The first paragraph, vs. 1-4, relates to the change of his plan of going immediately to Corinth. In vs. 5-11 he refers to the case of discipline mentioned in his former letter. In vs. 12-14 he states why he did not remain in Troas. And in vs. 14-17 he pours out his heart in gratitude to God for the continued triumph of the gospel.

THE TRUE REASON WHY THE APOSTLE DID NOT GO IMMEDIATELY TO CORINTH, AND HIS VIEWS IN REFERENCE TO THE OFFENDER WHOSE EXCOMMUNICATION HE HAD INSISTED UPON IN HIS FORMER LETTER.

There is no change of subject in this chapter. The apostle after defending himself from the charge of levity in conduct and inconsistency in doctrine, had said, in v. 23 of the preceding chapter, that he did not go to Corinth before giving the church time to comply with the injunctions contained in his former letter, because he did not wish to appear among them as a judge.

He here says, in amplification, that he had determined not again to visit Corinth under circumstances which could only give pain to the Corinthians and to himself. He knew that he could not give them sorrow without being himself grieved, and he was assured that if he was happy they would share in his joy, vs. 1-4. The sorrow occasioned by the incestuous person was not confined to the apostle, but shared by the church. He was satisfied with the course which the church had pursued in reference to that case, and was willing the offender should be restored to their fellowship if they were, vs. 5-11. His anxiety about them was so great that not finding Titus, from whom he expected to receive intelligence, he was unable to remain at Troas, but passed over into Macedonia to meet him on his way, vs. 12, 13. The intelligence which he received from Titus being favorable, the apostle expresses in strong terms his gratitude to God who always caused him to triumph, vs. 15-17. 1. But I determined this with myself, that I would not come again to you in heaviness .

The connection is with what immediately precedes. ‘I deferred my visit in order to spare you, not that I assume to be a Lord over your faith, but a helper of your joy. But the true reason for my not coming was that I did not wish to come with heaviness.’ The words e]krina eJmautw|~ rendered I determined with myself , may mean simply I determine as to myself . I had made up my mind; or, ‘I determined for myself ,’ i.e. for my own sake. This perhaps is to be preferred. The apostle thus delicately intimates that it was not merely to spare them, but also himself, that he put off his visit.

The word this refers to the purpose which the apostle had formed, and which is explained by the following infinitive, mh< ejlqei~n , not to come .

Two explanations are given of the following clause. According to the one, the meaning is, ‘I determined that my second visit should not be with sorrow;’ according to the other, ‘I determined not a second time to visit you in sorrow.’ In the one case the implication is that Paul had, at this time, been only once in Corinth; in the other, the passage implies that he had already (i.e. after his first visit) been to Corinth under circumstances painful to himself and to the church. There are two reasons for preferring this latter view. The first is, that according to the position of the words, as given in all the older manuscripts, (mh< pa>lin ejn lu>ph| prolin , again , belongs to the whole clause and not exclusively to ejlqei~n . The sense, therefore, is that he determined not a second time to come with sorrow, (he had done that once.) The other reason is, that there is evidence from other passages that Paul had been twice to Corinth before this letter was written. See 12:14, 21; <471301> 13:1.

That there is no mention in the Acts of this intermediate journey, is no sufficient reason for denying it, as the passages referred to are so explicit.

To make the second visit one by letter, as Calvin (venerat enim semel per epistolam) and others have done, is evidently unnatural. Having gone once to correct abuses and to exercise severity, he was anxious not to have a second painful interview of the same kind, and therefore, instead of going to them, as he had intended, directly from Corinth, he waited to learn through Titus what had been the effect of his letter. With heaviness , ejn lu>ph| , with sorrow , i.e. causing sorrow to you. This explanation is required by the following verse, otherwise the meaning would more naturally be in sorrow, i.e. in a sorrowful state of mind, as the word lu>ph everywhere else with Paul means a state of grief. 2. For if I make you sorry, who is he that maketh me glad, but the same that is made sorry by me ?

This is the reason why he did not wish to come bringing sorrow with him; ‘For if,’ says he, ‘I make you sorry, who is there to make me glad? How can I be happy, if you are afflicted? Unless my visit cause you joy, it can bring no joy to me.’ As inspiration leaves full play to all the characteristic peculiarities of its subject, in reading the writings of inspired men we learn not only the mind of the Spirit, but also the personal character of the writers. The urbanity of the apostle Paul, his refinement and courtesy, are just as plainly revealed in his epistles as his intellectual power and moral courage. The passage before us is one of many illustrations of the truth of this remark, furnished by this epistle. Who is he that maketh me glad, but the same that is made sorry by me . The singular is used, not because a particular individual, much less because the incestuous person, is specially referred to, but because the case is stated in the form of a general proposition. ‘I cannot expect joy from one to whom I bring sorrow.’ Such was the apostle’s love for the Corinthians that unless they were happy he could not be happy. This is the natural and commonly received interpretation of the passage. Chrysostom, and many of the ancient commentators, and some also of the moderns, give a different view of its meaning. ‘Who gives me joy, but he who allows himself (lupou>menov as middle and not passive) to be grieved by me.’ That is, no one causes me so much joy as he who is brought to repentance by me. But this is obviously inconsistent with the context. The verse, as thus explained, gives no reason why Paul did not wish to go to Corinth bringing sorrow. On the contrary, the more of that kind of sorrow he brought with him, or was occasioned by his visit, the better. This interpretation would make the apostle say, ‘I will not come with sorrow, for nothing gives me so much pleasure as to cause (godly) sorrow.’ To avoid this incongruity Olshausen says the connection is to be thus understood: Paul determined that he would not come with sorrow, because he feared that few of the Corinthians would give him the happiness of seeing that they had been made sorry by his former reproofs. But this makes the passage itself a reproof, an insinuation that they had not profited by his first letter. This is contrary to the whole spirit of the passage, which is overflowing with confidence and affection. 3. And I wrote this same unto you, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all that my joy is (the joy) of you all.

Having said that his motive for not coming at once to Corinth was to avoid giving them sorrow, he here adds, ‘And I wrote what I did in my former letter that, when I came, I might not have sorrow.’ Instead of going in person to correct the evils which existed in the church of Corinth, he wrote to them that those evils might be corrected before he came, and thus his coming would be a source of joy to both parties. It is evident from the preceding context, and from vs. 4 and 9, that e]graya here refers not to this epistle but to the former one. This same , tou~to aujto> that very thing , that is, the very thing which I did write respecting the incestuous person.

The expression seems to have special reference to that case, because that is evidently the case to which the following verses relate. It appears that the point about which the apostle was most anxious was, how the Corinthians would act in regard to his command, 1 Corinthians 5:13, to put away from among them “that wicked person.” He seems to have feared that his enemies might have had influence enough with the church, to prevent their executing his command. He therefore waited in painful suspense to learn the issue. And when Titus, on his return from Corinth, informed him that they had not only promptly obeyed his directions, but that the offender himself and the whole church had been brought to deep and genuine repentance, his heart was filled with gratitude to God, and with love to the people who had manifested such a Christian spirit. All this is plain from what is said in ch. 7. Erasmus and several other commentators render tou~to aujto> hac eadem de causa , for this very reason. The sense would then be, ‘I determined I would not come to you with sorrow, and for that very reason I wrote to you that I might not.’ This, although it suits the preceding context, is not so consistent with what follows as the common interpretation; for in the following verses the apostle states the reasons for his writing as he had done in his former letter. Lest when I came I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice . That is, ‘I wrote what I did that I might not have sorrow from those, who should be to me a source of joy.’ He wished all painful questions settled before he came. Having confidence in you all that my joy is the joy of you all . Paul in saying that he wished all causes of painful collision might be removed out of the way before he went to Corinth, did not isolate himself from the people, as though concerned only for his own peace of mind, but was satisfied that what made him happy would make them happy. My joy will be the joy of you all. This does not mean merely that it would give them pleasure to see him happy, but also that obedience on their part, and the consequent purity and prosperity of the church, were as necessary to their happiness as to his. Paul says he had this confidence in them all , although it is abundantly evident that there were men among them who were his bitter opponents. These latter he here leaves out of view, and speaks of the majority, probably the great body, of the church as though it were the whole. 4. For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye may know the love which I have the more abundantly towards you .

The connection is either with the immediately preceding clause, ‘I have confidence in you, for otherwise it would not have given me so much pain to write as I did;’ or, what is more natural because more direct, the reference is to the motives which dictated his letter. ‘I was influenced by the desire of promoting your happiness, for to me it was a most painful duty.’ Out of (ejk ) indicates the source. His letter flowed from a broken heart. Affliction and anguish refer to his inward feelings, not to his outward circumstances, for both are qualified by the word heart . It was out of an afflicted, an oppressed heart, that he wrote. With many tears , (dia> ) through many tears. The union of fidelity and love which renders parental discipline peculiarly effective, gives also peculiar power to ecclesiastical censures. When the offender is made to feel that, while his sin is punished, he himself is loved; and that the end aimed at is not his suffering but his good, he is the more likely to be brought to repentance. Every pastor must see in the apostle’s love for the Corinthians, and in the extreme sorrow with which he exercised discipline in the case of offenders, an instructive example for his imitation. Not that ye should be grieved , my object in writing was not to cause you sorrow, but that ye may know the love that I have the more abundantly towards you . The ends which the apostle desired to accomplish by his former letter were numerous, and he therefore sometimes specifies one, and sometimes another. Here, he says, it was to manifest his love; in v. 9 he says it was to test their obedience; in ch. 7 he says it was to bring them to repentance. These are not incompatible ends, and therefore there is no inconsistency between these several statements. The love which I have the more abundantly towards you . This naturally means the special love which I have for you. His love for them was more abundant, or greater, than that which he had for any other church. This view is borne out by numerous other passages in these two epistles, which go to show that Paul’s love for the Corinthian church was, for some reason, peculiarly strong. As vs. 5-11 have direct reference to the case of the incestuous person, it is the more probable that all that he says in the preceding verses as to his reasons for not coming sooner to Corinth, and as to the sorrow and anxiety which he felt about the state of the church there, had special reference to that case. 5. But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part, that I may not overcharge you all .

The connection between this paragraph, vs. 5-11, and what precedes is natural and obvious. Paul had been speaking of his motives for writing his former letter. It was not intended to give them sorrow. If sorrow had been occasioned, it had not come from him. This led him to speak more particularly of the case which had occasioned so much distress. The proper interpretation of this particular verse is, however, a matter of great doubt. The translation is of necessity, in this case, an exposition, and therefore the grounds of doubt do not appear to the English reader. Our translators, after Luther, assume that ajpo< me>rouv , in part , are to be connected with the preceding clause, and pa>ntav uJma~v , you all , with ejpibarw~ , overcharge . Thus construed the sense can only be, ‘If any one has caused grief, he has not grieved me, but in part, that is, I am not the only person aggrieved. I say this, lest I should bear hard upon you all. It would be a severe reflection on you to say that you did not feel any sorrow for the offense in question.’ According to this view, the design of the passage is to guard against the impression that he meant to charge them with indifference. But to this it is objected that to express this sense eij mh> , and not ajlla> , would be required. “He hath not grieved me except in part.” And secondly, that the idea thus expressed is not suited to the context. The main idea evidently is, ‘He hath not grieved me but you.’ The subordinate words and clauses therefore must be accommodated to that idea. Hence ajllÆ ajpo< me>rouv , must be connected with what follows, and pa>ntav uJma~v with lelu>phken . Then the sense will be, ‘He hath not grieved me, but in part, or, to a certain extent, (lest I should bear too hard on him ,) you all.’ The design of the passage, according to this view, is to soften the charge against the penitent offender of having been the cause of sorrow. This the apostle does, first, by saying, “he did not grieve me,” i.e. it was no personal offense against me that he committed; and second, that all the Corinthians were not afflicted, it was not a universal sorrow that he caused. This substantially is the interpretation given by Calvin after Chrysostom, and is the one adopted by the great majority of modern commentators. It has the advantage of being not only suited to the meaning of the words, but to the whole tone of the following context, which is eminently mild and conciliatory. The apostle’s heart was overflowing with the tenderest feelings towards his Corinthian brethren, and he was evidently solicitous to heal the salutary wounds inflicted by his former letter. There is still another view of the passage which should be mentioned. It may be pointed so as to read thus: ‘He hath not grieved me, but in part (that I may not overcharge all) you.’ This, however, unnaturally separates the words pa>ntav uJma~v , you all . 6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which (was inflicted) of many .

I do not wish to be severe towards him, for the punishment which he has received is sufficient. The word hJ ejpitimi>a rendered punishment , occurs only in Wisdom 3:10 in this sense, and therefore many assume that it here does not mean punishment, but reproof . The word rendered sufficient , iJkano>n , is used substantively. “This punishment is a sufficiency, or a satisfaction.” Comp. Matthew 6:34 for a similar construction. Paul says the punishment or reproof was administered uJpo< tw~n pleio>nwn , by the majority , intimating that all did not concur in it. This, however, is not a necessary inference, because of pleio>nev may mean the many , the whole body considered as many, because composed of many members. There are three views taken of this verse in connection with what follows. In his former letter the apostle had not only commanded the church to excommunicate the person here referred to, but declared his own determination to deliver him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. Corinthians 5:5. Grotius supposes that in consequence of that judgment he was seized with some bodily malady, for delivery from which Paul, in this connection, declares his willingness that the Corinthians should pray. Of this, however, the passage gives no intimation. A second view is that the sentence of excommunication had not been carried into effect, but as the reproof administered by many had had the effect of leading the offender to repentance, the apostle here intimates his satisfaction with what the church had done, although his injunctions had not been fully complied with. This is the view of Calvin, Beza, and of many others. In favor of this explanation it is urged that the expression “this punishment” naturally refers to that punishment or reproof which the Corinthians had administered as distinguished from that which he had enjoined; and his saying “this punishment,” of which he had heard, was enough, implies that he did not wish them to proceed any further, but rather that they should console the penitent by the assurance of their love. On the other hand, however, v. 9 (as well as ch. 7) clearly intimates that the church had rendered a prompt obedience to the apostle’s directions. The great majority of commentators, therefore, understand the passage to mean that Paul did not wish the excommunication to be continued any longer. As it had produced its desired effect, he was willing that the offender should be restored to the communion of the church. The whole passage indicates that Paul was more lenient than the church, for he exhorts his readers not to be too severe in their treatment of their offending brother. A passage, says Calvin, himself a severe disciplinarian, well to be observed, as it teaches with what equity and clemency the discipline of the church is to be attempered; qua oequitate et clementia temperanda sit disciplina ecclesioe .

Paul, he adds, was satisfied with the repentance of the offender; whereas the ancient bishops gave forth their canons requiring a penance of three, or seven years, or even for a life-time, without regard to the contrition of the unhappy victims of their severity. 7. So that contrariwise ye (ought) rather to forgive (him) and comfort (him), lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow .

The consequence of what is expressed in v. 8 is indicated by the words so that . ‘The punishment being sufficient, the consequence is that, instead of its being increased or continued, you should forgive and comfort the offender.’ As the apostle seems to indicate what ought to be done, most commentators supply before the infinitives cari>sasqai kai< parakale>sai the word dei~ or dei~n , ‘it is necessary to forgive and comfort.’ The infinitive itself, however, often expresses, after verbs of saying, and the like, not what is, but what should be, e.g. le>gontev perite>mnesqai saying you ought to be circumcised . Acts 15:24; 21:4, 21. Winer , p. 371, says that neither of these modes of explanation is necessary, as the infinitives may be connected immediately with iJkano>n , ‘The reproof is sufficient — in order to your pardoning and comforting him.’ The delicacy of the apostle towards this offender is indicated by his abstaining either from naming him, or designating him as he had before done, 1 Corinthians 5:13, as that wicked person . He refers to him simply as such an one , without any appellation which could wound his feelings. The apostle combined, therefore, the strictest fidelity with the greatest tenderness. As long as the offender was impenitent and persisted in his offense, Paul insisted upon the severest punishment. As soon as he acknowledged and forsook his sin, he became his earnest advocate. Lest he should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow , that is, lest he should be driven to despair and thus destroyed. Undue severity is as much to be avoided as undue leniency. The character which Paul here exhibits reflects the image of our heavenly Father. His word is filled with denunciations against impenitent sinners, and at the same time with assurances of unbounded pity and tenderness towards the penitent. He never breaks the bruised reed or quenches the smoking flax. 8. Wherefore I beseech you that he would confirm (your) love towards him .

The connection is either with v. 6, ‘His punishment is sufficient — wherefore confirm your love towards him;’ or with what immediately precedes. ‘There is danger of his being swallowed up with overmuch sorrow unless you forgive him, wherefore confirm your love to him.’ The latter method is to be preferred, though the sense is substantially the same. I beseech you , parakalw~ , the same word which in the preceding verse is used in the sense of consoling. Paul not unfrequently uses the same word in the immediate connection in different senses. 1 Corinthians 3:17; 11:23. That ye would confirm , literally, to confirm , kurw~sai . The word properly means to ratify with authority by some public or formal act. Galatians 3:15. And this sense is generally adopted here. The apostle is understood to call upon them by a formal act to reinstate the offender in the communion of the church, to assure him of their love, so that he might not have to infer it merely from their treatment of him. The word, however, may mean nothing more than is expressed in our version. ‘I exhort you to make your love towards him a matter of certainty.’ But as the implication is that they had already begun to manifest their brotherly affection for him, the probability is that the apostle wished them to give their love a formal ratification. 9. For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things .

Verses 9 and 10 are sometimes regarded as a parenthesis, so as to connect the 11th verse with the 8th. ‘Confirm your love towards him, lest Satan get an advantage over us.’ But a parenthesis is never to be assumed where the grammatical construction continues unbroken, and the logical connection is uninterrupted. The 11th verse is naturally connected with the 10th, and the 9th with the 8th. ‘Confirm your love to him, for the object of my writing to you to exclude him from your fellowship, has been accomplished.’ To this end means the end specified in the latter part of the verse. I wrote , e[graya a form of the verb which is often in the epistolary style used of the letter in the process of being written. Romans 15:15; Corinthians 9:15; 1 Peter 5:12, etc. The whole context, however, shows that Paul refers to his former letter. See vs. 3, 4. He did not write this letter to test their obedience, though that was one of the objects of his former epistle. Paul says, ‘I also wrote.’ This also may indicate that it was the object of his former letter as well as of the exhortation which he had just given them, to test their obedience. But such was not the object of that exhortation. It is better therefore to understand the kai> also , as simply intended to give prominence to the words I wrote , as something additional to other things which he had done with the same general object. ‘To this end I also wrote, as well as did many other things,’ etc. The end (although not the only one), which the apostle had in view in enjoining on the church the excommunication of the person here referred to, was, as he says, that I might know the proof of you . The word used is dokimh> , which means trial , 8:2, “trial of affliction;” or, proof, test , 13:3, “As ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me;” or, the result of trial, what is approved, integrity that has been tested . Philippians 2:22, “Ye know his tried integrity.” The last meaning is the best suited to this place. ‘That I might know your integrity, i.e. your true Christian temper.’ This is explained by saying he wished to see whether they would be obedient in all things , eijv pa>nta , in reference to all things . These latter words stand first, ‘Whether as to all things ye are obedient,’ which is more emphatic. Obedience to legitimate authority is one of the fruits and evidences of Christian sincerity. A rebellious, self-willed, disobedient spirit is a strong indication of an unsanctified heart. As the Corinthians had proved themselves obedient to the apostle’s directions, and as the offender was truly penitent, the object of his letter, both as it related to them and to him, had been attained, and therefore there was no reason for the continuance of the punishment. 10. To whom ye forgive any thing, I (forgive) also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave (it), for your sakes (forgave I it) in the person of Christ .

The apostle having exhorted the Corinthians to forgive their repentant brother, says he was ready to join in that forgiveness. To whom ye forgive any thing , I also . Although this is stated generally, as though he meant to say that he would forgive any one whom they were ready to forgive, yet it is obvious from the context that he intended to be understood as referring to that particular case. He was satisfied with their course, and also with the evidence of the repentance of the offender, and therefore he was ready to sanction his restoration to their communion. His reason for this is stated in what follows, he did it for their sake. His forgiving, however, was suspended upon theirs. He would not interfere to restore the person in question unless they were satisfied to receive him. He therefore says, If I have forgiven any thing , that is, if the forgiveness expressed in the foregoing clause is to take effect and to be considered as already done, I have done it for your sake. He was influenced by no personal consideration either in the censure originally pronounced, or in his present course, but solely by a desire to promote their best interests. In the person of Christ , or, in the presence of Christ . This latter interpretation is the more consistent with usage, and is generally adopted. The meaning is that he acted in this matter as in the presence of Christ, i.e. as though Christ were looking on. The other explanation, which is preferred by Luther and many others, is consistent with the meaning of the words, and gives a good sense. He acted in the person of Christ, i.e. as his representative and by his authority. This idea, however, is commonly expressed by the phrase in the name of Christ. 1 Corinthians 5:4. Calvin prefers the former view, and adds, Christ is to be placed before us, or we “are to act as in his presence, for nothing is better adapted to incline us to mercy.” No man can be severe in his judgment who feels that the mild eyes of Christ are fixed upon him.

The word cari>zomai , rendered to forgive in this verse, is a deponent verb, but is in several of its forms, used in a passive sense. It is so taken here by Ruckert and Meyer, who give an entirely different explanation of the passage. They adopt the reading of Griesbach, given in the margin, and render it thus: ‘I forgive — for what I have been forgiven, if I have been forgiven anything, it is for your sake.’ That is, if God has really pardoned my great sin in persecuting Christ, it was for your sake. Comp. Timothy 1:16. But this interpretation is inconsistent with the common use of the word, with the whole context, and with Paul’s manner of speaking.

His humility manifested itself in deep remorse and repentance for his past conduct, but not in doubting whether he had been forgiven. Besides, this interpretation would require a very unnatural explanation of the following clause. ‘If I have been forgiven for your sake in the presence of Christ ,’ that is, Christ is the witness; of my being forgiven. This is contrary to all scriptural representations. God is said to forgive for Christ’s sake; and Christ is said to forgive, but he is never represented as the mere witness or spectator of our forgiveness. 11. Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices .

This verse, as above remarked, is by some made to depend on v. 8, the vs. 9 and 10 being parenthetical. ‘Confirm your love towards him — lest Satan should get an advantage of us.’ Others make it depend on the preceding words, ‘We should act (or, I was pardoned) in the presence of Christ, lest,’ etc. The most natural connection is with the first clause of v. 10, which contains the main idea of the context. ‘I will join you in pardoning the offender lest Satan get an advantage of us,’ i.e. make a gain of us. The expression is mh< pleonekthqw~men uJpo< tou~ satana~ , lest we should be made gain of; or defrauded, by Satan . It was a gain to Satan if either an individual soul could be driven to despair, or the peace of the church could be disturbed. Both of these evils were to be apprehended if discipline were carried too far. This dread of Satan was not chimerical or unreasonable, for he really does seek to turn every thing to the disadvantage of Christ and his kingdom. We are not ignorant , says the apostle, of his devices . This and similar passages of the Word of God teach that Satan is a personal being; that he exerts great influence over the minds of men; that although finite, and, therefore, not ubiquitous, he is nevertheless represented as operating on the minds of men generally, and not merely on those in any one place. His powers of intelligence and agency therefore must be great beyond our conceptions. No individual and no community can ever be sure that he is not plotting their destruction.

Paul might have said to the Romans or the Ephesians, as he did to the Corinthians, that they must take heed lest Satan make a gain of them, and in some way secure them as his own. 12, 13. Furthermore, when I came to Troas to (preach) Christ’s gospel, and a door was opened to me of the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit because I found not Titus my brother; but taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia . Furthermore , when I came ; literally, But having come . The particle de> (but ) serves to resume the connection broken by the digression, vs. 5-11.

In v. 4 he said he had written his former letter in great anguish and distress of heart, to manifest his love for them. And as a still further proof of the deep interest which he took in their welfare, he refers to the incident mentioned in these verses. In execution of his plan of going from Ephesus through Macedonia to Corinth, 1 Corinthians 16:5, Paul came to Troas , literally, to the Troad (eijv thda ) a name given to the whole district around the site of ancient Troy. The city itself was on the coast of Mysia opposite to the island of Tenedos. It had been made a Roman colony by Augustus, and was a place of considerable importance, in constant commercial intercourse with the cities of Macedonia and Greece.

Paul did not intend to make a rapid journey to Corinth, but a regular missionary tour; he therefore says he came to Troas to preach Christ’s gospel , i.e. the gospel of which Christ is the author. It is also called the gospel of God, and Paul speaks of it as his gospel, i.e. the gospel which he preached. When spoken of as the gospel of the kingdom of God , Matthew 4:23, the gospel of salvation , Ephesians 1:13, of peace , Ephesians 6:15, the genitive expresses either the subject of which the gospel treats or the effects which it produces. And a door was opened to me , i.e. a way of access, an opening to labor with effect. Of the Lord , according to this interpretation the words, ejn kuri>w| , are to be connected with the immediately preceding participle, “door opened by the Lord.” See 1 Corinthians 15:58; Galatians 5:10; Ephesians 2:21. It is, however, more in accordance with Paul’s style, who so frequently uses these words in such expressions as ‘work in the Lord’ ‘temple in the Lord,’ ‘fellow-laborer in the Lord,’ to refer them to the whole clause. “There was an open door in the Lord.” The kind of door is thus indicated, or the sphere of labor pointed out. It was an opportunity for laboring successfully in the Lord’s service. Though the prospects were so favorable, Paul says, I had no rest in my spirit ; tw|~ pneu>mati mou~ , for my spirit . The word spirit is here used because it is the highest term to designate the soul, Romans 8:16, and the anxiety or distress which the apostle experienced concerned the highest feelings of his nature. Because I found not Titus my brother . He calls Titus his brother, both because of his relation to him as a fellow-Christian, and because he was a joint laborer with him in the gospel. He expected to meet Titus at Troas, and to learn from him the state of things in Corinth, and especially the effect produced by his former letter. It seems that he regarded this as a turning point in the history of that church. If they submitted to his authority and corrected the abuses, which he had pointed out, and especially if they excommunicated the member guilty of the unheard-of offense so often referred to in this chapter, then he had hopes of their stability in faith and progress in holiness. But if they refused to regard his injunctions, and persisted in the course on which they had entered, then he foresaw their speedy destruction. So much was at stake that he could not endure the state of suspense which he was in; and therefore, taking leave of them , that is, of the brethren in Troas, he passed over into Macedonia. On his first visit to this city, Paul was prevented from remaining by a vision, from which he gathered that the Lord called him to preach the gospel in Macedonia. Acts 16:8. And on his return from his present journey, it is said, he sailed from Philippi and came in five days to Troas, and abode there seven days. Acts 20:6. From the circumstances connected with this last visit it is evident that there was all established church at that time in Troas. The word ajpota>ssomai , to take leave of , means to separate oneself from , to bid farewell to. Luke 16:61; Acts 18:18, 21. I went from thence into Macedonia ; exh~lqon , I went forth . He crossed over the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean sea to one of the ports of Macedonia; the same voyage which he made on his return, which then required five days.

As Titus was to return from Corinth through Macedonia to Troas, Paul thus went to meet him on his journey. 14. Now thanks (be) unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savor of his knowledge by us in every place .

Agreeably to the impulsive character of this epistle, instead of stating what was the intelligence which he received from Titus, the apostle breaks out into a thanksgiving to God, which assumes a form which might be taken for self-commendation, which he, however, disclaims, and humbly acknowledges that all his qualifications for his work, and all his success in it, are to be attributed to God. This leads him to speak of the ministry of the gospel, which he contrasts with that of the law, and himself with Moses, so that it is not until the seventh chapter that he pauses, as it were, to take breath, and resumes the narrative here broken off. The thing for which the apostle gives thanks is his success; which includes both his triumph over obstacles and enemies, and his efficiency in spreading abroad the knowledge of the truth. The word qriambeu>ein , rendered here to cause to triumph , means to triumph over , to lead in triumph . This is its uniform sense in the classics, and it is so used by Paul in Colossians 2:5. Meyer and others so render the word here. ‘Thanks be to God who triumphs over us,’ i.e. who disappoints our fears and puts our anxieties to shame. But this is evidently incongruous. Paul does not represent himself as humbled and conquered, but just the reverse. Calvin and others retain the literal meaning of the word, and say the sense is, ‘Thanks be to God who leads us in triumph, not as captives, but as sharers of his victory.’

This gives a suitable meaning, but is not so consistent with the use of the word, which means to triumph over , not, to make one a sharer in our triumph. The great majority of commentators therefore modify the sense of the word as is done by our translators. This they justify by referring to the fact that many verbs which in ordinary Greek are neuter, in the Hellenistic dialect are used in a causative sense (Winer , p. 304), as maqhteu>ein , to be a disciple , in Matthew 28:19 and elsewhere, means to make disciples ; basileu>ein , to reign , in 1 Samuel 8:22, and often in the Septuagint, means to cause to reign ; and thus qriambeu>ein , to triumph , may in obedience to the context be fairly rendered, to cause to triumph . In Christ , in virtue of union with Christ, or, as united to him.

These words determine the nature of the triumph of which the apostle speaks. It was the triumph of a Christian minister in the service of Christ. And maketh manifest the savor of his knowledge , i.e. diffuses or spreads abroad his knowledge, which is compared to the savor of a sacrifice ( Genesis 8:21; Ephesians 5:2; Philippians 4:18), or to incense. His Knowledge; the pronoun his is commonly referred to God, but as this clause is explanatory of the former, or an amplification of the idea therein expressed, it is perhaps better to refer it to Christ. ‘He causes us to triumph in Christ, and to spread abroad the savor of his knowledge,’ i.e. the knowledge of Christ. That Christ should be known was the great end of Paul’s mission, and is of all things the most acceptable to God.

Knowledge here, as so often elsewhere in Scripture, means not merely intellectual cognition, but spiritual apprehension and recognition. That men should know the Lord Jesus Christ in the sense of recognizing, loving and worshipping him as God manifest in the flesh, is the consummation of redemption; the sum of all blessedness and excellence. In every place .

Wherever Paul went, there the knowledge of Christ was spread abroad.

Comp. Romans 15:19. Can this be said of us? 15. For we are unto God a sweet savor of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish.

We as ministers, and our work of preaching Christ, are acceptable to God, whatever may be the result of our labors. This idea is connected with the preceding as an amplification and confirmation. ‘God by us diffuses the knowledge of Christ everywhere as a savor; for (o[ti , because ) it is well pleasing to God whatever be the effect which it produces.’ There is, as is so common in Paul’s epistles, a slight change in the figure. In v. 14 the knowledge of Christ is declared to be a savor as of incense, here the apostle is the sweet savor. But it is the apostle not as a man, not the purity or devotion of his life; but the apostle as a preacher of the gospel, and therefore the gospel which he preached; so that the thought remains the same. In both verses the diffusion of the knowledge of Christ is said to be well pleasing to God. Savor of Christ , does not mean a savor of which Christ is the author. The idea is not that Christ rendered Paul or his life acceptable to God. That indeed is true, but it is not what is intended.

When we speak of the perfume of the rose, or of the violet, we mean that perfume which the rose or the violet emits and which is characteristic of it.

When Paul says, “We are a sweet smelling savor of Christ,” he means we are the means of diffusing the knowledge of Christ. When a man’s garments are perfumed with myrrh or frankincense, he fills with the fragrance every place he enters. So Paul, wherever he went, diffused abroad the fragrance of the name of Christ, and that was acceptable to God. In them , i.e. among them, that are saved; and in (among) them that perish . This does not mean among them predestined to be saved, and those predestined to perish. The idea of predestination is not included. The two classes are designated ab eventu . The gospel and those who preach it are well pleasing to God, whether men receive it and are saved, or reject it and are lost. The light is inestimably precious, whether the eye rejoices in it, or through disease is destroyed by it. Comp. 1 Corinthians 1:18; Thessalonians 2:10. 16. To the one (we are) the savor of death unto death; to the other the savor of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

The words we are are not in the text, but are necessarily implied. The apostle and all faithful ministers are to God an eujwdi>a , a sweet savor , to men an ojsmh> , a savor , salutary or destructive according to circumstances. We are , i.e. we as preachers. The idea is the same whether we say that preachers of the gospel, or the gospel itself, or Christ, are the cause of life to some, and of death to others. As Christ is to some a tried corner stone, elect and precious, the rock of their salvation, to others he is a stone of offense. 1 Peter 2:7,8. So the gospel and its ministers are the cause of life to some, and of death to others, and to all they are either the one or the other. The word of God is quick and powerful either to save or to destroy.

It cannot be neutral. If it does not save, it destroys. “This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,” John 3:19. “If I had not come and spoken unto them they had not had sin,” John 15:22. If a man rejects the gospel, it had been far better for him never to have heard it. It will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for him. This, which is the doctrine of the Bible, is plainly the doctrine of this passage. The gospel and those who preach it, are either a savor of life or a savor of death. If not the one, they must be the other. In the phrase “a savor of death unto death,” of death expresses the quality, unto death , the effect. It is a deadly savor, and it produces death. And so of the corresponding clause, “a savor of life unto life,” is a salutary savor producing life. The Rabbins often use ‘a similar expression in reference to the Law, which they say is either an odor of life or of death.

On the authority of two of the older MSS. (A and C), and several of the more modern ones, Lachmann, Tischendorf and Meyer read ejk qana>tou and ejk zwh~v instead of the simple genitive. It is then not a savor of death or of life , but a savor arising from death, and a savor arising from life. To the one class Christ is dead and yields only a savor of death; to the other, he is alive, and yields a savor of life. According to either reading the main idea is the same. Christ and his gospel, and therefore his ministers, are to believers the source of life, and to unbelievers the source of death. See Matthew 21:44; Luke 2:34; John 9:39. The common text has more external authority, and certainly gives a simpler sense, and is therefore preferred by the majority of editors. And who is sufficient for these things ? kai> (and ) before a question often indicates a consequence of what precedes. It is frequently in our version in such cases rendered then. “Who then can be saved?” Mark 10:26. “How is he then David’s son?” Luke 20:44. So here, Who then is sufficient for these things? If the work is so great, if eternal life or eternal death must follow the preaching of the gospel, who then is sufficient (iJkano>v ) for so responsible a calling? The most natural answer to this question would seem to be, ‘No one in himself.’ The following verse, however, which begins with (ga>r ) for , and is designed to confirm the implied answer, requires that answer to be, “I am.”’I am sufficient for this work, for I do not handle the word of God deceitfully.’”My sufficiency,” however, the apostle immediately adds, 3:5, “is of God.” Of himself he was not fit or able to do any thing. There is, as Calvin remarks, an implied antithesis. ‘The object of preaching is the diffusion of the knowledge of Christ; the effect of that diffusion is life to some and death to others. Who then is competent to this work? Not your false teachers who corrupt the word of God, but I and others who preach the pure gospel from pure motives.’

This view is sustained by what follows, for the apostle immediately proceeds to vindicate his claim to this sufficiency or fitness, which he denies to the false teachers. 17. For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, as in the sight of God, speak we in Christ .