Bible Commentaries
2 Corinthians 10

Verses 1-99

10:1-13:10. ST PAUL’S VINDICATION OF HIS APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY; THE GREAT INVECTIVE

Whatever view may be taken of the origin of these four chapters, it is universally admitted that the third main portion of the Epistle, in the form in which it is found in all extant authorities, begins here. Having with much tenderness and affection effected a complete reconciliation between himself and his rebellious converts at Corinth (1-7.), and having felt his way, with diffidence amounting almost to misgiving, to an urgent request for bountiful support to the collection for the poor Christians at Jerusalem (8., 9.), he now, without any explanation of the change of topic and tone, suddenly begins a vehement assertion of his Apostolic authority as superior to that of those who oppose him, ending with something which is almost a declaration of war against those who shall have failed to submit when he pays his next visit to them, which will be soon.

Like the earlier parts of the Epistle, this portion is written under the influence of strong feeling, but, as again is universally admitted, the feeling is of a very different kind. Instead of yearning affection and a desire not to seem to be straining his Apostolic authority (1:23, 24, 2:4, 4:15, 5:12, 13, 6:11-13, 7:2-4, 8:8, 9:1, 11), he now exhibits fierce indignation and asserts his authority to the uttermost. Although there is no clear evidence that in his indignation he had carefully arranged the subject-matter of his invective, we can trace changes of subject, and there seem to be three main divisions; 1. the Apostle’s authority and the area of his mission (10:1-18); 2. the ‘glorying,’ a folly which has been forced upon him (11:1-12:10); 3. his credentials and his final warnings (12:11-13:10). For convenience of investigation we can make further sub-divisions, but this does not imply that such sub-divisions were in the Apostle’s mind when he dictated the letter. He takes up charges which have been brought against him and answers them as they occur to him.

10:1-6. Reply to the Charge of Cowardice

When I come to Corinth, I may be obliged to take strong measures against those who disturb the peace of the Church.

1 Now this is an intensely personal matter. I, Paul, in all earnestness appeal to you by the meekness and unfailing fairness of Christ,—I, whom you accuse of grovelling when face to face with you, and of being fearlessly outspoken only when I am far away: 2 I pray you not to drive me, when I do come to you, to be fearlessly outspoken with the sure confidence with which I am persuaded that I can muster courage against certain persons who are persuaded that we think and act on worldly and carnal principles. 3 True that it is in the world and in the flesh that we do think and act, but it is not on worldly and carnal principles that we conduct our campaign. 4 For the weapons of our campaign are not those of feeble human flesh. No, they are full of power, in God’s service and with His blessing, for the demolition of the strongholds which defy His Gospel; 5 seeing that we demolish confident persuasions and every high structure that is being lifted up to oppose the revelation which God has given of Himself, and by making captives of every rebellious device bring them into submissive obedience to the Christ. 6 We are quite prepared to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete.

1. Αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ Παῦλος. It is sometimes suggested that St Paul here takes the pen from his amanuensis and writes the rest of the letter with his own hand, as he tells us that he did in the case of his concluding salutations (2 Thessalonians 3:17; 1 Corinthians 16:21; Colossians 4:18). It is likely enough that he sometimes wrote other portions of his letters. Galatians 6:11 seems to imply that the last eight verses, and possibly more, were written with his own hand, and we may infer from Philemon 1:19 that in writing that short and very intimate letter he did not employ an amanuensis at all. But we cannot safely infer from αὐτὸς ἐγώ that here he dismisses his amanuensis and begins to write himself; no such inference can be drawn from Romans 7:25, Romans 9:3, or 15:14, in all which places αὐτὸς ἐγώ occurs. If it means this here, what does it mean in 12:13? It is possible that αὐτὸς ἐγώ dismisses Timothy. Hitherto Timothy has been associated with him in writing the letter (1:1) as being one of his colleagues in forming the Corinthian Church; but now he is about to speak of purely personal matters with which Timothy has nothing to do. It is Paul and not Timothy who has been misrepresented and calumniated, and it is Paul alone who answers the slanders; the responsibility and the authority are his. It is some confirmation of this view that, whereas in the first nine chapters he commonly uses the 1st pers. plur., while the 1st pers. sing. is exceptional, in these four chapters the sing. is the rule, and the plur. is exceptional. Nevertheless, this does not carry us very far, for in this chapter the plur. is freq.; see also 11:12, 12:19, 13:4-7. Moreover, this explanation gives rather a full meaning to αὐτὸς ἐγώ. Another possibility is that αὐτὸς ἐγώ merely prepares the way for the words which follow; ‘The very Paul, who seems to you so meek and mild when he is face to face with you, and so resolute and brave when he is far away, this same Paul exhorts you, etc.’ For this we should perhaps have αὑτός = ὁ αὐτός. *

The best parallel to αὐτὸς ἐγώ Παῦλος is Galatians 5:2; Ἵδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑμῖν, where ἐγὼ Παῦλος is partly an assertion of authority, † partly an indirect refutation of calumnies (see Lightfoot). Here the αὐτός makes the refutation more emphatic and perhaps somewhat scornful. St Paul rarely introduces his name in the body of a letter, and where he does it always has special emphasis (1 Thessalonians 2:18; Ephesians 3:1; Colossians 1:23; Philemon 1:19). In Galatians 5:2 and Ephesians 3:1. it cannot be meant to exclude those who are named in the opening salutation, for no one is coupled with the Apostle in the salutation.

Those who regard 2 Cor. as only one letter sometimes endeavour to find a connexion between 9. and 10. in some such way as this; ‘I exhort you to be kind and considerate to the brethren in Jerusalem because of the gentleness and considerateness of Christ; and I pray God that I may not be forced to do more than exhort.’ But this reads into the words a good deal which is not expressed. The subject of the collection is absolutely dropped; in these four chapters there is no further allusion to it. And it is difficult to see how “the grateful ending” of 9. “affords an easy platform of approach to the unpleasant matter” of 10-13. It is more reasonable to say that “the writer moves on, without indicating any connexion, to another matter” (Denney). Whatever be our view of these four chapters, it is clear that we have a fresh start. The preceding topic is now dropped and another one is begun. Three elerrents which are conspicuous in the four chapters find expression in these two introductory verses; the strong personal feeling, indignation at the calumnies of his opponents, and the intimation that, if the opposition continues, he will not spare. See on 1 Corinthians 4:21, where the same question is raised.

παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς. The extraordinary change of tone which suddenly begins here is sometimes explained by the assertion that in the first two-thirds of his letter the Apostle is addressing the loyal Corinthians, and in the last third his opponents. Of this change of address there is not the smallest intimation; in both portions we have ὑμεῖς and ὑμᾶς throughout, and in both portions, as in 1 Cor., the whole Corinthian Church is addressed. In v. 2 the opponents are mentioned separately as τινας. The sudden change is in the Apostle’s attitude towards the Corinthians. And παρακαλῶ is here ‘exhort’ rather than ‘entreat’; it has almost a minatory tone, ‘I strongly advise you.’ In v. 2 he lowers the tone to ‘beseech.’

διὰ τῆς πραΰτητος καὶ ἐπιεικίας. This appeal has nothing to do with the collection; it refers to the warning entreaty which follows. In Aristotle πραότης is the mean between ὀργιλότης and�Matthew 11:29; James 1:21). It is that temper of spirit in which we accept His dealings with us without disputing or resisting” (Trench, Syn. § xlii.). Ἐπιείκεια is that ‘sweet reasonableness’ (Matthew Arnold) which prevents summum jus from becoming summa injuria, by admitting limitations and making allowances for special circumstances: πραότης magis absoluta, ἐπιείκεια magis refertur ad alios (Beng.). Cf. 2 Macc. 10:4. Vulg. is capricious in its renderings of both terms. Here it has modestia for ἐπιείκεια, but Acts 24:4. clementia. Here and in some other places it has mansuetudo for πραΰτης, but Gal_6. lenitas, Ephesians 4:2. and 2 Timothy 2:25, modestia. In O.T. we find reverentia and tranquillitas (Wisd. 2:19, etc.).

The appeal shows that St Paul must have instructed the Corinthians as to the character of the Redeemer, whose words and actions must therefore have been known to himself. The Gospels were not yet written, but the oral tradition was there in its fulness. That the Messiah would be πραΰς had been foretold (Zechariah 9:9), and He had proclaimed Himself to be so (Matthew 11:29), and had declared the blessedness of those who are so (Matthew 5:5). The appeal reads somewhat strangely as a prelude to one of the most bitter and vehement paragraphs in the writings of St Paul. What follows reads rather like an echo of the wrath of the Lamb. We might have expected him to say Ἰησοῦ (4:10, 11; Romans 8:11; 1 Thessalonians 4:14) when speaking of the earthly life of Christ. But Χριστοῦ may have point, because some of them professed to be in a special sense Χριστοῦ (1 Corinthians 1:12).

ὄς κατὰ πρόσωπον μὲν ταπεινὸς ἐν ὑμῖν. Here ταπεινός is used in a bad sense, which is unusual. He is quoting the words of his accusers at Corinth. They had said that, when he was there, he was a Uriah Heep, very humble and cringing and artful; when he was away from them, he could pluck up his courage and be very resolute—on paper. See on 7:6.

Here and throughout both LXX and N.T. we should read πραΰτης (א * B G P 17) rather than πραότης (א C D E K L). In LXX both πραΰς (Numbers 12:3 and often in Psalms) and ταπεινός (Proverbs 3:34; Zephaniah 2:3; Isaiah 11:4) are used to translate the same Hebrew, anav.

2. δέομαι δὲ τὸ μὴ παρὼν θαρρῆσαι. The appeal to the meekness and gentleness of Christ influences the Apostle himself, and he drops from magisterial exhortion to earnest entreaty. RV. does not sufficiently mark this with ‘intreat’ and ‘beseech,’ nor Vulg. with obsecro and rogo, while AV does not mark it at all, but has ‘beseech’ for both verbs. Δέομαι δέ takes up παρακαλῶ and repeats it in a lower key; ‘I exhort, nay I beseech you, that I may not when present show courage.’ Lit. ‘I beg of you the not, when I am present, showing courage.’ Chrys. has μή με�Philippians 4:11), φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοί (Romans 1:22). Bachmann follows Rückert and B. Weiss in thinking that δέομαι is addressed to God, which is not probable. As δέομαι must be distinguished in translation from παρακαλῶ, so also must θαρρῆσαι from τολμῆσαι, and here again AV ignores the change. The change of word is probably neither accidental nor merely for the sake of variety, but marks the difference between the feigned courage which his critics attributed to him and the uncompromising boldness which he is confident of exhibiting if his opponents render it necessary. He beseeches them so to behave that he may be spared the distress of proving that he can be unflinching when he is face to face with them.

τῇ πεποιθήσει ᾗ λογίζομαι τολμῆσαι κ.τ.λ. ‘With the confidence (1:15) wherewith I count on being bold against certain persons who count of us as, etc.’ The Corinthians of course would understand who the τινας, quosdam, whom he does not care to mention, are, cf. 3:1; 1 Corinthians 15:12. They are a malignant coterie in the Church which he is addressing. The thought of them changes his tone once more, and he again becomes minatory. We must give the same rendering to λογίζομαι and λογιζομένους, both of which are midd. and not pass. Nevertheless there is a difference of signification, the one meaning ‘I reckon’ = ‘I expect,’ the other meaning ‘who reckon’ = ‘who suppose.’ The verb is very freq. in Paul, esp. in Rom. and 2 Cor. Vulg. here has qua existimor audere in quosdam, qui arbitrantur nos, etc., using two different verbs and taking λογίζομαι as passive. It uses both these verbs elsewhere, and also cogito (vv. 7, 11, 3:5; etc.), reputo (5:19; Galatians 3:6; 2 Timothy 4:6; etc.), imputo (Romans 4:3, Romans 4:8), cui accepto fero (Romans 4:6), and aestimo (Romans 8:36, Romans 9:8). Romans 4:3 is remarkable, for in Genesis 15:6 Vulg. has reputo.

ὡς κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦντας. ‘As if our conduct were guided by carnal principles’; see on Romans 8:4. His opponents attributed to him unspiritual and worldly motives and conduct; that he was capricious and shuffling, verbose and vain-glorious, at once a coward and a bully, and so forth. That they accused him of unchastity is not probable; had they done so, he would have been more definite. Nor is there any reference to his physical infirmities. See on 1:17, last note; and for the Hebraistic περιτατεῖν of daily conduct see on 4:2 and 1 Corinthians 3:3, also on�2 Corinthians 1:12. The metaphor which follows suggests that κατὰ σάρκα refers, among other things, to a charge of being a coward.

3. ἐν σαρκὶ γὰρ περιπαιοῦντες. ‘In the flesh (emphatic) no doubt. we walk, but not according to the flesh do we carry on our warfare.’ The γάρ implies a tacit contradiction; ‘That is not true, for, although of course we walk in, etc.’ Like all human beings, he is subject to the limitations and weaknesses of humanity, such as timidity, indiscretion, love of influence; cf. 4:7; Galatians 2:20; Philippians 1:22. An Apostle, in his missionary work, has to reckon with these drawbacks, but they do not regulate his conduct. They constitute the condition in which he must labour, but they are not its regulating principle. Its principles are not worldly but spiritual.

That a Christian’s life is warfare is often pointed out by St Paul (6:7; 1 Thessalonians 5:8; Romans 13:12, Romans 13:13; Ephesians 6:11-17; 1 Timothy 1:18; 2 Timothy 2:3, 2 Timothy 2:4). Cf. Wisd. 5:17-20, a book with which St Paul seems to have been familiar. The metaphor would be natural enough, even if the Apostle had not had frequent experience of Roman soldiers. Here it has special point, if he is rebutting a charge of cowardice; and he is certainly beginning to carry war into his opponents’ camp. Durandus (Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, iv. 16), after saying that “when the Epistle is read we do not kneel but sit,” adds that “Soldiers, however, are accustomed to stand when the Epistles of Paul are read, in honour of him, because he was a soldier.” See V. Staley, Studies in Ceremonial, p. 80.

4. In form this verse is a parenthesis to confirm the truth of the preceding statement, and καθαιροῦντες in v. 5 goes back in grammatical constr. to στρατευόμεθα in v. 3. But in idea καθαιροῦντες is obviously connected with πρὸς καθαίρεσιν in v. 4, and the const. of v. 3 seems to be forgotten.

τὰ γὰρ ὅπλα τῆς στρατείας ἡμῶν. ‘For the weapons of our campaign are not fleshly.’ He probably refers to the artifices which his critics said that he employed in gaining converts. Adopting στρατιᾶς as the right spelling (see below), we must treat it as equivalent to στρατείας, ‘campaign,’, not στρατιᾶς, ‘army’. “It is really superfluous to collect proofs of the fact that στρατεία could also be written στρατία’ (Deissmann, Bib. St. p. 132). For σαρκικά see on 1:2; for ὅπλα, on 6:7.

δυνατὰ τῷ Θεῷ. It is the idea of power that is wanted in opposition to the weakness of the flesh. The extraordinary effectiveness of the weapons is evidence that there is something more than mere human force in them; and hence perhaps the use of δυνατά rather than πνευματικά, the common antithesis to σαρκικά. The force of the dat. is uncertain; either ‘for God,’ ‘in God’s service’ (dat. com.), or ‘before God,’ ‘in His eyes’ (RV). From the latter the transition would be easy to the Hebraistic use for ‘exceeding,’ as in�Acts 7:20). Erasmus has afflatu Dei, Beza divinitus, ‘divinely powerful.’

πρὸς καθαίρεσιν ὀχυρωμάτων. ‘ To the demolition of strongholds,’ the fortresses which hinder the success of the campaign, i.e. all the prejudices and evil practices which resist the influence of the Gospel. In 70, esp. in Maccabees (cf. 1 Macc. 5:65), ὀχύρωμα is freq., but occurs nowhere else in N.T., and possibly St Paul is thinking of Proverbs 21:22; πόλεις ὀχυρὰς ἐπέβη σοφὸς καὶ καθειλε τὸ ὀχύρωμα ἐφʼ ᾧ ἐπεποίθησαν οἱ�

It is difficult to decide between στρατίας (א C D G) and στρατείας (B).

5. λογισμοὺς καθαιροῦντες. The constr. is doubtful. We can take it back to περιπατοῦντες and στρατευόμεθα, making v. 4 a parenthesis (AV, RV., WH.); but St Paul so frequently has nominative participles without any regular connexion (θλιβόμενοι, 7:5; στελλόμενοι, 8:20; πλουτιζόμενοι, 9:11), that it is likely that we have a similar feature here; ‘Seeing that we demolish seducing reasonings,’ i.e., sophistries and plausible fallacies with which Jews and Gentiles evaded the teaching of the Apostles. Cf. Proverbs 21:30. There is nothing personal in the warfare which the Apostles wage. They assail arguments and ideas in order to win over those who hold them. They do not attempt to destroy the reasoners in order to stop the arguments. And in demolishing reasonings St Paul did not use πιθοῖς σοφίας λόγοις, thought some missionaries did according to their ability; the spiritual power with which he was endowed sufficed. It is not likely that λογισμούς is meant to refer to λογιζομένους, and in translating the one we need not consider the other. These specious and arrogant λογισμοί belong to a class of which he goes on to speak. Cf. Romans 2:15, the only other passage in which λογισμός is found in N.T.

πᾶν ὕψωμα ἐπαιρόμενον. ‘Every high thing that is lifting itself up.’ In 11:20 ἐπαιρ is midd., and so it probably is here. The metaphor is from walls and towers standing defiantly, rather than barriers hastily thrown up to check progress; but the pass, is possible, that is ‘erected,’ ‘set up,’ as a towering obstacle.

κατὰ τῆς λνώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ. ‘In opposition to the knowledge of God,’ that true knowledge of Him which comes through acquaintance with One who was the image of God (4:4). St Paul is sure that he possesses this. Cf. τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ (Romans 1:19), and πλανᾶσθαι περὶ τήν τοῦ Θεοῦ γνῶσιν (Wisd. 14:22). St Paul’s acquaintance with the Book of Wisdom has been already noted. See on v. 4 and v. 1.

αἰχμαλωτίζοντες. Military metaphors still continue, and in N.T. this metaphor of ‘making prisoners’ or ‘taking captive’ is peculiar to St Paul (Romans 7:23; 2 Timothy 3:6). In Luke 21:24 there is no metaphor. These two military expressions are found in conjunction 1 Macc. 8:10; ᾐχμαλώτισαν τὰς γυναῖκας αὐτῶν, … καὶ καθεῖλον τὰ ὀχυρώματα αὐτῶν. Cf. τὸ κάλλος αὐτῆς ᾐμαλώτισε ψυχῆν αὐτοῦ(Judith 16:9). In Ephesians 4:8 we have αἰχμαλωτεύω, from Ezekiel 12:3. Both forms of the verb are very freq. in 70; αἰχμαλωτίζω is used by Josephus, Plutarch, Arrian, etc.

πᾶν νόημα. ‘Every device’; see on 2:11. Neither here, where Luther’s alle Venrunft has led some people astray, nor 1 Corinthians 4:4, where AV has done the like, does St Paul express disapproval of human reasoning, or deny the right to think for oneself. It is those λοψισμοί and νοήματα which oppose or corrupt the truth to which he here declares hostility. But θαρρῶ εἰς ὑμᾶς (v. 1) does not justify our taking εἰς τὴν ὑπακοήν with πᾶν νόημα, ‘every device against the obedience’; for this we should have had κατὰ, as in κατὰ τῆς γνώσεως.

εἰς τὴν ὑπακοὴν τοῦ χριστοῦ. These words go with αἰχμαλωτίζοντες, ‘taking every opposing design prisoner and bringing it into the condition of submissive obedience to the Christ.’* Cf. Luke 21:24. Submission to Christ is the new land into which they are carried captive; 1 Kings 8:46; Judith 5:18; Tobit 1:10. That the imagery of the passage was suggested by the wars of Pompey against Mithridates and the Pirates (Stanley) is less likely than that the wars of the Maccabees were in the Apostle’s mind. But no actual campaign is needed to suggest the metaphors. Cf. Romans 1:5.

6. καὶ ἐν ἑτοίμῳ ἔχοντες ἐκδικῆσαι κ.τ.λ. ‘And being quite prepared to avenge all disobedience, whenever your obedience shall have been completed.’ This reads oddly after 7:4, 16. There he is enthusiastic about them; here their obedience is still incomplete. See also 8:7. The ὑμῶν is emphatic; he fully expects that, after the interval which he means to allow, the Corinthian Church will be found to be obedient to Christ and submissive to His Apostle. But there may be exceptions, and with such cases he is prepared to deal severely. We have ἑτοίμως ἔχω, 12:14, and ἐν ἑτοίμῳ ἔχω is found in Philo, Polybius, etc. See Wetstein. Such expressions, like δύναμαι, are usually followed by the aor. infin. (12:14; Acts 21:13, Acts 23:15, etc.).* The legal expression, ἐκδικῆσαι, ‘to do justice,’ may be compared with those in 1:22, 2:6, 8, 7:11, 12. The play on words between καθαιροῦντες and ἐπαιρόμενον and between ὑπακοή and παρακοή may be compared with those noted in 1:13, 3:2, 4:8, 6:10, 7:10, 8:22. Note also the emphatic repetition in πᾶν … πᾶσαν, and the alliteration in ἔχότες ἐκδικῆσαι and πᾶσαν παρακοήν. Alliteration with π is specially freq. (9:8, 11). In LXX παρακοή is not found, and in N.T. it occurs only here, Romans 5:19, and Hebrews 2:2, and St Paul would probably have used�Romans 11:30, Romans 11:32; Ephesians 2:2, Ephesians 2:5:6; Colossians 3:6) here had he not wished to make a verbal antithesis to ὑπακοή, for παρακοή, ‘failing to listen’ or ‘listening amiss,’ implies less deliberate disobedience than�

These two verses exhibit the Apostle’s severity and consideration, and his authority is manifest in both. The threat of severity anticipates 12:20—13:1, and if these four chapters are part of the lost letter which was sent before 2 Cor. 1-9., then 2:9 may refer to this passage. The claim to a Divine commission and to the power to decide what is contrary to the knowledge of God is conspicuous here as in 2:14, 4:6, 5:18. In what way he will punish those who still oppose him when he comes is not stated. He is probably thinking of the Judaistic teachers, anticipating that those whom they have misled will submit and return to their allegiance, but that these alien teachers will not do so.‡ He passes on to deal with some of the sneers which they had employed in order to undermine his authority, and some of the claims which they had made in order to establish their own. Some of the latter may have been true enough. They came from the country of the Messiah and from the primitive Christian congregation. They had personal acquaintance with some of the Twelve and with James, the Lord’s brother. That they had known Christ Himself is less probable.

10:7-11. Reply to the Charge of Weakness

My Apostolic Authority will be found to be as effective in fact as it looks on paper.

7 It is at the outward appearance of things that you look. There may be a certain person who is convinced in himself that he is Christ’s man. Well then, let him, on second thoughts, be persuaded of this with himself, that just as truly as he is Christ’s, so also are we. 8 That is no idle boast; for even supposing that I glory somewhat extravagantly about our authority, which was given me by the Lord for your upbuilding and not for your demolition, I shall not be put to shame as an impostor when I come to Corinth. 9 I will not say more than that, that I may not seem (as it were) to terrify you by means of my letters. 10 For I know what people say; ‘Oh, yes, his letters are impressive and forcible enough; but his personal appearance is weak, and his manner of speaking is worth nothing.’ 11 Let the man who talks in this manner be persuaded of this, that such as we are in word by means of letters, when we are absent, just such also, when we are present, are we in act. Our words and our conduct exactly correspond.

7. Τὰ κατὰ πρόσωπον βλέπετε. It is impossible to decide with any certainty whether βλέπετε is imperative or indicative (cf. John 5:39, John 5:14:1; 1 John 2:27, 1 John 2:29, 1 John 2:4:2), and, if we decide for the indicative, whether it is interrogative or categorical (cf. 12:5, 11:19; 1 Corinthians 6:4, 1 Corinthians 6:6, 1 Corinthians 6:7:18, 21, 27). All three renderings, ‘Ye look’ (RV), ‘Do ye look?’ (AV, RV. marg.), and ‘Look ye’ (Vulg. videte), make good sense. Wiclif, Tyndale, and the Genevan agree with the last, and commentators, both ancient and modern, are much divided. If βλέπετε were imperative, it would probably have come first; but this is not decisive. Let us follow RV. ‘It is at the things which lie before your face that you are looking.’ They ought to take a more comprehensive view, and also try to see a little below the surface. If self—commendation, plausibility, and adroitness suffice, then the Corinthians are quite right in accepting the Judaizers, but they ought to look to more solid things than that. One can get much the same meaning, if βλέπετε is imperative, ‘Look at the facts; not what these teachers say, but what you all can see. Das, was vor Augen liegt—ja das fasst ins Auge (Bachmann).

εἴ τις πέποιθεν ἑαυτῷ, ‘If any man trusteth in himself that he is Christ’s, let him count (v. 2) this again, with himself, that even as he is Christ’s, so also are we.’ It is ‘in himself,’ ‘in his own mind,’ that he has his confidence, and just there he ought also (πάλιν) to make his reckoning. The vague τις, like the vague τινας (v. 2), points to the Apostle’s opponents, but the sing. τις is no proof that he is now thinking of a particular individual. Cf. 11:4, 20. It is scarcely possible that Χριστοῦ εἶναι has any reference to the Christ party (1 Corinthians 1:12). St Paul would not use language which would almost inevitably be understood to mean that he was a member of the ‘Christ’ party. These parties seem to have died out; for there is no mention of them in 2 Cor., not even in 12:20, where he speaks of strifes and factions. We may conclude that the rebukes in 1 Cor. proved effectual. Χριστοῦ εἶναι here means being Christ’s man, servant, or minister. With πάλιν comp. 1 Corinthians 12:21, and with ἐθʼ ἑαυτοῦ, 1 Corinthians 6:1.

D * E* F G, d e f g add δοῦλος after the first Χριστοῦ ἐφʼ ἑαυτοῦ (א B L, Latt. intra se) rather than�

8. ἐάν τε γὰρ … Confirmatory evidence that he is Christ’s minister in as true a sense as his opponents are. Cf. Romans 14:8. He begins with an ‘if,’ but he ends with a confident assertion. Even if he should use stronger language than he has done about his authority, there is not the least prospect that he will be put to shame as a convicted impostor. There will be ample justification of his claims. It is not certain that περισσότερον refers to vv. 3-6, ‘more abundantly than I have just done’: it may mean no more than ‘somewhat abundantly.’ In any case we notice here his abstention from denying that his opponents are in any sense Christ’s ministers. All he says is that he can give ample evidence that he is a minister of Christ, invested with His authority. Contrast 11:13-15. In this verse we have the transition from the plur. to the sing. It is still ‘our authority,’ but the glorying is his own. The mixture of sing. and plur. continues for a while, and then in 11., 12., 13. the sing. prevails.

ἧς ἔδωκεν ὁ κύριος εἰς οἰκοδομὴν καὶ οὐκ εἰς καθαίρεσιν ὑμῷν. ‘Which the Lord gave me for your up building and not for your demolition.’ We must have the same rendering of καθαίρ here and in vv. 4 and 5. Here ‘building you up and not casting you down’ seems more effective; but we talk of ‘demolishing’ arguments (λογισμούς) rather than of ‘casting them down. Exactly the same expression is found again 13:10, and in both places it fits the context so well that there is no need to suspect an editorial insertion from either place to the other. The aor. refers to the commission given at Saul’s conversion (Acts 9:6, Acts 9:15, Acts 9:22:15, Acts 9:26:16). The clause may intimate that his critics said that his teaching was destructive, or that he holds that theirs is destructive. But we cannot be sure of either; it may be a plain statement of fact.

οὐκ αἰσχυνθήσομαι. ‘I shall not be put to shame,’ by being exposed as a pretentious boaster. The change from subjunctive to indicative (‘shall not,’ not ‘should not’) marks his confidence. That will never happen. Some commentators here add, as to be understood, ‘and I do not say anything stronger than this,’ in order to account for the ἵνα which follows. The constr., thought not quite regular, is intelligible enough.

B G 17, Syr-Pesh. Copt. omit τε after ἐάν. We may safely omit καί before περισσότερον with (א* B C D* E* G P, Latt. Copt. Syr-Hark. καυχήσωμαι (B C D F K) rather than καυχήσομαι (א L P). C* P, Syr-Pesh. Copt. omit ἡμῶν after ἐξουσίας, perhaps as apparently out of harmony with the sing. verb. D3 E G K L ins. ἡμῖν after ὁ κύριος, P before it; א B C D* 17, d e omit. Note the divergence between E and e, which usually agrees with d independently of the Greek of E.

9. ἵνα μὴ δόξω κ.τ.λ. This depends on v. 8 as a whole, not on any one clause or word. To make v. 10 a parenthesis and carry on ἵνα to v. 11 is an intolerable constr.; ‘That I may not seem … let such a one, etc.’ But it is perhaps in order to ease such a connexion that Chrys. inserts δέ and Vulg. autem* after ἵνα, for if ἵνα has no connexion with v. 8, ἵνα μὴ δόξω is felt to be very abrupt. Ne videar without autem would be right.

ὡς ἂν ἐκφοβεῖν ὑμᾶς. ‘As it were, to terrify you.’ The compound verb has a strong meaning, ‘to scare you out of your senses,’ and to tone this down ὡς ἄν is prefixed; quasi perterrefacere vos. It is freq. in LXX (Job 7:14, 33:16; Wisd. 11:19, 17:6, 19; etc.), esp. in the phrase οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἐκφοβῶν (Leviticus 26:6; Deuteronomy 28:26; Micah 4:4; Zech. 3:13; Ezekiel 34:28, Ezekiel 39:26), but is found nowhere else in N.T. It is doubtful whether we ought to count this as a very rare instance of ἄν c. infin. We perhaps ought to write ὡσάν, which occurs in mod. Grk.; as also σάν, = ‘as,’ ‘like,’ or ‘when.’ Moulton, p. 167.

διὰ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν. ‘By my letters.’ We know certainly of two letters, 1 Cor. and its predecessor (1 Corinthians 5:9). Unless these four chapters are part of the severe letter (1:23, 2:3, 9, 7:8), we know of three before these words were written, and there may have been others. But the strict injunctions about fornicators in the first letter (1 Corinthians 5:9), and the severe sentence on the incestuous person in 1 Cor. (1 Corinthians 5:3-5), would justify the expression ‘terrifying by my letters,’ without the addition of another severe letter.

10. φησίν. It is difficult to decide between φησίν and φασίν (see below). The τις (v. 7) and ὁ τοιοῦτος (v. 11) might cause φασίν to be corrected to φησίν. On the other hand, φησίν might be corrected to φασίν, because the context shows that this contemptuous criticism of the Apostle’s letters was not confined to an individual. In either case we have interesting contemporary evidence of what some people thought of the Apostle’s letters and of his personal effectiveness. Either φησίν or φασίν might be rendered ‘it is said,’ on dit, man sagt. Winer, p. 655.

βαρεῖαι καὶ ἰσχυραί. ‘Weighty and powerful.’* The truth of this is seen by the description of the effect of the severe letter in 7:8-11, a description which must be truthful, for it is sent to the Corinthians themselves, who knew the facts. His critics could not deny the solid and effective character of his letters. Βαρεῖαι probably does not mean ‘burdensome,’ ‘grievous’ (Matthew 23:4; Acts 20:29; 1 John 5:3), but ‘weighty,’ ‘impressive’ (Matthew 23:23 and perhaps Acts 25:7); yet the latter meaning is less common. Illustrations in Westein. Used for persons, βαρύς has commonly a bad signification, ‘oppressive,’ ‘cross—grained’; but it sometimes means ‘dignified,’ ‘grave,’ like σεμνός. Cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:6. Yet it is possible that the two epithets are not meant to be complimentary; they might mean that in his letters he was tyrannical and violent.

ἡ δὲ παρουσία τοῦ σώματος. ‘Bodily presence (AV, RV) can hardly be improved; but ‘personal presence,’ ‘personal appearance,’ ‘personality’ have been suggested. There is chiasmus in the contrasted epithets,�1 Corinthians 9:20), and what he said was not worth listening to (see on 1 Corinthians 2:3).* This looks like a reference to the intermediate and unsuccessful visit.

ἐξουθενημένος. ‘Despised,’ ‘of no account’ (1 Corinthians 1:28, 1 Corinthians 1:6:4; Ecclesiastes 9:16; Malachi 2:9; Daniel 4:28; Dan_2 Macc. 1:27). No doubt the Apostle’s powers were not always the same; his letters show that. At times his eloquence seemed godlike (Acts 14:8-12), but he had not the brilliancy of Apollos, and he did not keep Eutychus awake (Acts 20:9). Ramsay, St Paul, p. 84, Church in the Roman Empire, p. 57. “A personality of such polar contrasts made a very different impression on different people. Seldom perhaps has any one been at once so ardently hated and so passionately loved as St Paul” (Deissmann, St Paul,. p. 70). As Bousset remarks, the personality of St Paul must have indeed been great, if, in spite of infirmities which would be specially distasteful to Greeks, he nevertheless was to them ‘the Apostle.’

Of the descriptions which have come down to us of the personal appearance of the Apostle the only one which is at all likely to be based upon early tradition is the well-known one in the Acts of Paul and Thekla, a document which Ramsay (Church in Rom. Emp. xvi.) assigns to the first century. These Acta exist in Syriac, Latin, Greek, and Armenian, and the Syriac is believed to embody the earliest form of the story. The description in the Syriac is as follows; “A man of middling size, and his hair was scanty, and his legs were a little crooked, and his knees were projecting (or far apart); and he had large eyes, and his eyebrows met, and his nose was somewhat long; and he was full of grace and mercy; at one time he seemed like a man, and at another he seemed like an angel.” The Armenian version says that he had blue eyes and crisp or curly hair. Later writers give him an aquiline nose. See. F. C. Conybeare, Monuments of Early Christianity, p. 62; Smith and Cheetham, D. of Chr. Ant. ii. p. 1622; Farrar, St Paul, exc. xi.; Kraus, Real. Enc. d. Christ. Alter. ii. pp. 608, 613.

αἱ ἐπιστολαὶ μέν (א* B, r) rather than αἱ μὲν ἐπ (א3 D F G K L P, Latt.). φησίν (א D E F G K L P, d e Copt.) rather than φασίν (B, f g r Vulg. Syrr.). Note the divergence between F and f.

11. τοῦτο λογιζέσθω. ‘Count this.’ It is worth while to have the same rendering in vv. 2, 7, 11; RV. has ‘count,’ ‘consider,’ ‘reckon.’ Τοῦτο is emphatic, ‘just this.’

τοιοῦτος. Not ‘ the person in question,’ but ‘such a one,’ ὁ λόγος would include the thought as well as the expression.

‘a person of this kind.’ The Apostle is not alluding to a definite individual, but quoting a current criticism.

οἷοί ἐσμεν τῷ λόγῳ. ‘What we are in word by letters when we are absent, such are we also in act when we are present.’ Menzies and Moffatt follow AV in supplying ἐσόμεθα with τοιοῦτοι which confines the meaning to his intended visit to Corinth. RV. is almost certainly right in supplying ἐσμεν, which makes the statement apply to his whole character and conduct. He is not one in whom the inconsistency of writing forcibly and acting feebly is found. So Alford, Bachmann, Bernard, Lietzmann, McFadyen, Schmiedel. The antithesis between λόγῳ and ἔργῳ, so freq. in Thucydides, is found Romans 15:18; and Acts 7:22 we have δυνατὸς ἐν λόγοις καὶ ἔργοις αὐτοῦ. In the antithesis here, we again have chiasmus; τῷ λόγͅ�

12-18. A passage, the difficulty of which was very early felt, and hence the variations in the text, some of which are obviously the result of efforts to make things clearer. That St Paul deliberately wrote obscurely in order to avoid making definite charges against his assailants (Theodoret) is not probable.* He is satirical, and we must beware of taking his irony literally. Under cover of mock humility he shows that he is a very different kind of person from those who criticize him from a pinnacle of assumed superiority. They say that at close quarters he is a coward. Well, he must own that he has not the courage which they possess. He does not venture to put himself on a level with people who sing their own praises and try to get themselves accepted at their own valuation. Conduct of that kind is folly. His glorying has limits not of his own choosing; they are the limits of the sphere assigned to him by God, who sent him to Corinth. And he was the first in the field there. He did not come after others had laboured there and take the credit of what they had done, although there are people who have tried to reap where he has sown. He hopes that as the Corinthians’ faith increases he will be able to enlarge his sphere of influence and carry the Gospel to regions farther West, always avoiding the fields of other men’s labours, so as not to seem to plume himself on work which was not his own.

The Western text (D* F G, d e f g, Ambrst.) omits οὐ συνιᾶσιν (συνιοῦσιν), ἡμεῖς δέ, and then the sentence�

οὐ συνιᾶσιν. ‘Are without understanding’; they are ἄφρονες (Ephesians 5:17), who are not intelligent enough to put two and two together. These self-satisfied critics, who have no external standard, but judge everything by comparison with their own practice, come very far short of wisdom. Non intelligent, says Augustine, adding neque quae loquuntur neque de quibus affirmant (from 1 Timothy 1:7). Others supply, ‘how ridiculous they are,’ or ‘what they are talking about,’ or ‘what are the marks of a true Apostle.’ But οὐ συνιᾶσιν needs no supplement. Cf. οὔπω νοεῖτε οὐδὲ συνίετε; (Mark 8:17).

The spelling ἐνκρι. and συνκρι is supported by B * D *; for the former G has κρῖναι. Naber’s suspicion of dittography is not needed; the play on words is thoroughly Pauline. D E add ἑαυτούς after the first verb, while א omits ἐαυτούς before μετροῦντες. συνιᾶσιν (א 1 B 17) rather than συνιοῦσιν (D 3 D K L P or συνίσασιν (א*) D FG, d e f G oimit οὐ συν. ἠμεῖς δὲ, but the words should be retained with א B D 3 E K L P, 1 Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth. Goth.

13. ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα καυχησόμεθα. ‘But we will not glory beyond our measure’. He does not fix his own standard, and he does not exceed the limits fixed for him; moreover, he has a settled determination never to exceed these limits. Εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα is indefinite; it may refer to the excessive self—admiration of his opponents, or it may mean ‘in respect of things beyond our scope’; but this is less probable. Cf. εἰς τὰ μάλιστα.

ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τοῦ κανόνος κ.τ.λ. ‘But according to the measure of the length which God apportioned to us as a measure, to reach as far as even you.’ RV. and other authorities render κανών ‘province,’ and the rendering is so suitable to the context that we may perhaps regard it as admissible; a specified sphere, definitely marked out, is the meaning required, and ‘province’ expresses this very well. But κανών is generally used of length, and τὸ μέτρον τοῦ κανόνος would mean ‘the length of one’s tether,’ the length of the radius from one’s centre. In this case it would mean the distance which God told the Apostle to go in his missionary work. But seeing that κανών means (1) the rod which measures, and (2) the amount which is measured, and seeing that fixing the bounds of territory may require measuring rods, it is possible that κανών may be used of the territory thus measured. Lightfoot on Galatians 6:16, the only other place in N.T. in which the word occurs, seems to take this as certain. There, however, the term is used of line, and not of surface; ‘all those who shall guide their steps by this rule.’* In Judith 13:6 it seems to, mean a bedpole. More akin to the use here Isa_4 Macc. 7:21, πρὸς ὅλον τὸν τῆς φιλοσοφίας κανόνα εὐσεβῶς φιλοσοφῶν, where κανόνα might be rendered ‘sphere,’ or ‘province,’ although ‘rule’ may be better. Westcott, Canon of N.T., App. A, gives a history of the word.

οὗ ἐμέρισεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς μέτρου. ‘Which God apportioned to us as our measure.’ St Paul did not determine his own province any more than his own standard of excellence. God did that. Cf. 1 Corinthians 7:17; Romans 12:3; Hebrews 7:2. Some editors bracket μέτρου as probably as gloss, but ἐμέρισεν μέτρου is another alliteration, and St Paul is harping on the idea of ‘measure.’ Vulg. omits; quam mensus est nobis Deus. Both οὖ and μέτρου are attracted in case to τοῦ κανόνος.

ἐφικέσδαι ἄχρι καὶ ὑμῶν. This was what God intended; that his line should ‘reach as far as even you’; pertingendi usque advos. This was indisputable. St Paul was the first to preach the Gospel in Corinth, and it was God who had turned him from a persecutor into a preacher. The verb is common enough in class. Grk., but it is found nowhere else in N.T., and perhaps nowhere in LXX.

οὐκ (א B D* G K L P) rather than οὐχι D3 E). εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα (א B D3 K L P) rather than εἰς τὸ ἄμετρον (D * G) in immensum (Latt.). ἐφικέσθαι (א B G K L P) rather than�

οὐ γὰρ ὡς μή. Adopting this reading, we will treat the verse as not a mere parenthesis to explain v.13, and will connect v.15 with v. 14; moreover, we will regard no part of v. 14 as interrogative. ‘For we are not overstretching ourselves, as (we should be doing) if we did not reach unto you, for as far as even you we were the first to come in the Gospel (8:18; Romans 1:9) of the Christ, not glorying beyond our measure, etc.’ Or, without supplying anything, we may take the first part of v. 14 thus; ‘For we are not, as if we did not reach unto you, overstretching ourselves.’ If the reading ὡς γὰρ μή is adopted, then the first part must be a question; ‘For are we overstretching ourselves, as if we did not reach unto you’? ‘Are we exceeding our commission in claiming authority in Corinth’? Facts speak for themselves; he founded the Church there.

It is not certain that φθάνω here, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, retains its class. signification of ‘come first,’ ‘precede,’ ‘anticipate.’ In later Greek it commonly means simply ‘come’ (1 Thessalonians 2:16; Romans 9:31; Philippians 3:16); so in papyri and perhaps here (RV). Nevertheless, the fact that he not only came as far as Corinth with the Glad-tidings, but was the first to do so, has point.

Unless v. 14 is treated as a parenthetical explanation of v. 13 (WH.), we need only a comma at the end of it.

οὐ γὰρ ὡς μή (א D F G K L M, Latt.) rather than ὡς γὰρ μή (B and two cursives).

15, 16. These verses are connected with v. 14 rather than with v. 13. The clumsiness of expression is due to dictation, in which the sentence has become unduly prolonged. The Judaizing teachers had intruded into his province and taken credit for what was his work, and he aims at showing that he himself has done nothing of the kind.

οὐκ εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα κ.τ.λ. ‘Not glorying beyond our measure in other men’s labours, but having hope that, as your faith grows, we shall be magnified in you according to our province unto still greater abundance, so as to preach the Gospel unto the regions beyond you, and not to glory in another man’s province in respect of things ready to our hand.’ At present Corinth is the Western limit of his sphere of missionary work. When the Corinthian Church is more firmly established, he hopes to extend his labours still farther into Europe.

15. ἐν ὑμῖν. The words are amphibolous, but they have more point if they are taken with μεγαλυνθῆναι. They are almost superfluous if taken with αὐξανομένης (Luther, Calvin); if their faith increases, it must increase in them and among them; but it is not superfluous to remind them that it lies in their power to make it quickly possible for him to extend his sphere of work. Both καυχώμενοι and ἔχοντες are participiabsoluta, of which St Paul makes freq. use. See on 8:20. With μεγαλυνδῆναι comp. Philippians 1:20, with περισσείαν, 8:2.

16. εἰς τὰ ὑπερέκεινα ὑμῶν. The expression may be coined for the occasion, for ὑπερέκεινα has been found nowhere else.* It may have been a current popular word which has not found its way into literature; ἐπέκεινα (Acts 7:43 and LXX) is classical. A little later St Paul had intentions of going to Rome and Spain (Romans 15:24, Romans 15:28), and such ideas may have been in his mind when he wrote this letter. Regarding Antioch as his original centre, he might vaguely describe such regions as τὰ ὑπερέκεινα in reference to Corinth. But, if these chapters are part of the severe letter written at Ephesus, ‘the parts beyond Corinth’ would be a natural expression for Rome and Spain. See Introduction, p. xxxiii.

εὐαγγελίσασθαι. In these verses (14-16) we have εὐαγγέλιον and εὐαγγελίζομαι, expressions and ideas which are in a high degree Pauline. The former occurs in all groups of the Epistles, 60 times in all, and indeed in every Epistle, excepting that to Titus. The latter is found chiefly in this group, but also in 1 Thess. and Eph., 20 times in all, and its usual meaning is ‘preach the Gospel,’ whether εὐαγγέλιον be added (11:7) or not; but in a few passages it means simply ‘preach,’ and hardly differs from κηρύσσω (Galatians 1:23; Ephesians 2:17, Ephesians 2:3:8; 1 Thessalonians 3:6). Εὐαγγέλιον more often than not has no defining adjective or genitive, as here and 8:18; contrast 2:12, 4:4, 9:13, 11:7; and seeing that the verb is a technical word to indicate the work of a Christian missionary, the noun indicates the substance or contents of mission preaching. In other words, it is “God’s plan of salvation, contained in the O.T. as a promise, and realized through Jesus Christ” (Harnack, Constitution and Law of the Church, pp. 292 f.).

εἰς τὰ ἕτοιμα καυχήσασθαι. ‘To glory in respect of things ready to our hand,’ i.e. ‘done by other persons before we came on the scene and claimed the credit of it,’ a condensed expression, the meaning of which would be obscure without the context. The constr. κανχ. εἰς is found in Arist. Pol. v. x. 16. We know that St Paul on principle avoided centres where other missionaries had been working (Romans 15:20); he was commissioned to be always a pioneer, and he regarded his extraordinary success as a proof that he was commissioned by God. It was never his desire to find things ready to his hand, still less to claim the merit for what had been already done. Indeed there was no merit to be claimed even when, in the province apportioned to him, great results were produced. Therefore he again quotes (see on 1 Corinthians 1:31) an adaptation of Jeremiah 9:24.

17. ὁ δὲ καυχώμενος. ‘But he that glorieth, in the Lord let him glory’; that is the only safe principle. If faith has been planted and made to grow, it is God who gives the increase. It is probable that ὁ κύριος here means God rather than Christ. But it is remarkable with what readiness N.T. writers transfer what in O.T. is said of Jehovah to Jesus Christ, and this may be a case in point. See on 1 Corinthians 15:10; Romans 15:17; Ephesians 3:7; and cf. Galatians 2:8: in all these passages St Paul carefully disclaims merit for what he has been enabled to accomplish.

18. οὐ γὰρ ὁ ἑαυτὸν συνιστάνων, ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν δόκιμος. ‘For it is not the man who commends himself that is the one to be accepted’ (δέχομαι) as of sterling character. See on 1 Corinthians 9:27, 1 Corinthians 9:11:19; ἐκεῖνος as in Romans 14:14. St Paul had been forced by the attacks made on him to glory about himself, but it was not on this self-praise that he relied. The Corinthian Church was his letter of commendation, and over and above this there was the manifest blessing which God both in Corinth and elsewhere bestowed upon his work. His assailants had no such confirmation of the praise which they bestowed on themselves. Cf. ἐγκωμιαζέτω σε ὁ πέλας καὶ μὴ τὸ σὸν στόμα,�Proverbs 27:2). Augustine (in Ps. cxliv. n. 7) says, Ecce inventum est, quomodo et to laudare possis et arrogans non sis. Deum in te lauda, non te; non quia to es talis, sed quia ille fecit te; non quia tu aliquid potes, sed quia potest ille in te et per te.*

* Cassian expands thus: ‘I whom you know to be an Apostle of Christ, whom you venerate with the utmost respect, whom you believe to be of the highest character and perfect, and one in whom Christ speaks.’

† Ἔμφασις τῆς�Act_13. Ninth century). Now at paris. “The queen of the cursives” and the best for the Pauline Epistles; more than any other it preserves Pre-Syrian readings and agrees with B D L.

C C (Fifth century). Codex Ephraemi, a Palimpsest; now at Paris, very defective. Of 2 Corinthians all from 10:8 onwards is wanting.

D D (Sixth century). Codex Claromontanus; now at Paris. A Graeco-Latin MS. The Latin (d) is akin to the Old Latin. Many subsequent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected the MS.

E E (Ninth century). At Petrograd. A copy of D, and unimportant

K K (Ninth century). Codex Mosquensis; now at Moscow.

L L (Ninth century). Codex Angelicus; now in the Angelica Library at Rome.

* This is what Deissmann has called the “mystic genitive,” where ‘of Christ’ almost=‘in Christ’; ef. 2 Thessalonians 2:5; Ephesians 3:19. Ephesians 3:5:21; Colossians 3:15 (St Paul, p. 141).

* ἑτοιμότατα ἔχω and ἐξ ἑτοίμου ἔμω, followed by infin., are found in papyri.

† Lachmann’s proposal to put a full stop after παρακοήν, and take ὅταν … ἡ ιυπακοή with what follows, is extraordinary. ‘whenever your onbedience shall have been completed, look at what lies before your eyes’ is scarcely sense; and the usua; punctuation makes excellent sense.

‡ If this is correct, then these verses were written before 3:1, which seems to imply that the Judaizing teachers had left Corinth.

F F (Late ninth century). Codex Augiensis (from Reichenau); now at Trinity College, Cambridge.

d d The Latin companion of D

e d The Latin companion of E

f d The Latin companion of F

g d The Latin companion of G

* Ut autem non existimer tamquam terrer dos per epistolas.

* German rederings vary cosiderably: gewichlig and gewaltig (Bachmann): schwer and wuchtig (Bousset); wuchtig and kraftvall (Lietzmann); gewichtig and stark (Heinrici—Meyer).

* ὸ λὸγος would include the thought as will as the expression.

r r (Sixth century). Codex Frisingensis; at Munich. Fragments.

*�

M M (Ninth century). Codex Ruber, in bright red letters; two leaves in the British Museum contain 2 Corinthians 10:13.

* Thomas Magister condemns it as a vulgarism used only by οἱ σύρφακες.

* “Two feelings are compounded all through this passage; an intense sympathy with the purpose of God that the Gospel should be preached to evey creature; and an intense scorn for the spirit that sneaks and poaches on another’s ground, and is more anxious that some men should be good sectarians than that all men should be good disciples”(Denney, p.309)