not availed myself of the right of an apostle to be supported by those to whom I preach? Have I sinned in this respect?’ Comp. 1 Corinthians 9:4-15. Have I committed an offense in abasing myself ; ejmautohumbling myself by renouncing a privilege which was my due. Comp. Philippians 4:12. It was an act of self-humiliation that Paul, though entitled to be supported by the people, sustained himself in great measure by the labor of his own hands. I humbled myself, he says, that ye might be exalted , that is, for your good. It was to promote their spiritual interests that he wrought at the trade of a tent-maker. Because I preached unto you the gospel of God freely ? This clause, beginning with o[ti , is exegetical of the preceding. ‘Have I sinned humbling myself, i.e. have I sinned because I preached freely?’ (dwrea>n , gratuitously). It is clearly intimated in 1 Corinthians 9, that Paul’s refusing to be supported by the Corinthians was represented by his enemies as arising from the consciousness of the invalidity of his claim to the apostleship. As they had no other objection to him, he asks whether they were disposed to urge that. 8. I robbed other churches, taking wages (of them), to do you service.

To rob is to take with violence what does not belong to us. It is therefore only in a figurative sense the word is here used. What Paul received from other (i.e. the Macedonian) churches, he was fully entitled to, and it was freely given. The only point of comparison or analogy was that he took from them what the Corinthians ought to have contributed. Taking wages (labwion ), or a stipend. To do you service, proan, for your ministry. This expresses the object of his receiving assistance from others. It was that he might minister gratuitously to them. 9. And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all (things) I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and (so) will I keep (myself).

It is plain from this verse that when Paul went to Corinth, he took with him a supply of money derived from other churches, which he supplemented by the proceeds of his own labor; and when his stock was exhausted the deficiency was supplied by the brethren from Macedonia. And when I was present (parwrkhsa oujdeno>v ), I was chargeable to no man, literally, ‘I pressed as a dead weight upon no one,’ i.e. I was burdensome to no one. The verb here used is derived from na>rkh, torpor, hence narka>w , to be torpid The compound katanarka>w , to be torpid against any one, (to press heavily upon him,) is found only here and in 12:13, 14. In confirmation of the assertion that he had been chargeable to no man he adds, for that which was lacking to me (to< uJste>rhma> mou , my deficiency,) the brethren which came from Macedonia (rather, ‘the brethren having come from Macedonia,’) supplied; prosaneplh>rwsan , a double compound verb, to supply in addition. The contribution of the churches were added to what Paul earned by his labor, or, to his diminished stock which he had brought with him to Corinth. The point on which he here dwells is not that he labored for his own support, but that he received assistance from other churches, while he refused to receive any thing from the Corinthians. His conduct in reference to receiving aid varied with circumstances. From some churches he received it without hesitation; from others he would not receive it at all. He said to the Ephesians, “I coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me,” Acts 20:34,35. So also to the Thessalonians he said, “Ye remember, brethren, our labor and travail: for laboring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God,” 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8. Among the Corinthians he adopted the same course. Acts 18:3; 1 Corinthians 9:15-18. Whereas from the Philippians he received repeated contributions, not only while laboring among them, but as he reminds them, “Even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity,” Philippians 4:16; and when a prisoner in Rome they sent by the hands of Epaphroditus an abundant supply, so that he said, “I have all, and abound,” Philippians 4:18. It was therefore from no unwillingness to receive what he knew to be due by the ordinance of Christ, (viz., an adequate support,) 1 Corinthians 9:14, but simply, as he says, to cut off occasion from those who sought occasion. He was unwilling that his enemies should have the opportunity of imputing to him any mercenary motive in preaching the gospel. This was specially necessary in Corinth, and therefore the apostle says, ‘In all things (ejn panti> , in every thing, not only in pecuniary matters, but in every thing else,) I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and will keep myself.’ He would receive no obligation at their hands. He was determined to assume towards them a position of entire independence. This was doubtless very painful to the faithful in Corinth.

They could not but regard it as a proof either of the want of love or of the want of confidence on his part. Still his determination as to this point was settled, and he therefore adds solemnly in the next verse: 10. As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia.

Calvin, Beza, and others, understand this as an oath, or asseveration. Our translators adopted the same view, and therefore supply the word as, which is not in the Greek. This interpretation is not required by the text or context. The words are simply, ‘The truth (ajlh>qeia the veracity, truthfulness) of Christ, (i.e. the veracity which pertains to Christ, and which Christ produces,) is in me.’ That is, in virtue of the veracity which Christ has produced in me, I declare, that (o[ti , which our translators omit,) no man shall stop me of this boasting . Literally, ‘This boasting shall not be stopped as to me.’ The word is fragh>setai , which in the New Testament is only used in reference to the mouth. Romans 3:19; Hebrews 11:33. ‘This boasting as to me shall not have its mouth stopped.’ In all the regions of Achaia ; not in Corinth only, but in all that part of Greece not included in Macedonia. From the Macedonians he was willing to receive aid; from the Christians of Achaia he would not. The reason for this distinction he states negatively and affirmatively in the following verses. 11, 12. Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth. But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we .

That his purpose not to receive aid from the Corinthians did not, as it might seem, arise from want of love to them he solemnly declares. The expression “God knows” in the lips of the apostle, it need not be remarked, implies no irreverence. It is a pious recognition of the omniscience of God, the searcher of all hearts, to whom he appeals as the witness of the strength of his affection for his people. The true reason for his determination to continue to do as he had already done, was, as he says, That I may cut off occasion from them that desire occasion . That is, that I may avoid giving those who desire to impeach my motives any pretense for the charge that I preach the gospel for the sake of gain. It is plain from 1 Corinthians 9:15-18, that this was his motive in refusing to receive aid from the Corinthians; and that his special kau>chma or ground of boasting, was that he preached the gospel gratuitously. He said he would rather die than that any man should take from him that ground of confidence. This of course implies that the purity of his motives had been assailed, and that his object in making “the gospel of Christ without charge” was to stop the mouths of his accusers. That wherein they glory .

This clause (with i[na ) depends on the immediately preceding one. He desired to cut off occasion from those seeking it, in order that, if they chose to boast, they may be found even as we . That is, he wished to force them to be as disinterested as he was. According to this interpretation, ejn w|= , in the phrase ejn w=| kaucw~ntai , does not refer to any special ground of boasting, but to the general disposition. ‘Inasmuch as they were so fond of boasting and of setting themselves up as apostles, they may be forced to give over making gain of the gospel.’

Calvin, Grotius, Ruckert, and others, assume that the false teachers in Corinth preached gratuitously, and that the reason why the apostle did the same, was that he might not give them occasion to glory over him. In this view the second clause with i[na is co-ordinate with the first, and ejn w|= in the last clause refers to their special ground of boasting, and the sense of the whole is, ‘I will do as I have done in order that these false teachers shall have no occasion to exalt themselves over me; that is, in order that they be found, when they boast of their disinterestedness, to be no better than I am.’ But to this it may be objected, 1. That it is evident from v. 20 of this chapter, and from the whole character of these false teachers as depicted by the apostle, that so far from preaching gratuitously, they robbed the churches. 2. It is clear from what is said in the former epistle that Paul’s object was not to prevent his opponents setting themselves forth as his superiors, but to make undeniably manifest the purity of his own motives in preaching the gospel.

Others again, admitting that the false teachers received money from the Corinthians, understand the apostle to say, that he refused aid in order that he might take away from the false teachers all occasion for boasting that they were as he was. This, however, was not their boast. They did not claim to be what the apostle was, for they denounced him as an impostor. The first interpretation suits both the words and the context. 13. For such (are), false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ .

The reason assigned in this verse for the determination expressed in the preceding, to cut off occasion from those who sought to degrade the apostle, is, the unworthy character of his opponents. They were so unprincipled and unscrupulous that Paul was determined they should have no advantage over him. The words oiJ toio~utoi yeudapo>stoloi may be rendered either, Such false apostles are, etc., or, Such are false apostles.

The Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, and the majority of the earlier commentators, give the former interpretation; most of the later writers the latter. The latter is to be preferred because the emphasis is on the word false apostles; and because such false apostles would imply that there were other false apostles who were not deceitful workers. False apostles are those who falsely claimed to be apostles, as false Christs, Matthew 24:24, and false prophets, Matthew 11:15, are those who falsely claimed to be Christ or prophets. An apostle was commissioned by Christ, endowed with the gifts of plenary inspiration and knowledge, and invested with supernatural powers. Those in that age, and those who now claim to be apostles without this commission, these gifts, and these signs of the apostleship, are false apostles. They claim to be what they are not, and usurp an authority which does not belong to them. The fundamental idea of Romanism is the perpetuity of the apostolic office. Bishops are assumed to be apostles, and therefore claim infallibility in teaching, and supreme authority in ruling. If we admit them to be apostles, we must admit the validity of their claims to unquestioning faith and obedience. Deceitful workers, i.e. workers who use deceit. They were workers in so far as they were preachers or teachers; but they were not honest; they availed themselves of every means to deceive and pervert the people. To the same persons the apostle refers in Philippians 3:2, “as evil workers.” Transforming themselves into, i.e. assuming the character of, the apostles of Christ. Though their real object was not to advance the kingdom and glory of Christ, and although they were never commissioned for that work, they gave themselves out as Christ’s messengers and servants, and even claimed to have a more intimate relation to him, and to be more devoted to his service than Paul himself. 14. And no marvel for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

It is not wonderful that false apostles should put themselves forward under the guise of apostles of Christ, and appear and be received as such, for Satan himself, the most evil of all things, assumes the form of the highest and purest of created intelligences. An angel of light, i.e. a bright, pure, happy angel. Light is always the symbol of excellence and blessedness, hence the expressions kingdom of light, children of light, etc.

And hence God is said to dwell in light, and the saints are said to have their inheritance in light. It is by no means clear that the apostle refers either to the history of the fall or to Satan’s appearing with the sons of God as mentioned in Job 1:6. It is more probable that the statement rests on the general doctrine of the Bible concerning the great adversary.

He is everywhere represented as the deceiver, assuming false guises, and making false representations. 15. Therefore (it is) no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

If Satan can be thus changed, it is no great thing if his ministers undergo a similar transformation. If a bad angel can assume the appearance of a good angel, a bad man may put on the semblance of a good man. The false teachers are called ministers of Satan, that is, they are his servants,1. In so far as they are instigated and controlled in their labors by him. 2. And in so far that their labors tend to advance his kingdom, i.e. error and evil. All wicked men and all teachers of false doctrine are, in this sense the servants of Satan. He is their master. The false teachers assumed to be ministers of righteousness.

This may mean, righteous, upright ministers; or, promoters of righteousness in the sense of general excellence. They pretended to be the promoters of all that is good. Or, righteousness may be taken in its peculiar New Testament and Pauline sense, as in 3:9, where the phrase “ministry of righteousness” occurs; see also Ephesians 6:15. In these and many other places the word righteousness refers to “the righteousness of God,” or, as it is also called “the righteousness of faith.” These false teachers professed to be the preachers of that righteousness which is of God and which avails to the justification of sinners in his sight. Satan does not come to us as Satan; neither does sin present itself as sin, but in the guise of virtue; and the teachers of error set themselves forth as the special advocates of truth. Whose end shall be according to their works . Satan is none the less Satan when he appears as an angel of light, and evil is evil when called by the name of good. God’s judgments are according to the truth. He does not pass sentence on the (sch~ma ) the external fashion which we assume, but on our real character; not on the mask, but on the man. The end, i.e. the recompense of every man, shall be not according to his professions, not according to his own convictions or judgment of his character or conduct, not according to appearances or the estimate of men, but according to his works. If men really promote the kingdom of Christ, they will be regarded and treated as his servants; if they increase the dominion of sin and error, they will be regarded and treated as the ministers of Satan. 16. I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little.

After the foregoing outburst of feeling against the false teachers, the apostle resumes his purpose of self-vindication. He therefore says again what he had in substance said in v. 1. Let no man think me a fool , that is, a boaster. Self-laudation is folly; and self-vindication, when it involves the necessity of self-praise, has the appearance of folly. Therefore the apostle was pained and humbled by being obliged to praise himself. He was no boaster, and no one could rightfully so regard him, but if otherwise (eij de< mh>ge , the negative is used because although the preceding clause is negative, the idea is, ‘I would that no man should regard me as a fool, but if you do not think of me as I would wish, still, etc.’) Receive me , (i.e. bear with me,) that I may boast myself a little . The words are kajgw> , I also , i.e. I as well as others. ‘You allow my enemies to boast of what they do, permit me to say a little of what I have done and suffered.’ 17. That which I speak, I speak (it) not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.

That which I speak, o\ lalw~ . The apostle uses lalw~ and not le>gw , because the reference is not to any definite words which he had uttered, but general — my talk, or language. Is not after the Lord , i.e. is not such as characterized Christ, or becomes his disciples. Our Lord was no boaster, and his Spirit does not lead any one to boast. This is very commonly regarded as a denial of inspiration, or divine guidance in these utterances.

Even Bengel says, “Whatever Paul wrote without this express exception, was inspired and spoken after the Lord;” and Meyer says, ouj lalw~ kata< ku>rion , negirt allerdings den theopneusten Charakter der Rede. This arises from a misconception of the nature and design of inspiration. The simple end of inspiration is to secure infallibility in the communication of truth. It is not designed to sanctify; it does not preclude the natural play of the intellect or of the feelings. When Paul called the High Priest a “whited wall,” Acts 23:2, although he apologized for it, he was as much inspired as when he wrote his epistle to the Ephesians. Even supposing therefore that there was something of human weakness in his boasting, that would not prove that he was not under the inspiration of God in saying that he boasted, or in saying that boasting was folly. But this assumption is unnecessary. There was nothing wrong in his self-laudation.

He never appears more truly humble than when these references to his labor and sufferings were wrung from him, filling him with a feeling of self-contempt. Alas! how few of the holiest of men does it pain and mortify to speak of their own greatness or success. How often are the writings even of good men coals on which they sprinkle incense to their own pride. When Paul said that his boasting was not after the Lord , he said no more than when he called it folly. All that the expression implies is that self-praise in itself considered, is not the work of a Christian; it is not a work to which the Spirit of Christ impels the believer. But, when it is necessary to the vindication of the truth or the honor of religion, it becomes a duty. But as it were foolishly , (ejn ajfrosu>nh| , in folly .) That is, speaking boastfully was not religious but foolish. In this confidence of boasting, ejn tau>th| th|~ uJposta>sei th~v kauch>sewv . JUposta>siv may mean matter, or confidence. ‘In this particular matter, or case of boasting.’

In this sense it is a limitation of what precedes. He was justified in boasting in this particular matter. It is, however, more consistent with the common use of the word in the New Testament, that here, as in 9:4, it should be taken in the sense of confidence, and ejn be rendered with. ‘I speak with this confidence of boasting.’ 18. Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.

The apostle here assigns the reason of his glorying. His opponents so magnified themselves and their services, and so depreciated him and his labors, that he was forced, in order to maintain his influence as the advocate of a pure gospel, to set forth his claims to the confidence of the people. Seeing that (ejpei> since, because) many glory. From this, as well as from other intimations abounding in this epistle, it is evident that the opposition to Paul was headed not by one man, but by a body or class of false teachers, all of whom were Judaizers. They gloried after the flesh (kata< thrka ). This may mean, ‘they gloried as to the flesh.’ Then flesh means what is external and adventitious, such as their Hebrew descent, their circumcision, etc. See v. 22, where these false teachers are represented as boasting of their external advantages. Compare also Galatians 6:13 and Philippians 3:4, where the apostle says in reference to the same class of opponents, “If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more.” The sense in this case is good and appropriate, but it would require ejn and not kata>, See 10:17; 11:12; 12:9, etc., etc. Kata< sa>rka more properly means according to the flesh, i.e. according to corrupt human nature, as opposed to kata< ku>rion in the preceding verse. These men were influenced in their boasting by unworthy motives. I will glory also. Does Paul mean, ‘As others glory after the flesh, I also will glory after the flesh’? i.e. as others give way to their selfish feelings, I will do the same. This is the view which many commentators take. They say that kata< sa>rka necessarily implied after kajgw< kauch>somai because the apostle had just said that in boasting he did not act kata< ku>rion, which implies that he did act kata< sa>rka ; and because in the following verse he makes himself one of a]fronev of whose glorying the Corinthians were so tolerant. But the sense thus expressed is neither true nor consistent with the character of the apostle. It is not true that he was influenced in boasting by corrupt feelings; that self-conceit and the desire of applause were in him, as in the false teachers, the motives which governed him in this matter. There is no necessity for supplying kata< sa>rka after the last clause. What Paul says is, ‘As many boast from unworthy motives, I also will boast.’ If they did it from bad motives, he might well do it from good ones. 19. For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye (yourselves) are wise.

That is, ‘I will indulge in the folly of boasting, for ye are tolerant of fools.’

The Corinthians had, to a degree disgraceful to themselves, allowed the boasting Judaizing teachers to gain an ascendancy over them, and they could not, therefore, with any consistency object to the self-vindication of Paul. Seeing ye are wise. As it is the part of the wise to bear with fools, so the Corinthians in their wisdom might bear with the apostle. Of course this is said ironically and as a reproof. In the same spirit and with the same purpose he had said to them in his former epistle, 4:8, “We are fools, but ye are wise.” 20. For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour (you), if a man take (of you), if a man exalt himself, if a man smile you on the face.

They might well bear with Paul since they bore with the tyranny, the rapacity, the insolence, and the violence of the false teachers. The character of these troublers of the church was everywhere the same; see Galatians 1:7. They were lords over God’s heritage, 1 Peter 5:3, not only as they endeavored to reduce the Christians under the bondage of the law, as appears from the epistle to the Galatians, but as they exercised a tyrannical authority over the people. To this the apostle here refers when he says, If any man bring you into bondage (katadouloi~ ), i.e. makes slaves of you. That this is not to be limited to subjection to the Jewish law, is evident from what follows, which is an amplification of the idea here expressed. These men were tyrants, and therefore they devoured, insulted and maltreated the people. If any man devour (you), i.e. rapaciously consumes your substance, as our Lord describes the Pharisees as devouring widows’ houses, Matthew 23:14. If any take (of you); ei] tiv lamba>nei; uJma~v is to be supplied as after katesqi>ei in the preceding clause. “If any take you ,” i.e. capture you or ensnare you, as a huntsman his prey. Our version by supplying of you alters the sense, and makes this clause express less than the preceding; devouring is a stronger expression for rapacity than ‘taking of you.’ If any man exalt himself (ejpai>retai , sc. kaqÆ uJmw~n ) , i.e. if any one proudly and insolently lifts himself up against you. And as the climax, If any one smite you on the face .

To smite the face or mouth was the highest indignity; as such it was offered to our Lord, Luke 22:64, and to Paul, Acts 23:2; see also Kings 22:24. Matthew 5:39. Such was the treatment to which the Corinthians submitted from the hands of the false teachers; and such is ever the tendency of unscriptural church-authority. It assumes an absolute dependence of the people on the clergy — an inherent, as well as official superiority of the latter over the former, and therefore false teachers have, as a general rule, been tyrants. The gospel, and of course the evangelical, as opposed to the high-church system of doctrine, is incompatible with all undue authority, because it teaches the essential equality of believers and opens the way to grace and salvation to the people without the intervention of a priest. 21. I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak.

Howbeit, whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly) I am bold also.

I speak as concerning reproach . Kata< ajtimi>an le>gw means simply I reproach . After ajtimi>an may be supplied ejmh>n . The sense would then be, ‘I say to my own shame, that, etc.;’ le>gw being understood as referring to what follows. ‘I say to my shame that I was weak.’ The Greek is, kata< ajtimi>an (ejmhsamen ; where wJv o[ti may, as Winer, 67:1, says, be a redundancy for simply o[ti (5:19; Thessalonians 2:2.) ‘I say that.’ This would be a direct assertion on the part of Paul that he was weak in the sense intended. It is better, with Meyer and others, to give wJv its proper force, as, as if . His being weak was not a fact, but an opinion entertained concerning him. ‘I say that (as people think) I was weak.’ One class of the Corinthians regarded Paul as weak in bodily presence and contemptible in speech, 10:10. In reference to this judgment of his opponents he says, ‘I acknowledge to my shame that, when present with you (the aorist, hjsqenh>samen , is used), I was weak.’

In 1 Corinthians 2:3 he told the Corinthians that he came among them in weakness and fear and much trembling. There was a sense in which he admitted and professed himself to be weak. He had no self confidence. He did not believe in his own ability to persuade or convert men. He felt the responsibility of his office, and he relied both for knowledge and success entirely on the Spirit of God. His conceited and arrogant opposers were strong in their own estimation; they condemned the mean-spirited apostle, and considered him destitute of all sources of power. The weakness of which Paul here speaks is that which was attributed to him by his enemies. The whole preceding context is ironical, and so is this clause. ‘Your teachers are great men, I am nothing compared to them. They are strong, but, I say it to my shame, I am weak. But , as opposed to this imputed weakness, I am equal to any of them, I speak in folly.’ Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold (ejn w|= dÆ a]n tiv tolma|~ ), ‘But whatever they dare, I dare. Whatever claims they put forth, I can assert the same. If they boast, I can outboast them. If they are Hebrews, so am I, etc.’

The foregoing interpretation of this passage, which assumes that le>gw in the first clause refers to what follows, and that the reproach mentioned had Paul for its object, is given of commentators, however, understand le>gw as referring to what precedes and the Corinthians and not Paul to be the object of the reproach. ‘I say this to your shame.’ Compare Corinthians 6:5, progw . (In this latter passage, however, it will be remarked that the preposition is pro>v and not kata> , as in the passage before us, and that uJmi~n is in the text, whereas here there is no pronoun used.) The two principal objections to this interpretation are, 1. That if le>gw refers to the preceding verses the sense must be, ‘I make this exhibition of the character of your teachers in order to shame you.’ This would do very well if what follows carried out that idea; but instead of speaking of the Corinthians, and endeavoring to convince them of their folly in adhering to such men as teachers, he immediately speaks of himself, and shows how he was despised as weak. 2. According to this interpretation there is great difficulty in explaining the following clause. It would not do to say, ‘I speak to shame you that I was weak;’ or, if o[ti be made causal, ‘I speak to shame you because I was weak,’ still the sense is not good. The former interpretation of this difficult passage is therefore to be preferred. 22. Are they Hebrews? so (am) I. Are they Israelites? so (am) I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so (am) I.

In this verse the apostle begins his boasting by showing that in no point did he come behind his opponents. The three designations here used belonged to the chosen people. The Hebrews were Israelites, and the Israelites were the seed of Abraham. The first, as Meyer remarks, is the national designation of the people of God; the second their theocratic appellation; and the third marked them as the heirs of Abraham and expectants of the Messianic kingdom. Or, as Bengel remarks with no less justice, the first refers to their national, and the two others to their religious or spiritual relation. A Hebrew was not a Jew of Palestine as distinguished from the Hellenists, or Jews born out of Palestine and speaking the Greek language. For Paul himself was born in Tarsus, and yet was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, that is, a man of pure Hebrew descent. In Acts 6:1 the word is used for the Jews of Palestine in distinction from other Jews, but it is obviously not so either here or in Philippians 3:5. 23. Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I (am) more; in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.

In all that related to the privileges of birth, as belonging to the chosen seed, Paul stood on a level with the chief of his opposers; in all that related to Christ and his service he stood far above them. Are they the ministers of Christ? Such they were by profession, and such for the moment he admits them to be, although in truth they were the ministers of Satan, as he had said in v. 15. I more (uJpe , where uJpe>r is used as an adverb). This may mean either, I am more than a (dia>konov ) minister of Christ; or, I am a minister or servant of Christ in a higher measure than they. That is, I am more devoted laborious and suffering than they. The latter is the true explanation as is clear from what follows, and because in Paul’s language and estimation, there was no higher title or service than that of minister of Christ. I speak as a fool, parafonw~n lalw~ .This is a strong expression, ‘I speak as one beside himself.’ This is said out of the consciousness of ill-desert and utter insufficiency. Feeling himself to be in himself both impotent and unworthy, this self-laudation, though having reference only to his infirmities and to what God had done in him and by him, was in the highest degree painful and humiliating to the apostle. It is Paul’s judgment of himself, not the judgment which others are presumed to pass upon him. In labors more abundant, ejn ko>poiv perissote>rwv . There are three ways of explaining this and the following clauses, 1. In (or, by) labors I am more abundantly the servant of Christ. 2. Or, (supplying h+n or ge>gona ,) I have been more abundant in labors. 3. Or, connecting, as De Wette and Meyer do, the adverbs with the substantives with the sense of adjectives, by more abundant labors.

This latter explanation can better be carried through, and expresses the sense clearly. In stripes above measure, ejn plhgai~v uJperballo>ntwv , i.e. by stripes exceeding measure (in frequency and severity). In prisons more frequent, either, as before, ‘I have been more frequently imprisoned,’ or, ‘By more frequent prisons.’ The sense remains the same. In deaths oft, ejn qana>toiv polla>kiv , by manifold deaths.

Paul, in accordance with common usage, elsewhere says, “I die daily.” He suffered a thousand deaths, in the sense of being constantly in imminent danger of death and of enduring its terrors. 24, 25. Of the Jews five times received I forty (stripes) save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep .

These verses are a parenthesis designed to confirm the preceding assertion that he had labored and suffered more in the service of Christ than any of his opponents. In v. 26 the construction is resumed. The apostle had at this period of his history been scourged eight times; five times by the Jews and thrice by the Romans. Of this cruel ill-treatment at the hands of his own countrymen, the Acts of the Apostles contain no record; and of the three occasions on which he was beaten with rods, that mentioned in Acts 16:22 as having occurred at Philippi is the only one of which we have elsewhere any account. In the law of Moses, Deuteronomy 25:3, it was forbidden to inflict more than forty stripes on an offender, and it appears that the Jews, in their punctilious observance of the letter of the law, were in the habit of inflicting only thirty-nine so as to be sure not to transgress the prescribed limit. From the distinction which the apostle makes between receiving stripes at the hands of the Jews and being beaten with rods, it is probable that the Jews were at that period accustomed to use a lash. The later Rabbis say that the scourge was made with three thongs, so that each blow inflicted three stripes; and that only thirteen strokes were given to make up the prescribed number of thirty-nine lashes.

Once was I stoned Acts 14:19. On this occasion his enemies supposed he was dead. He must therefore have been rendered for the time insensible. Thrice I suffered shipwreck . Of this we have no mention in the Acts. The shipwreck in which Paul was involved on his journey to Rome, was at a much later period. A night and a day have I been in the deep. That is, for that length of time he was tossed about by the waves, clinging to a fragment of a wreck. A night and day (nucqh>meron ), i.e. a whole day of twenty-four hours. The Jews commenced the day at sunset. 26. (In) journeyings often, (in) perils of waters, (in) perils of robbers, (in) perils by (mine own) countrymen, (in) perils by the heathen, (in) perils in the city, (in) perils in the wilderness, (in) perils in the sea, (in) perils among false brethren .

Our translators have throughout this passage supplied the preposition in .

But as ejn in me preceding verse is used instrumentally, so here we have the instrumental dative, by journeyings, by perils , etc. It was by voluntarily exposing himself to these dangers, and by the endurance of these sufferings the apostle proved his superior claim to be regarded as a devoted minister of Christ. Perils of water , literally, of rivers ; as distinguished from the dangers of the sea mentioned afterwards. History shows that in the country traversed in Paul’s journeys great danger was often encountered in passing the rivers which crossed his path. Perils of robbers , to which all travelers were exposed. Perils from my own countrymen (ejk ge>nouv as opposed to ejx eqnw~n ). The Jews were, at least in most cases, the first to stir up opposition and to excite the mob against the apostle. This was the case at Damascus, Acts 9:23; at Jerusalem, Acts 9:29; at Antioch in Pisidia, Acts 13:50; at Iconium, 14:5; at Lystra, 14:19; at Thessalonica, Acts 17:5; at Berea, Acts 17:13; at Corinth, 18:12. From the Gentiles , as at Philippi and Ephesus. In the city , as in Damascus, Jerusalem and Ephesus. In the desert .

The dangers of the desert are proverbial. Paul traversed Arabia. as well as the mountainous regions of Asia Minor, and was doubtless often exposed in these journeys to the dangers of robbers, as well as those arising from exposure, and hunger and thirst. Of the sea , not only in the case of shipwreck before mentioned, but to other and lesser perils. Perils among false brethren , referring probably to the treachery of those who falsely professed to be his brethren in Christ, and yet endeavored to deliver him into the power of his enemies. 27. In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness .

Here the preposition ejn is again used, but in its instrumental sense by. It was by these trials and sufferings he proved himself to be what he claimed to be. By weariness and painfulness, ejn ko>pw| kai< mo>cqw| . These words are thus associated in 1 Thessalonians 2:9, and 2 Thessalonians 3:8, in both of which places they are rendered “labor and travail.” They both express the idea of wearisome toil and the consequent exhaustion and suffering. By watchings often, referring to the sleepless nights which he was often compelled by business or suffering to pass. In hunger and thirst, in fastings often. The common meaning of the word nhstei>a , and its connection with the words “hunger and thirst,” implying involuntary abstinence from food, are urged as reasons for understanding it to mean voluntary fasting. But the context is in favor of the common interpretation which makes it refer to involuntary abstinence. Every other particular here mentioned belongs to the class of sufferings; and it would therefore be incongruous to introduce into this enumeration any thing so insignificant and so common as religious fasting. In this the Pharaisees were his equals and probably far his superior. They fasted twice in the week. Paul was no ascetic, and certainly did not deny himself food to the extent of making that denial an act of heroism. It is remarkable that we have no record of Paul’s ever having fasted at all, unless Acts 13:3. By cold and nakedness. This completes the picture. The greatest of the apostles here appears before us, his back lacerated by frequent scourgings, his body worn by hunger, thirst, and exposure; cold and naked, persecuted by Jews and Gentiles, driven from place to place without any certain dwelling. This passage, more perhaps than any other, makes even the most laborious of the modern ministers of Christ hide their face in shame. What have they ever done or suffered to compare with what this apostle did? It is a consolation to know that Paul is now as pre-eminent in glory, as he was here in suffering. 28. Besides those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.

This verse is variously interpreted. The first clause, Besides those things which are without, is rendered in the same way in the Vulgate. Praeter illa, quae extrinsecus sunt. So also Calvin, Beza, and others. But this is contrary to the usage of the words ta< parekto>v , which mean, the things besides, i.e. other things; so that the sense of the clause cwriv is, ‘Not to mention other things.’ The preceding enumeration, copious as it is, was not exhaustive. There were other things of a like nature which the apostle would not stop to mention, but proceeded to another class of trials. That class included his exhausting official duties. That which cometh on me daily, viz., the care of all the churches. The latter clause is, according to this explanation, assumed to be explanatory of the former. The same view is taken of the relation of the two clauses by Meyer, who renders the passage thus: “My daily attention, the care of all the churches.” This latter interpretation assumes that instead of ejpisu>stasiv , which is in the common text, the true reading is ejpi>stasiv , reading adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Ruckert, and others. Both words are used in the sense of concourse, tumult, as of the people, see Acts 24:12, but the former has also the sense of care, or attention. If the corrected text be adopted, then the interpretation just mentioned is to be preferred. ‘Without mentioning other things, (hJ epi>stasiran ) my daily oversight, the care of all the church.’ If the common text, although not so well sustained, be adhered to, the meaning probably is, ‘My daily concourse’ (quotidiani hominum impetus). That is, the crowding upon him every day of people demanding his attention. This is the sense expressed by Luther; “Dass ich taglich werde angelaufen, und trage Sorge für alle Gemeinen.” The solicitude which the apostle felt for the churches which he had founded, is apparent from all his epistles; and it may be easily imagined how various and constant must have been the causes and occasions of anxiety and trouble on their account. 29. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?

That is, he sympathized with his fellow Christians, who were his children in the faith, so that their sorrows and sufferings were his own. This was the consequence not only of the communion of saints, in virtue of which, “if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it,” 1 Corinthians 12:26; but also of the peculiar relation which Paul sustained to the churches, which he had himself planted. Who is weak ; i.e. in faith, or scrupulous through want of knowledge, compare 1 Corinthians 9:22, and I am not weak ? That is, with whose infirmities of faith and knowledge do I not sympathize? He pitied their infirmities and bore with their prejudices. To the weak, he became as weak. There are men, says Calvin, who either despise the infirmities of their brethren, or trample them under their feet. Such men know little of their own hearts, and have little of the spirit of Paul or of Paul’s master. God never quenches the smoking flax. Who is offended (skandali>zetai ), i.e. caused to stumble, or led into sin; and I burn not .

That is, and I am not indignant ? It was not to Paul a matter of indifference when any of the brethren, by the force of evil example, or by the seductions of false teachers, were led to depart from the truth or to act inconsistently with their profession. Such events filled him not only with grief at the fall of the weak, but with indignation at the authors of their fall.

Thus his mind was kept in a state of constant agitation by his numerous anxieties and his wide-hearted sympathy. 30. If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities .

Paul’s boasting was not like that of the false teachers. They boasted not only of their descent, but of their learning, eloquence, and personal advantages; he boasted only of the things which implied weakness, his sufferings and privations. The future, kauch>somai , expresses a general purpose, illustrated in the past, and not having reference merely to what was to come. The persecutions, the poverty, the scourgings, the hunger and nakedness of which Paul had boasted, were not things in which men of the world pride themselves, or which commonly attract human applause. 31. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not .

This is a peculiarly solemn asseveration. An oath is the act of calling God to witness the truth of what we say. Here the appeal is not simply to God as God, but to God in his peculiar covenant relation to believers. When the Israelite called on Jehovah as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he recognized him not only as the creator and moral governor of the world, but as the covenant God of his nation. So the Christian when he calls God “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” recognizes him not only as his Creator, but as the author of redemption through his eternal Son.

Jesus Christ is a designation of the Theanthropos, the historical person so named and known, to whom God stood in the relation at once of God and Father. Our Lord had a dependent nature to which God stood in the relation of God, and a divine nature to which He stood in the relation of Father, and therefore to the complex person Jesus Christ God bore the relation of both God and Father.

There is a difference of opinion as to the reference of this passage. Some suppose that the apostle intended by this oath to confirm the truth of the whole preceding exhibition of his labors and sufferings; others, that it is to be confined to the assertion in v. 30, viz., that he would boast only of his infirmities; others, as Calvin and many others, refer it to what follows, i.e., to the account which he was about to give of his escape from Damascus.

To give this explanation the more plausibility, Meyer assumes that Paul had intended to introduce an extended narrative of his escape and sufferings, beginning with the incident at Damascus, but was interrupted and did not carry out his intention. As, however, there is no intimation of this in the context, it is probable that the reference is to the whole of the preceding narrative. He intended to satisfy his readers that he had not exaggerated or overstated his sufferings. God knew that all he had said was true. 32. In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me.

It is useless to inquire why Paul introduces, as it were, as an after-thought, this disconnected account of his escape from Damascus. It is enough that the fact occurred to him when writing, and that he saw fit to record it. The account here given agrees with that found in Acts 9:24,25, except that there the attempt to apprehend the apostle is attributed to the Jews, and here to the governor of the city. There is no inconsistency between the two. The governor acted no doubt at the instigation of the Jews. He had no grievance of his own to redress or avenge. The governor, or ethnarch, a term applied to a vassal prince, or ruler appointed by a sovereign over a city or province. Governor under, literally, of Aretas the king. Aretas was a common name of Arabian kings, as Pharaoh of the kings of Egypt. A king of that name is mentioned as contemporary with the high-priest Jason, and with the king Antiochus Epiphanes. The one here referred to was the father-in-law of Herod Antipas. Herod having repudiated the daughter of Aretas, the latter declared war against him and totally defeated his army. Vitellius, proconsul of Syria, undertook to punish him for this assault on a Roman vassal, but was arrested on his march by the death of the emperor Tiberius. It is commonly supposed that it was during this respite that Aretas, who was king of Petra, gained temporary possession of Damascus. Kept the city of the Damascenes, not, besieged the city, but as it is expressed in Acts, watched the gates. The words of the Damascenes (thlin ) . are omitted in the original edition of 1611 of King James’s version, but are now found in all the copies. With a garrison.

The word is simply ejfrou>rei , he kept, or guarded. Desirous to apprehend me. The governor set a guard at the gates to seize the apostle should he attempt to leave the city. 33. And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.