Bible Commentaries
2 Corinthians 11

Verses 1-99

11:1-6. The Folly of Glorying and the Reason for It

Forgive my foolish boasting, which is caused by anxious affection. I fear lest these self-asserting impostors should seduce you from Christ.

1 I wish that you could bear with me in a little somewhat of folly. (It is, of course, foolish to boast; but you stand a good deal of it from other people.) Well, I know that you do bear with me. 2 The truth is that I am jealous over you with God’s own jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband exclusively. My aim was to present the Church of Corinth as a pure virginbride to the Christ. 3 But I am sadly afraid lest somehow, as the serpent utterly deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your thoughts should be corrupted and led astray from the singleminded devotion and pure fidelity which should be observed towards Christ. 4 And my fear is not groundless, for if the intruding alien (and I hear that there are such people) is proclaiming another kind of Jesus such as we did not proclaim, or you are receiving a different kind of spirit such as you did not receive from us, or a different kind of Gospel such as you did not accept at our hand,—then you bear with a person of this kind with quite beautiful toleration! 5 I ask you to be equally tolerant towards me; for I am persuaded that in nothing have I been inferior to those pre—eminent apostles of yours. 6 Granted that, as compared with them, I am untrained in speech, yet in the knowledge that is worth having I am not untrained. No; in all things we have made that plain among all men in our relations with you.

1. Ὄφελον�Revelation 3:15 it is followed by imperf, indic.; in Galatians 5:12 by fut. indic., where, as here, there is a touch of irony; in 1 Corinthians 4:8 by aor. indic. and there also there may be irony. The aor. indic. is freq. in LXX, esp. in the phrase ὄφελον�Exodus 16:3; Job 14:13; Numbers 14:2, Numbers 20:3). In 2 Kings 5:3 no verb is expressed. In class. Grk. the augmented ὤφελον is usually followed by the infin. The meaning here is ‘would that ye bore,’ or ‘Oh that ye could bear,’ not ‘would that ye had borne’ (Calvin). Blass. § 63. 5. We have�Mark 7:22; in 1 Cor. we have μωρία (1:18, 21, 23, 2:14, 3:19).

The constr. of the two genitives is disputed. In Bibl. Grk.�

2. ζηλῶ γὰρ ὑμᾶς Θεοῦ ζήλῳ. ‘For I am jealous over you with a divine jealousy.’ The exact meaning of Θεοῦ is uncertain, but it implies that the honour of God is involved in the matter. Something will depend on the meaning which we give to ζηλῶ and ζήλῳ whether ‘am zealous with zeal’ or ‘am jealous with jealousy.’ Such renderings as ‘zeal for God’s glory,’ or ‘zeal such as God loves,’ or ‘very great zeal’ (cf. τοῦ Θεοῦ, 1:12, and τῷ Θεῷ, 10:4) are unsatisfactory, and ‘I love you with very great love’ is impossible. Lightfoot on Galatians 4:17 suggests that ‘I take interest in you with a divine interest’ is the meaning here; but what follows indicates that jealousy rather than zeal is meant, jealousy in the higher sense, as when we are jealous about our own or another person’s honour. St Paul assumes for himself the part of the person who has arranged the betrothal, and who watched jealously over the bride’s conduct in the interval before the marriage, which is to take place when Christ returns at the παρουσία.† In O.T. Israel is represented as the spouse of Jehovah, who is jealous of anything like unfaithfulness (Isaiah 54:5, Isaiah 54:6, 62:5; Jeremiah 3:1; Ezekiel 16:23-33); but there is no third person who is concerned with this relationship. In most cases it was the parents who arranged the betrothal, and St Paul is here regarding himself as the parent of the Corinthian Church (12:14; 1 Corinthians 4:17). In Hosea 2:19, Hosea 2:20 the relationship between Jehovah and Israel is represented as betrothal rather than marriage, but again there is no third person; Jehovah acts for Himself, just as in Ephesians 5:27 Christ presents the Church to Himself, without the intervention of any Apostle.

ἡρμοσάμην γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἑνὶ�Proverbs 19:14 it is used of the woman, παρὰ δὲ κυρίου ἁρμόζεται ψυνὴ�

παρθένον ἁγνὴν παραστῆσαι τῷ Χριστιῷ.‘To present a pure (7:11; Philippians 4:8; 1 Timothy 5:22) virgin to the Christ. Neither AV nor RV. put ‘you’ after ‘present’ in italics; it is not required in English any more than in the Greek.

Here again, as in the concluding verses of 10., it is clear that St Paul is addressing the whole Church of Corinth, and not the rebellious minority. Cf. vv. 7-11. The statement that in 1-9. the loyal Corinthians are addressed, and in 10-13. the disloyal, and that this explains the extraordinary change of tone, is not in harmony with the facts.

3. φοβοῦμαι δὲ μή πως. Timeo autem ne forte. He does not express either complete trust or complete distrust. Cf. 12:20; Galatians 4:11. He has just expressed his own share and interest in their relationship to the Christ. Of course it must and will be maintained; but (δέ) there are perils about which he has misgivings.

ὡς ὁ ὄφις ἐξηπάτησεν Εὔαν. ‘As the serpent deceived Eve.’ The compound verb is strong in meaning, and perhaps justifies the insertion of ‘utterly’ or ‘completely.’ In 1 Timothy 2:14 the compound marks a distinction between Adam and Eve; she was ‘entirely deceived,’ but he was not even ‘ deceived’; what he did, he did to please himself and his wife. Nowhere else in N.T. is Eve mentioned. In LXX the compound is very rare, and in Genesis 3:13 we have ὁ ὄφις ἠπάτησέν με. In N.T. it is confined to St Paul (1 Corinthians 3:18; Romans 7:11, Romans 7:16:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 2:14), who is fond of compounds withἐκ (10:9, 11:12, 33, 12:15; 7, 13, 14, 15:34; ect.). In N.T.�Ephesians 5:6.; 1 Timothy 2:14; James 1:26).

Thackeray (Relation of St Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, p. 55) perhaps goes too far in saying that in these verses (3-15) we have “very strong reasons for presuming an acquaintance on the part of St Paul with the Rabbinical legend found in the Apocalypse of Moses and elsewhere, that the serpent seduced Eve to unchastity and that Cain was their child; also that Satan, after having first taken the form of a serpent, afterwards took that of an angel.” Menzies regards it as certain that “Paul knew a Haggadah or legend of this kind.” Heinrici in Meyer gives reasons for doubting this. Had St Paul said τῇ ἐπιθυμίᾳ αὐτοῦ and expressed what follows with more resemblance to the legend, his acquaintance with it would have been more certain.* Assuming that he knew it, there is no evidence that he believed it. He uses legends as illustrations of truth; see on 1 Corinthians 10:4.

ἐν τῇ πανουργίᾳ αὐτοῦ. ‘In his craftiness’ (see on 4:2). ‘Subtilty’ (AV) is no doubt meant to connect this with ‘the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field’ (Genesis 3:1); but there LXX has φρονιμώτατος.† The legend says that it was because the serpent was the wisest animal that Satan took its form. The identification of the serpent with Satan is not found earlier than Wisd. 2:24, and it is not certain that it is found there. ‘By the envy of the devil death entered into the world,’ may refer to Cain’s envy leading him to kill Abel. Clement of Rome (Cor. 3) takes it so; as does Theophilus (Ad Autol. ii. 29). Cf. 1 John 3:12. See Gregg on Wisd. 2:24.

φθαρῇ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν�1 Corinthians 15:33; Ephesians 4:22) from the simplicity (8:2, 9:11, 13) and the purity (6:6 only) that is toward (8:22) the Christ.’ Note that it is the Christian community as a whole, and not any individual Christian, that is the spouse of the Christ. The Apostle’s fear that the community will be seduced is very strange after the satisfaction expressed in the first seven chapters. The�Romans 7:2, Romans 9:3. If κοὶ τῆς ἁγνότητος is genuine, it refers to the chaste conduct of the παρθένος ἁγνή during the interval between betrothal and marriage. Like the serpent, the false teachers were promising enlightenment as the reward of disloyalty and disobedience. See Denney, p. 323.

א B D* G P 17, d e g r, Copt. omit οὕτω before φθαρῇ, and neither οὕτω (D2 and 3 E K L M, f Vulg. Syrr.) nor φθάρει (K L P) is likely to be original. καὶ τῆς ἁγνότητος after ἁπλότητος (א * B F G 17, g Goth. Aeth.) is strongly attested. But א3 D3 K L M P, f Vulg. Syrr., Clem. Alex. omit, and D* E d e have τῆς ἁγνότητος καὶ τῆς ἁπλότητος, which suggests that the words may be a gloss inserted in two different places. Note the divergence of f from F א G M omit τόν before Χριστόν.

4. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὁ ἐρχόενος ἄλλονἸησοῦν κηρύσσει. ‘For if indeed the intruder is preaching another Jesus, whom we did not preach, and ye are receiving a different spirit which ye did not receive, or a different gospel which ye did not accept, ye bear with him quite beautifully.’ Cf. Mark 7:9. The concluding words are sarcastic, and for this the μέν at the outset prepares us. ‘If indeed a person of the following description presents himself, then your toleration of his vagaries is quite lovely. Don’t you think that you might show a little toleration to one who has proved to you that he is an Apostle of Christ?’ The wording is obscure, because we do not know the exact character of the teaching to which St Paul alludes; but what is suggested as rendering and meaning makes good sense. It is rash to insist on allusion to some prominent individual; like τις and τοιοῦτος (10:7, 10), the sing. is generic. Cf. Galatians 5:10; Matthew 18:17. ‘People who act in this way’ is the meaning, and in ὁ ἐρχόμενος there is probably no allusion to the familiar title of Messiah (Matthew 11:3; Luke 7:19, Luke 7:20; John 6:14; etc.). St Paul goes great lengths in his sarcasms, but he is not insinuating that the Judaizers claimed Messianic authority. By ὁ ἐρχόμενος is meant qui suis ipsius auspiciis tamquam magister venit, quicunque ille est (Cornely). We may reasonably conjecture that Ἰησοῦς, πνεῦμα, εὐαγγέλιον, which are a somewhat strange triplet, were leading terms in the teaching of the Judaizers. Ἰησοῦς rather than Χριστός, for Judaizers would not use Χριστός as a proper name.

The aorists, ἐκηρύξαμεν, ἐλάβετε, ἐδέξασθε, refer to the time when the Apostle converted the Corinthians, and they should be rendered as aorists. And ἐδέξασθε, ‘accepted,’ which is necessarily a voluntary act, should be distinguished from ἐλάβετε, ‘received,’ which is not necessarily such. Vulg. has accepistis and recepistis, which may serve.

It is possible that not much difference is intended by the change from ἄλλον to ἕτερον, yet the change should be marked in translation; and this neither Vulg. nor AV does, either here or Galatians 1:6, Galatians 1:7, where see Lightfoot. The change here may be caused by the change from a person to what is regarded as impersonal. Thus Acts 4:12, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐδενὶ ἡ σωτηρία· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὄνομά ἐστιν ἕτερον κ.τ.λ. There are passages, and this is one of them, in which it is not easy to decide what St Paul means by πνεῦμα. Sometimes we are not sure whether he is speaking of the human spirit or of the Divine Spirit; and when he is speaking of the Divine Spirit, it is not always clear how far he regards the Spirit as personal. A qualifying epithet or genitive often decides the first question, but not always the second; and where neither is found the first question may remain open. This is specially the case in the expression ἐν πνεύματι (Ephesians 2:22, Ephesians 2:3:5, Ephesians 2:5:18, Ephesians 2:6:18; Colossians 1:8). The distinction between personal and impersonal was less distinctly drawn than it is now, and it is safer not to make the Apostle’s language more definite than he makes it himself. On the human side he has no definite scheme of psychology; on the Divine side no theological system like the Quicunque vult. As to the πνεῦμα ἕτερον here we may say that what he offered to the Corinthians was the spirit of freedom (3:17; Galatians 5:1, Galatians 5:15) and of joy (1 Thessalonians 1:6; Galatians 5:22; Romans 14:17), and that what the Judaizers offered was a spirit of bondage (Galatians 4:24; Romans 8:15) and of fear (Romans 8:15).* The general question is well handled by Headlam, St Paul and Christianity, pp. 95-115; Abbott, Johannine Grammar, p. 518.

καλῶς�Mark 7:9. If�1 Corinthians 7:37, 1 Corinthians 7:38. This makes good sense; but there is so much irony in this part of the Epistle, that to make the sentence categorical and καλῶς sarcastic is more in harmony with the general tone of the context: pseudoapostolis nihil non permittebant (Calvin).

Ἰησοῦν (א B D E F K L M P and most versions) rather than Χριστόν (G, f g Vulg.). We should probably read�

5. λογίζομαι γὰρ μηδὲν ὑστερηκέναι τῶν ὑπερλίαν�Galatians 2:9 are meant, and that we have here a powerful piece of evidence in support of the theory that in the Apostolic Age there was strong opposition between Petrine and Pauline influences. On this hypothesis such renderings as ‘pre-eminent,’ ‘very chiefest,’ ‘supreme,’ are preferred.* Protestant controversialists have used this interpretation as an argument against the supremacy of St Peter, to whom St Paul is supposed to claim to be in every point an equal; and Romanists, instead of showing that the interpretation is erroneous, have accepted it and argued that, although St Paul claims equality in gifts, yet he says nothing about jurisdiction.

It is improbable that St Paul would use such an expression as οἱ ὑπερλίαν�Galatians 2:6-9 is not parallel, and is not evidence that St Paul sometimes spoke disparagingly of the Twelve. ‘Preeminent.’ may serve as a neutral rendering, which does not at once commit one to either interpretation.

Vulg. renders ὑστερέω in a variety of ways; here minus facio, xii. II minus sum, elsewhere desum, egeo, deficio (Index IV.). The perf. here, as in Hebrews 4:1, indicates past and continuing inferiority. ‘Being inferior to’ and ‘coming short of’ must involve the idea of comparison, and hence the gen.; cf. Romans 3:23.

For γάρ B has δέ, perhaps to correspond with μέν in v. 4. D* E, d e r add ἐν ὑμῖν after ὑστερηκέναι.

6. εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῷ. The Apostle at once makes an admission that in one particular it may be the case that he is inferior to the Judaizing teachers. Here εἰ καί, as distinct from καὶ εἰ, represents the possibility as a fact (4:3, 5:16, 12:11; 1 Corinthians 4:7), although it is not certain that St Paul always observes this distinction. ‘But though I am untrained in oratory, yet in knowledge I am not so.’ Ἰδιώτης (1 Corinthians 14:16, 1 Corinthians 14:23, 1 Corinthians 14:24; Acts 4:13) means one who confines himself to his own affairs, τὰ ἴδια, and takes no part in public life; and such a person was regarded by Greeks as wanting in education and likely to be unpractical and gauche. The word also came to mean one who had no technical or professional training, with regard to some particular art or science; unskilled, a layman or amateur, as distinct from an expert or professional. And that is the meaning here; the Apostle admits that he is not a trained rhetorician, not a professional orator, and he perhaps implies that some of his opponents have this advantage. That any of them were causidici, accustomed, like Tertullus (Acts 24:1), to plead in court, is not probable; but they may have pointed out to the Corinthians, who highly valued gifts of speech, that a true Apostle would be likely to possess more power in that particular than he exhibited (10:10). See Knowling on Acts 4:13; Wetstein on 1 Corinthians 14:16; Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v.; Trench, Syn. § lxxix.

ἀλλʼ οὐ τῇ γνώσει. He might be a poor speaker, but he knew what he was talking about. He did not profess to teach them things of which he himself was ignorant. As regards the mysteries of revelation, the essential truths of the Gospel, and their relation to human life here and hereafter, he was no selfmade smatterer, but an expert and a specialist, trained and inspired by the Lord Himself. This γνῶσις is prima dos apostoli (Beng.). With the constr. comp. 1 Corinthians 4:15.

ἀλλʼ ἐν παντὶ φανερώσαντες ἐν πᾶσιν εἰς ὑμᾶς. ‘But in all things we made it manifest among all men to you-ward.’ Ἐν παντί is specially freq. in the first nine chapters of this letter (4:8, 6:4, 7:5, 16, 8:7, 9:8, 11); elsewhere it is rare (v. 11, 1 Thessalonians 5:18). It means ‘in every particular,’ ‘in every respect.’ It is not likely that ἐν πᾶσιν is neut., which would make it a mere repetition of ἐν παντί, although some take it so; ‘in all things … among all men’ is the meaning. His teaching has been public; there has been no secrecy about it, and anyone can form an opinion of its character and of the Apostle’s relation to his hearers. He has a Divine commission to manifest the truth to every man’s conscience (4:2). In that he is no ἰδιώτης.

Here again we have a participle used absolutely, without any regular constr., as in 1:7, 7:5, 8:20, 24, 9:11, 13; and it is not clear what it is that is made manifest, but probably τὴν γνῶσιν is to be understood; what has been revealed to him has been passed on to them.

D*, d e f g omit δέ between εἰ and καί D* E d e g add εἰμι after ἰδιώτης. φανερώσαντες (א B F G 17, g) rather than φανερωθέντες (א3 D3 E K L P, r Syrr. Copt.) or φανερωθείς (D*, d e f). F G, f g r Vulg. Syr-Pesh. omit. ἐν πᾶσιν, as superfluous, if neut. In different directions corruptions in the text are suspected. Some would omit εἰ δὲ καὶ … γνώσει as a gloss. Others would expand what follows; ἐν παντὶ πάντα φανερώσαντες ἐν πᾶσιν καὶ εἰς ὑμᾶς: cf. 9:8, 11; 1 Corinthians 9:22, 1 Corinthians 10:33, 1 Corinthians 12:6. The text is quite intelligible without either of these conjectural emendations. It is not quite clear what text is followed in AV; perhaps�

11:7-15. Glorying About Refusing Maintenance

; The Contrast with His Critics

I had good reasons for refusing maintenance. This was one of many points of contrast between me and the false apostles.

7 Or did I commit a sin in degrading myself by working for my bread with my hands to raise you up from the degradation of idolatry, in that without cost to yourselves no less a thing than God’s inestimable Gospel was preached to you by me? 8 I actually took from other Churches the cost of my maintenance—it seemed like robbery—in order to be able to minister gratuitously to you. 9 And when I was staying with you at Corinth and my resources failed, even then I ‘sponged’ on no one. No Corinthian was squeezed to maintain me, for my necessities were fully supplied by the brethren who came from Macedonia. That was only one instance. In every emergency during my stay I kept myself from being burdensome to you, and I mean to continue to do so. 10 It is the truth of Christ that speaks in me when I say that from being able to glory in preaching without payment I will never allow myself to be barred in any region of Achaia. 11 Why have I formed this resolution? Do you think that it is because I care nothing about you? God knows whether that is true or not.

12 But I shall persist in acting just as I am acting now about this, in order to cut the ground from under those who desire to have a ground for hoping that in the apostolate which they boastfully claim they may be found working on the same terms as we do, both of us accepting maintenance. 13 I will give them no such opening, for such teachers are sham apostles, whose whole work is a fraud, while they put on the appearance of Apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder; for Satan himself, the arch-deceiver, puts on the appearance of an angel of light. 15 It is no amazing thing, therefore, if his ministers also put on an appearance as being ministers of what they call righteousness. Such professions will not profit them. Their doom will be in accordance with their acts.

7. Ἤ ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησα … ὑμῖν; ‘Or did I commit a sin in abasing myself that you might be exalted, because I preached to you God’s Gospel for nothing?’ This use of ἤ to emphasize a question is not rare (1 Corinthians 6:2; Romans 2:4, Romans 3:29, Romans 6:3); it introduces an alternative which those who are addressed are not likely to accept. ‘If you do not admit what I have just stated, are you prepared to assert this?’ The extreme expression, ‘commit a sin’ (found nowhere else in Paul), is, of course, ironical; it is used without irony 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:9; see Westcott on 1 John 3:4 on the difference between ἁμαρτ. ποιέω and τὴν ἁμαρτ: ποιέω. He uses this strong language because his refusing to accept maintenance had been made a charge against him.* He states his reasons for refusing, 1 Corinthians 9:6-16 (see notes there); but his enemies may have said that the real reason was that he was too proud to do as other Apostles did, or that he refused, because he knew that he was not really an Apostle. We know from Didache xi. that the right of missionaries to maintenance for a short time was generally recognized c. a.d. 100, in accordance with Christ’s directions (Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7). But St Paul always insisted on supporting himself by the handicraft which was so common in his Cilician home of making cilicium, a fabric of goats’ hair, used for making tents (Acts 18:3) and other coverings (1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8; 2 Corinthians 12:14-18). In his speech at Ephesus (Acts 20:34) he may have held up ‘these hands’ to show how hardened they were by his habitual handiwork. We must remember that nearly all his first converts were poor (1 Corinthians 1:26), and that few were in a condition to give prolonged hospitality to a missionary.

But not until he writes 2 Cor. does the Apostle intimate that anyone found fault with him for this habitual independence. At Corinth it would be easy to rouse prejudice against it. Greek sentiment would not allow a free citizen to undertake manual labour for anything less than dire necessity (Arist. Pol. iii. 5); and there was also a general feeling that teachers ought to be paid. The professional teachers of philosophy in Greece took large fees, and for this turning of instruction into a trade and selling wisdom for money, Socrates (Xen. Mem. I. vi. 1), Plato (Gorg. 520; Rev_20), and Aristotle (Eth. Nic. IX. i. 5-7) condemned them. The Sophists replied that those who taught gratuitously did so because they knew that their teaching was worth nothing. It is likely enough that the Judaizers uttered similar sneers against St Paul. Hence his asking if this practice of his was a ‘sin’ in the eyes of the Corinthians.

ἐμαυτὸν ταπεινῶν ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑψωθῆτε. They might think it an undignified thing for an Apostle to ‘work night and day’ (1 Thessalonians 2:9) with his hands at a rough craft; but he was only following the example of the Carpenter (Mark 6:3), and humbling himself in accordance with His admonitions (Matthew 18:4, Matthew 18:23:12; Luke 14:11, Luke 18:14). Yet he humbled himself, not with a view to his own subsequent exaltation, but ‘in order that ye might be exalted,’ by being raised from the death of heathen sins to the life of righteousness. Acting in this way can hardly be stigmatized as ἁμαρτίαν ποιῶν. ‘Be exalted’ means a great deal more than ‘be made superior to other Churches.’

δωρεὰν τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ εὐαγγέλιον. Emphatic juxtaposition; ‘God’s Gospel, that most precious thing,— for nothing!’ Elsewhere we have τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Θεοῦ (1 Thessalonians 2:2, 1 Thessalonians 2:8, 1 Thessalonians 2:9; Romans 15:16) and τὸ εὐ. τοῦ Χριστοῦ (2:12, 9:13, 14; 1 Corinthians 9:12; etc.); but here, as in 1 Peter 4:17, τοῦ Θεοῦ is emphatic by position. The Judaizers preach what is not God’s Gospel, and take maintenance for so doing; he gives God’s Gospel gratis. See on 10:16.

F G, f g r Vulg. (aut numquid peccatum fece) have ἢ μὴ ἁμαρτ. ἐπ., but most Latin texts have an or numquid. ἐμαυτόν (א B K M) rather than ἑαυτόν (D F G L P). Exaltaremini (Aug.) is preferable to exaltemini (Vulg.).

8. ἄλλας ἐκκλησίας ἐσύλησα. He again uses extreme expressions; ‘Other churches I robbed’—‘you may say that it looked like that.’ It is not likely that his critics said that he plundered Philippi, while refusing maintenance at Corinth; that would rather have marred their argument. His crime was that he declined to be treated as other Apostles were treated, and to have mentioned the subsidies sent by the Philippians would have lessened the crime (Philippians 4:15). The verb is common enough in class. Grk., esp. of stripping a fallen foe of his armour, but it is very rare in Bibl. Grk.; here and Ep. Jer_18 only.* In Romans 2:22 we have ἱεροσυλεῖς, and Colossians 2:8 ὁ συλαγωγῶν. The word may be used here in order to mark the contrast between the conduct of the Philippians and that of the Corinthians. He does not blame the Corinthians for allowing him to have his way in working for nothing; but in striking language he indicates what the Macedonian Churches did. The language is saved from being extravagant by being immediately explained.

λαβὼν ὀψώνιον πρὸς τὴν ὑμῶν διακονίαν. (This is where the robbery comes in;) ‘by taking wages of them for my ministry unto you.’ The ὑμῶν, like τοῦ Θεοῦ in v. 7, is emphatic. The Corinthians got his services, and he allowed other Christians to pay him. From ὄψον, ‘cooked food,’ and ὠνέομαι, ‘I buy,’ we get ὀψώνιον, ‘rations’ or ‘ration-money,’ and hence pay of any kind, ‘wages.’* See on 1 Corinthians 9:7, on Romans 6:23, and on Luke 3:14. The word occurs in 1 Macc. and often in Polybius in the sense of pay. Still earlier it is found several times, and always in the sing., in an inscription of about b.c. 265 which records an agreement between King Eumenes 1. and his mercenaries. Deissmann, Bib. St. p. 266. The word fits well with the Apostle’s description of his missionary labours as warfare, στρατευόμεθα (10:3), and no one στρατεύεται without being furnished with the necessary supplies (1 Corinthians 9:7). He rigidly abstained from aking supplies from the Corinthians. It is possible that he brought some supplies with him from Macedonia; but these, even when supplemented by the work of his own hands, did not suffice; and then it was Macedonia that came to the rescue.

There is doubt here as to the division of the verses. Vulg., AV, RV., and other versions assign what follows to v. 9; but Alford, WH., and many other editors retain καὶ παρὼν … οὐθενός as part of v. 8. There is similar doubt at 1:6, 7, 2:10, 11, 2:12, 13, 5:14, 15.

9. καὶ παρὼν πρὸς ὑμῦς καὶ ὑστερηθείς. ‘And when I was staying with you and found myself in want’; tense and mood imply that he ran short and felt it. For the mood, comp. Philippians 4:12; Luke 15:14.

οὐ κατενάρκησα οὐθενός. ‘I put pressure on no man,’ ‘did not squeeze him till he was numb.’ Verbs compounded with κατά often take a gen., as καταγελάω, καταγινώσκω, καταδυναστεύω, κατακυριεύω, καταλαλέω, κ.τ.λ. This compound is found nowhere in Greek literature, excepting here, 12:13, 14, and once in Hippocrates (Art. 816 C), who uses the passive of ‘being numbed,’ a meaning which ναρκάω has in the active. Ναρκάω is used of the cramping or numbing of the sinew of Jacob’s thigh (Gen. 32:25-33), and in LXX of two other passages of doubtful reading and meaning; πλῆθος ὀστῶν αὐτοῦ ἐνάρκησεν (Job 33:19), and ὁ βραχίων αὐτοῦ ναρκήσει (Daniel 11:6). The compound verb used here may be medical. It must have been in fairly common use, for neither Chrysostom nor Theodoret think it necessary to give any explanation. Hesychius gives ἐβάρυνα and κατεβάρησα as equivalents, which agrees with Vulg. onorosus fui. In his letter to the Gallic Lady Algesia (Ep. 121) Jerome uses gravavi, and he adds, quibus et aliis multis verbis usque hodie utuntur Cilices. Nec hoc miremur in Apostolo, si utatur ejus linguae consuetudine, in qua natus est et nutritus. It may have been current in the medical school at Tarsus. Galen explains νάρκη as much the same as�

τὸ γὰρ ὑστέρημά μου. ‘For my want the brethren, when they came from Macedonia, relieved with a further supply.’ The compound, προσανεπλήρωσαν, implies something in addition, and this probably refers to the previous gifts of the generous Macedonians; but it might mean in addition to what St Paul earned by his handicraft. AV obliterates the manifest connexion between ὑστερηθείς and ὑστέρημα by changing from ‘wanted’ to ‘was lacking,’ as also does Vulg. with agerem and deerat. It is probable that these brethren who came from Macedonia were Silas and Timothy (Acts 18:5), which would give a coincidence between this passage and 1:19. Apparently they had both joined St Paul at Athens and had thence been sent back into Macedonia, and had finally joined the Apostle at Corinth. Milligan. Thessalonians, p. 30.

At first sight St Paul seems to be very inconsistent in ostentatiously refusing maintenance from the Corinthians, and yet making no secret of receiving maintenance from the Macedonians. We are nowhere told that he accepted anything for himself from the Philippians, while he was at Philippi, or from the Thessalonians, while he was at Thessalonica. His main object was to avoid all possibility of suspicion that in his preaching he was influenced by the thought that he must say what would please the people who housed and fed him. He must be free to rebuke and exhort, without fear or desire of losing or gaining favour, and without being open to the charge of seeking popularity for the sake of gain. His independence as a preacher must be complete and unassailable. It no way interfered with this that, while he was preaching in Corinth, he accepted supplies from Philippi.

ἐν παντὶ�1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8); also οὐκ ἔχει τις καυχήσασθαι οὔτα λάθρα οὔτε φανερῶς, ὅτι ἐβάρησά τινα ἐν μικρῷ ἤ ἐν μεγάλῳ (Ign. Philad. 6.), and 2 Samuel 12:3. Ἀβυρής seems to occur first in Arist. De Coelo, 1. viii.16, τὸ μὲν γὰρ�

καὶ τηρήσω. He has no misgivings as to the wisdom of this practice, and has no intention of changing it. We may assume that the Judaizing teachers claimed, or at any rate accepted, maintenance, and they wanted to taunt St Paul into following this ‘Apostolic’ custom. They saw that in this matter they were at a disadvantage as compared with him.

οὐθενός (א B M P 17). rather than οὐδενός (D E G K L). ἐμαυτὸν ὑμῖν (א* B M P, d e f Vulg.) rather than ὑμῖν ἐμαυτόν (א3 D E F G L); note the divergence between D E F and d e f.

10. ἔστιν�1 Corinthians 2:16) and the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ (Romans 8:9) abides in him. This is a guarantee against conscious deceitfulness and empty boasting. Cf. 2:17, 12:19, 13:3; Romans 9:1. ‘You have not my word only, but the truthfulness of Christ, to assure you that.’* With this use of ὅτι comp. ζῇ ἡ Ψυχή σου ὅτι οὐ δαπανήσει ἡ δούλη σου κ.τ.λ. (Judith 12:4). See on 1:18.

ἡ καύχησις αὕτη οὐ φραγήσεται εἰς ἐμέ. ‘This glorying shall not be stopped with regard to me,’ or ‘so far as I am concerned.’ Chrysostom derives the metaphor from the damming of rivers; ὥσπερ εἴ τις πηγὴν φράσσοι (Proverbs 25:26), and τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῶν ἐνέφραξεν χειμάρρους (Judith 16:3). More probably it comes from barricading a road; φράσσω τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτῆς ἐν σκόλοψιν (Hosea 2:6), and�Lamentations 3:9). The stopping of the mouth (Romans 3:19; Hebrews 11:33) might come from either, but more easily from blocking a road; and there is no personification of καὐχησις in either case.

ἐν τοις κλίμασι τῆς Ἀχαίας. Κλίμα is rare in N.T. (Galatians 1:21; Romans 15:23), and perhaps is not found in LXX at all; Judges 20:2 is doubtful. His opponents had probably not confined their operations to the city of Corinth. See on 1:1.

The σφραγίσεται of T.R. is possibly a conjecture, ‘seal’ in the rare sense of ‘limit.’ A few cursives have σφραγήσεται.

11. διὰ τί; ‘Why am I so determined never to accept sustenance from you Corinthians? Is it because I care too little about you to accept anything from you or to place myself under any obligation to you?’ Perhaps his enemies had suggested this.

ὁ Θεὸς οἶδεν. God knows whether he cares for them or not, and He knows what the real reason for his not accepting sustenance is. To God he has always been made manifest (5:11). Cf. Harum sententiarum quae vera sit, deus aliqui viderit (Cic. Tusc. Disp. I. xi. 23).

12. Ὃ δὲ ποιῶ καὶ ποιήσω, ἵνα ἐκκόψω τὴν�

Elsewhere in N.T. ἐκκόπτω is used of actual severing, as of branches (Romans 11:22, Romans 11:24; Matthew 3:10, Matthew 7:19) or limbs (Matthew 5:30, Matthew 18:8), and in LXX the figurative sense is rare; ἐξέκοψε ὥσπερ δένδρον τὴν ἐλπίδα μου (Job 19:10), and thrice in 4 Macc. 3:2-4, where we have ἐπιθυμίαν and θυμόν and κακοήθειαν after ἐκκόψαι.

ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται εὑρεθῶσιν καθὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς. This is one of many passages in 2 Cor. which is rendered obscure by our ignorance of the exact state of affairs in Corinth, and there has been much discussion both as to the constr. of the sentence and as to its probable meaning. To set forth all the proposals would not be repaying; the following interpretation is offered as tenable and possibly correct. The second ἵνα is not parallel with the first; it does not depend upon ποιήσω. It is improbable that St Paul’s aim was to place his opponents on a level with himself, either in general, or in the matter of refusing maintenance. What advantage would it be to him to force them to equality with himself in any particular? And what likelihood was there that they would abandon the maintenance which they had accepted, and apparently claimed as an Apostolic privilege, in order to be even with St Paul? It is clear from v. 20, and might be conjectured from 1 Corinthians 9:12, that the Judaizing teachers did accept maintenance, and they could not have criticized St Paul for refusing it, unless they accepted it themselves. The second ἵνα depends upon τῶν θελόντων�

Εὑρεθῶσιν is not a mere substitute for ὦσιν: it expresses the quality, not as it exists in itself, but as it is recognized. Cf. 5:3; 1 Corinthians 4:2; Philippians 3:9. Lightfoot (on Galatians 2:17) says that it “involves more or less prominently the idea of a surprise,” and that its frequent use is due to the influence of Aramaic. Winer doubts the latter point (p. 769).

Other ways of taking the clause are found in Alford, Beet, Meyer, and Stanley. For ἵνα depending on a previous clause introduced by ἵνα, cf. John 1:7.

13. οἱ γὰρ τοιοῦτοι ψευδαπόστολοι, ἐργάται δόλιοι. ‘I must beware of allowing them any advantage, for persons of this kind are spurious apostles, deceitful workers.’ Nunc tandem scapham scapham dicit (Beng.). Both the Sixtine and the Clementine Vulg. have nam ejusmodi pseudoapostoli sunt operarii subdoli, making ψευδαπόστολοι part of the subject, which is certainly wrong, and the best MSS. show that the sunt is an interpolation. Luther goes further into error by including ἐργάται δόλιοι in the subject; ‘for such false apostles and deceitful workers fashion themselves into Apostles of Christ.’ Cf. of οἱ γὰρ τοιοῦτοι τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Χριστῷ οὐ δουλεύουσιν,�Romans 16:18), which means that, like the Judaizers at Corinth, they worked for their own advantage. Cf. τοὺς λέγοντας ἑαυτοὺς�Revelation 2:2). In v. 26 we have ψευδάδελφοι, and Mark 13:22 ψευδόχριστοι καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται. Such compounds are freq. in late Greek, but not in classical ψενδόμαντις occurs in Hdt., Aesch., Soph., Eur., and ψευδοπάρθενος in Hdt. Δόλιος, freq. in LXX, esp. in Psalms and Proverbs, but found nowhere else in N.T., is in class. Grk. mosily poetical. The epithet explains ψευδαπόστολοι. Workers they certainly were, and they did an immense amount of mischief, but their devotion to the cause of Christ was a sham; what they really worked for was their own profit. See on 2:17. Apotolus enim ejus agit negotium a quo missus est, isti suis commodis serviunt (Erasmus). Contrast ἐργάτην ἁνεπαίσχυντον. ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς�2 Timothy 2:15); also�

μετασχηματιζόμενοι εἰς�Philippians 3:21 of the glorious change of our body of humiliation; and in 1 Corinthians 4:6 in quite another sense (see note there). ‘Transform’ implies a greater change than is meant here, and ‘transfigure’ should be kept for μεταμορφόομαι (see on 3:18), the verb used in connexion with the Transfiguration. See on Romans 12:2 and Philippians 2:7; Trench, Syn. § lxx.; Lightfoot, Philippians, pp. 127 f. Συνσχηματίζομας (Romans 12:2; 1 Peter 1:14) means ‘acquire an outward form in accordance with.’

14. καὶ οὐ θαῦμα. Both this and the v.l. θαυμαστόν are classical in this conversational use; τὸ μέντοι μὴ πείθεσθαι τοῖς λεγομένοις τοὺς πολλοὺς θαῦμα οὐδέν (Plato, Rep. 49 E D) ; ἐρᾷς· τὶ τοῦτο θαῦμὰ σὺν πολλοῖς βροτῶν (Eur. Hipp. 439); also Aristoph. Plut. 99). Non mirum (Vulg.) is similarly used in Latin; but miraculo est, not miraculum. Epictetus several times has καὶ τί θαυμαστόν;

αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Σατανᾶς. “Like master, like man.” If the prince of darkness can masquerade as an Angel of light, what wonder that his ministers masquerade as ministers of Christ? There is no necessity to suppose that St Paul is here alluding to some Rabbinical legend, similar to the one about Eve and the serpent, in which Satan is said to have taken the fashion of an Angel. According to some interpretations, the Angel who wrestled with Jacob was Satan. In the Prologue to the Book of Job, Satan takes no such appearance. St Paul may have known the story of our Lord’s temptation in a form which might suggest this comparison. But his own experience must have taught him how specious and plausible temptations to what is known to be wrong can be made to look, so that sin may at last look meritorious. The pres. μετασχηματίζεται points to what Satan habitually does rather than to any particular occasion. This the Corinthians, very few of whom were Jews, could understand. That those of them who were Jews knew of a legend in which Satan assumed the appearance of an Angel, is unlikely; and St Paul certainly expects to be understood in what he says here. As regards the subtlety of temptations the experience of the Corinthians would be much the same as his own.* To say that “the reference must be to some apocalyptic tale” is a great deal too strong; and Schmiedel does not lay much stress on the suggestion that there may be an allusion to heathen theophanies. Would anyone regard them as instances of Satan fashioning himself as an Angel of light? For Σατανᾶς see on 2:11; for ἄγγ. φωτός, cf. ἄγγ. ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (Galatians 1:8).

οὐ θαῦμα (א B D* F G P R 17) rather than οὐ θαυμαστόν (D 2 and 3 E K L M). Both in LXX and N.T. θαῦμα is very rare, whereas θαυμαστός is very freq. in LXX and not rare in N.T. Hence the change. D d e m have ὡς ἄγγελος.

15. οὐ μέγα οὖν εἰ. The expression is found nowhere else in N.T. excepting 1 Corinthians 9:11.Cf. μέγα μοί ἐστιν εἰ ἔτι ὁ υἱός μου Ἰωσὴφ ζῇ (Genesis 45:28). ‘It is no great thing therefore if his ministers (cf. Matthew 25:41; Revelation 12:7) also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness.’ As in v. 13 before ‘Apostles,’ so here before ‘ministers,’ AV inserts the article. ‘Righteousness’ is probably to be understood in its wider sense, as that on which Satan and his minions are ever making war. It was one of the charges brought against St Paul that his doctrine of Christian freedom was an encouragement to heathen licentiousness: the Judaizers professed to be upholders of ‘righteousness’ against such pestilent teaching. But, in spite of their professions, their real motive was the promotion of their own personal interests and the interests of their own party in the Church; and they were unscrupulous in the means which they employed. We should perhaps place a colon after δικαιοσύνης (RV) and make what follows an independent sentence. Cf. ὧν τὸ κρίμα ἔνδικόν ἐστιν (Romans 3:8):�2 Timothy 4:14). But ὧν τὸ τέλος�Philippians 3:19) tells the other way, and here WH. place only a comma. See on v. 10. At the Judgment it is not what they have looked like or what they have professed to be that will count, but what they have done. Cf. ὃς�Proverbs 24:12). Whether we regard it as an independent sentence or not, the terse statement comes at the end of the invective with considerable effect, as in Romans 3:8 and 2 Timothy 4:14. But this statement tells us nothing as to St Paul’s belief respecting the final condition of the wicked.

St Paul has been somewhat severely criticized for the bitter controversial style of this denunciation of his opponents, but we do not know enough about the intensity of the provocation to pronounce judgment. It is hardly more severe than συναγωγὴ τοῦ Σατανᾶ (Revelation 2:9, Revelation 3:9) and ὐμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστέ (John 8:44). Cf. Matthew 23:15, Matthew 23:33. We must remember not only the venomous personal attacks that had been made upon his character and antecedents, but also the widespread mischief that had been done among the converts at Corinth. Even those who do not believe in the intermediate visit can see that the mischief was great, in the unsettlement of belief and in the weakening of the Apostle’s authority. But those who are convinced that such a visit was paid, and that during it St Paul was grossly insulted to such an extent that he left Corinth a defeated man, will be slow to condemn him for the fierce language which he uses in vv. 3-15, and especially in the concluding sentences. Bousset, who says that Paul’s mode of fighting is not less passionate than that of his assailants, and that he is no saint, any more than Luther, admits that he had reason for his wrath, and that his fierce onset in the heat of the great conflict is only too intelligible. If the intruders had done nothing worse than meanly claim the credit for the crop, which he and Apollos, with the blessing of heaven, had patiently and laboriously raised, St Paul might have let a passing rebuke or sarcasm suffice for such conduct. But these new-comers had done their utmost to ruin the crop altogether, and they had employed methods which would have been hateful in any cause. We need to know more about their motives, their work, and its effects, before deciding that the severe language of the Apostle is unjustifiable.

But it is the Corinthians that he cares about. From this outberst of indignation his thoughts return to them. He must convince them, however unpleasing the work may be, that he is not inferior to these seductive teachers. That means that he must go on glorying about himself, and, like the first six verses of the chapter, the next seven are a declaration of the folly of glorying and an explanation of the reason for it. They introduce a new subject for glorying.

11:16-33. Glorying About His Services and Sufferings

It seems foolish for an Apostle to be glorying, but I have no choice about it; and so I glory about my nationality, my heavy work, and my hardships.

16 I repeat what I said before; let no one think me a fool for uttering what sounds like folly: or, if you must think me one, at any rate listen to me patiently as such, that I may have my little boast as well as other people. 17 In talking to you in this way I do not profess to be the Lord’s mouthpiece; in this proud confidence of glorying I speak as a fool in his folly. 18 Seeing that many glory from their low worldly point of view, I mean to do the like. 19 For you can afford to bear with fools and do so with pleasure: you are so wise yourselves. 20 Why, in your sublime tolerance you bear with any of these impostors, no matter what he does; if he makes slaves of you, if he devours your substance, if he entraps you, if he gives himself airs, if he strikes you in the face. 21 It may be a disgraceful confession to make, but I really have not been equal to acting in that way. Yet, wherever real courage is exhibited (remember, it is in folly that I say this), there I have courage too. 22 Let us look at nationality. Are the Hebrews, Israelites, descendants of Abraham? There we are equal, for so am I. 23 Let us look at service. Are they ministers of Christ? (I am talking like a madman.) Let us grant that they are His ministers. I am more than their equal there, for I have suffered far more in His service;—

with labours far exceeding theirs,

with stripes far exceeding theirs,

with imprisonments beyond comparison,

with risk of life again and again;—

24 from the Jews I five times received the severest scourging that is allowed,

25 three times I was beaten with rods by the Romans,

once I was stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck,

a night and a day I have drifted on the open sea.

26 I have served Him in journeyings again and again;—

in perils of rivers, in perils of robbers,

in perils from my own people, in perils from the Gentiles,

in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness,

in perils on the sea, in perils among false brethren.

27 I have served Him in labour and travail;—

with watchings often, with hunger and thirst,

with fastings often, with cold and nakedness;

28 besides other things which I pass over, there is that which presses on me daily,

my anxiety for all the Churches.

29 What brother is weak in faith or life, and I do not feel his weakness?

What brother is enticed into sin, and I am not in a furnace of distress?

30 If there must be glorying, my principle is to glory of the things which concern my weakness, for they show my likeness to the Lord Jesus Christ. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, He who is blessed for ever, knows that I am not lying. 32 At Damascus the ethnarch of King Aretas posted guards at the gates of the city to arrest me; 33 but through an opening I was let down in a basket through the city wall, and thus clean escaped his hands.

16. Πάλιν λέγω, μή τίς με δόξῃ ἄφρονα εἶναι. The πάλιν λέγω looks back to v. 1, where he makes a similar request; yet it is only similar to this extent, that in both passages he begs them not to refuse to listen to him because he is guilty of the folly of glorying about himself. But not only is the wording different, the meaning of the words is not the same. There he says, ‘Bear with me in my folly,’ here, ‘Don’t think me a fool’; there he almost retracts his request, ‘I know that you do bear with me,’ here, he hardly expects it to be granted, ‘At any rate give me as much attention as you would give to a fool.’ In both passages he is anxious that the Corinthians should be aware that he recognizes the foolishness of self-praise, and that it is not his fault that he is guilty of it. He is not indulging his own vanity; he is sinking his self-respect in order to rescue them from the machinations of seducing teachers. For the present all that he asks is to be listened to with patience. It is like The mistocles’s ‘Strike, but hear me.’ The Apostle says, ‘Think me a fool, but hear me.’ The full constr. would be δέξασθέ με, καὶ ἐὰν ὡς ἄφρονα δέξησθέ με. Blass, § 80. 2. In 1 Cor., St Paul uses μωρός and μωρία repeatedly, only once ἄφρων (15:36), and nowhere�Galatians 3:1, Galatians 3:3; Romans 1:14; 1 Timothy 6:9; Titus 3:3), and once ἄσοφος (Ephesians 5:15). For ἄφρων, Vulg. generally has in the Epistles insipiens, but sometimes inprudens; in the Gospels stultus. For μωρός Vulg. has in the Epistles stultus; in the Gospels fatuus and stultus. For�

εἰ δὲ μήγε. ‘But if you do otherwise,’ i.e. ‘if you must think me a fool.’ Luke is especially fond of εἰ δὲ μήγε which Paul has nowhere else, and neither of them has the less strong εἰ δὲ μή. Burton, § 275; Blass, § 77. 4. See on Luke 5:36. ‘In any case, however, even though it be as a fool, accept me, give me a hearing.’

ἵνα κἀγὼ μικρόν τι καυχήσωμαι. ‘That I also may glory a little.’ He is anxious that they should remember that he did not start this stupid rivalry in glorying. His opponents began it, and the Corinthians listened to them; now it is his turn, and he must go through with it. The μικρόν τι may mean that his opponents called their glorying μικρόν τι * Everywhere in the Epistles κἀγώ, and not καὶ ἐγώ, is right, Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 96.

D* has εἰ δὲ μή for εἰ δὲ μήγε. κἀγὼ μικρόν τι (all uncials) rather than μίκρόν τι κἀγώ (a few cursives and Syr-Hark.). καυχήσωμαι (א B F G M) rather than καυχήσομαι (D E K L P R).

17. οὐ κατὰ κύριον λαλῶ. ‘I am not speaking in virtue of the Lord’s command.’ Christ did not send His Apostles to glory about themselves, and St Paul knows that there is nothing Apostolic in what he is now doing. He believes it to be necessary, but he does not claim Divine authority for it; it is not official, not κατὰ τὴν πραύτητα καὶ ἐπιείκειαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ (10:1). Cf. μὴ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ταῦτα λαλῶ; (1 Corinthians 9:8) and κατὰ Θεόν (7:9; Ephesians 4:24). The change from λεγῶ (v. 16) λαλῶ should be marked in translation: Vulg. has dico and loquor. ‘In this confidence (see on 9:4) of glorying’ he is merely giving the only effectual answer that is possible in dealing with such critics; he must not be less confident than they are. But it is the man rather than the Apostle who is speaking. Cf. 1 Corinthians 7:12, 1 Corinthians 7:25, 1 Corinthians 7:40.

οὐ κατὰ κ. λαλῶ (א B F G K P R, f g Syr. Pesh.) rather than οὐ λ. κατὰ κ. ( D E L M, d e r Vulg. Copt. Syr. Hark.).

18. κατὰ [τὴν] σάρκα. See below. Nowhere else does St Paul insert the art. in this phrase, which is very freq. in his writings; everywhere we find κατὰ σάρκα (1:17, 5:16, 10:2, 3; etc.), and this fact may have led to the omission of the art here. If we accept the τήν as original, the difference may be that, while κατὰ σάρκα means ‘from a human point of view,’ κατὰ τὴν ς may mean ‘from their human point of view.’ But this is precarious. These Judaizers from Palestine boast of their country, of their ancestry, of their high rank as missionaries,—things which men are naturally proud of, but which do not count for much in the service of Christ. Nevertheless, whether they count for much or little, St Paul is more than their equal. But the πολλοί probably refers to people generally, and not merely to the numerous Judaizers. Many people are proud of their nation, birth, position, etc. We have a similar constr., in a much more elaborate sentence, Luke 1:1-3, where ἔδοξε κἀμοι answers to ἐπειδήπερ πολλοί just as κἀγώ to ἐπεὶ πολλοί here.

κἀγὼ καυχήσομαι. He means not merely that he intends to glory, but to glory on the same low level as they do, κατὰ σάρκα. It is a miserable position that they have taken, but he will not shrink from contending with them on their own ground.

It is difficult to decide between κατὰ τὴν σάρκα (א B D 3 E K L M P) and κατὰ σάρκα (א * D * G R 17), but the former is probably right.

19. ἡδέως γὰρ�Romans 11:25, Romans 11:12:16; Genesis 41:39). Here, no doubt, φρὀνιμοι ὄντες is ironical, even more so than 1 Corinthians 4:10, 1 Corinthians 4:8:1; it means ‘because ye are wise’ rather than ‘although ye are wise,’ which would be very insipid in so vigorous a passage. ‘You have got such a large supply of wisdom yourselves that you can even take a pleasure in putting up with fools.’ In 8:7, as in 1 Corinthians 1:5, 1 Corinthians 10:15, he admits that the Corinthians have great intellectual gifts, and states this without any sarcasm; but here the point is that they are content to tolerate the outrageous conduct of his opponents—no doubt because they are so serenely conscious of their own superiority.

20.�

καταδουλοῖ. ‘Reduce to abject slavery,’ as in Galatians 2:4, the only other passage in N.T. where this compound occurs, and where, as here and Jeremiah 15:14, the act. is used. Elsewhere in LXX the midd, is used, but with a different meaning. The midd. means ‘enslave to oneself,’ the act. means ‘enslave to some other power.’ This is clearly the meaning in Jeremiah 15:14 and Galatians 2:4; and in Galatians 2:4 the power to which the false brethren would enslave the Galatians is the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:10). This may well be the meaning here. These sham apostles wanted to impose on the Corinthians the bondage of the Law; cf. Galatians 5:1. This, however, cannot be pressed as certain, for although the midd. is commonly used of enslaving to oneself, the act. is sometimes used in this sense, which harmonizes well with the context and makes a telling contrast to the Apostle’s; own attitude towards the Corinthians; he is their δοῦλος (4:5), not they his δοῦλοι. He had no wish κυριεύειν αὐτῶν τῆς πίστεως (1:24), or δολοῦν τὸ λὸγον τοῦ θεοῦ (4:2): he preached God’s Gospel to them without pay (11:7), because it was not their possessions but themselves that he desired to win (12:14). All this was the very opposite of what the false apostles did. They were domineering, grasping, crafty, arrogant, and violent.

κατεσθίει. ‘Devour you’ by claiming maintenance and accepting all that was offered them, as the Scribes did with pious widows (Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47). Cf. οἱ κατέσθοντες τὸν λαόν μου βρώσει ἄρτον (Proverbs 13:4). Plautus and Terence use comedo in this sense; cf. καταπίνω (Proverbs 1:12, Proverbs 1:21:20; Isaiah 9:15). The description of the false teachers in Romans 16:18 and Philippians 3:19 is similar.

λαμβάνει. ‘Catch you’ as birds in a snare, or fish with bait; cf. δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον (12:16); οὐδὲν ἐλάβομεν (Luke 5:5). Field supports AV in translating ‘take of you,’ and the word might mean this. Beza has si quis stipendium accipit, but it is rather a bathos after ‘enslave and devour.’ ‘Prey upon you’ combines the two ideas.

ἐπαίρεται. ‘Uplift himself,’ ‘give himself airs’; cf. 10:5. AV and RV. have ‘exalt’ for this verb and also for ὑψόω (v. 7); Vulg. has exaltemini there and extollitur here. ‘Lord it over you’ seems to be the meaning.

εἰς πρόσωπον ὑμᾶς δέρει. The conduct of the Sanhedrin in the case of Christ (Mark 14:65) and of St Paul (Acts 23:2) shows that this may possibly be understood literally; and this view is confirmed when we find St Paul directing both Timothy (1 Timothy 3:3) and Titus (Titus 1:7) that a bishop must not be a striker. Cf. 1 Kings 22:24. But it is equally possible that the expression is figurative, like ‘fly in one’s face’; cf. Matthew 5:39; Job 16:10; Lamentations 3:30; Micah 5:1. ‘If he outrageously insult you’ would then be the meaning. That the Judaizers treated the Corinthians with contumely because they were Gentiles is possible, but we cannot make any of the expressions in this verse refer definitely to that. For a similar repetition of εἰ (five times in each) see 1 Timothy 5:10.

εἰς πρόσωτον ὑμᾶς (א B D * E F G P d e f g r Vulg.) rather than ὑμᾶς εἰς πρ. D2 K M, Arm. Goth.).

21. κατὰ�2 Thessalonians 2:2. Milligan shows that in late Greek ὡς ὅτι hardly differs from ὅτι. Indeed some editors write ὡσότι. If the MS. evidence in Xen. Hell. 111. ii.14 be rejected, then the statement of Blass (§ 70. 2) may be accepted, that ὡς ὅτι is not classical. Schmiedel, ad loc. p. 287; Winer, pp. 771, 772.

The ironical confession of his own ‘dishonour’ is a real rebuke to the Corinthians; they more than tolerate those who trample on them, while they criticize as ‘weak’ one who shows them great consideration.

ἐν ᾧ δʼ ἅν τις τολμᾷ�

22-23. After the somewhat long prelude from 10:8 onwards, in which St Paul has stated repeatedly that he must embark on the foolish project of glorying, he at last lets himself go. He began to glory about refusing maintenance (v. 7), but from that he diverged to denounce those who accepted maintenance and abused him for refusing it. He returned to his prelude (v. 16) and again diverged to pay a sarcastic compliment to the Corinthians for their magnificent toleration of other teachers whose conduct is very different from his. But from this point to the end of the chapter, and indeed to 12:10, there is no break; and in these twenty-one verses we have a summary of his career as an Apostle which, as an autobiographical sketch, has no equal in N.T. We have had very brief outlines in one or two places (4:7-10, 6:4-10; 1 Corinthians 4:11-13) with an occasional detail (1 Thessalonians 2:9), but nothing approaching to this in fulness. This autobiographical summary tells us a good deal which Luke omits in Acts, and this may help to convince us that Luke does not exaggerate in describing his friend’s work. If he had liked, he could have told us a good deal more that would have been to the credit of the Apostle. Nothing that Luke tells us about him exceeds what is told us here. On the other hand, there is little ground for suspecting that the Apostle exaggerates here, for what he says about himself is told with tantalizing brevity and manifest unwillingness. Nor need we allow much for the fact that this passage, like most of 2 Corinthians, was dictated under the influence of strong feeling. There is nothing hysterical about it, and there is very little, if anything, that has the appearance of being said on the spur of the moment, and therefore inaccurately. On the contrary, it seems to have been rather carefully prepared and arranged, and even the exact wording of the clauses to have been in some cases thought out.

There were two things on which the Judaizing teachers plumed themselves, their ancestry and their dignity as Apostolic ministers. St Paul addresses himself to both these claims, devoting, as we should expect him to do, much more attention to the second than to the first, which is very quickly dismissed; and he appeals, not to the miracles which he had wrought, or to the Churches which he had founded, but to the labours and sufferings which he had endured.

But this κανχᾶσθαι is all κατὰ σάρκα, οὐ κατὰ κύριον. It deals largely with externals which are not of the essence of the Gospel. It is faith, and not birth or exploits, which attaches men to Christ. Cf. Galatians 2:16, Galatians 2:5:6, Galatians 2:6:15; 1 Corinthians 7:19, 1 Corinthians 7:3:29, 1 Corinthians 4:10. To the opening verse (22) there is a remarkable parallel in Philippians 3:5, where see Lightfoot.

22. Ἐβραῖοί εἰσιν; As in 6:14-16, the Apostle rapidly asks a number of argumentative questions, all directed to the same point; and here, as there, he keeps them from becoming monotonous by the use of synonyms. In neither passage are the questions answered, for the answer in each case is obvious; but here he makes a rejoinder to each of the obvious answers. We may feel confident that Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, and Beza, followed by AV and RV., are right in making these four sentences interrogative. The earlier English Versions make them categorical; ‘They are Hebrews: so am I’; which is much less effective. The fact that both Wiclif and the Rhemish do so shows that the Vulg. was taken in this way; but the Latin is as ambiguous as the Greek, and is probably meant to be interrogative; Hebraei sunt? et ego.

The three adjectives which refer to descent cannot be meant to be mere synonyms; in that case the questions would be tautological; and the exact meaning of the first term is clearer than those of the other two. ‘Hebrew’ refers to nationality and language. St Paul belongs to the same race as his opponents, and though he was born out of Palestine, he speaks the Aramaic vernacular (Acts 21:40, Acts 22:2) as they do. In O.T. Ἐβραῖος does not seem to imply difference of race rather than of language (Genesis 34:14, Genesis 34:17, 40:15, 41:12, 43:31; etc.). ‘Hebrew’ denotes the offspring of Abraham as viewed by foreigners, and is used by the Hebrews themselves in dealing with foreigners, or in contrasting themselves with foreigners. In the Apocrypha the idea of difference of language is perhaps coming in (Judith 10:12, 14:18; 2 Macc. 7:31, 11:13, 15:37; and several times in 4 Macc.). But in N.T. Ἐβραῖος seems generally to imply the use of the vernacular Aramaic (Acts 6:1; Philippians 3:5; cf. John 5:2, John 5:19:13, John 5:17, John 5:20, John 5:20:16; Revelation 9:11, Revelation 16:16); it means a Jew who had not abandoned the use of Aramaic, but spoke either both Greek and Aramaic or Aramaic exclusively. By Greek and Latin writers the term is not much used, Ἰουδαῖος and Judaeus being preferred. Hastings, DB. 2. p. 326; Trench, Syn. § xxxix.

As compared with Ἰσραελῖται and σπέρμα Ἀβράνμ, we may perhaps say that Ἐβρᾶιαι is the term of lowest significance, and that the three terms are meant to form a climax, σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ being the most honourable of the three. This might be true whichever view we take of Ἐβραῖοι. To belong to the race ‘from the further side’* to which Abraham belonged was not much; nor was it much to be of those who still talked the current Aramaic. It was more to be of ‘the Children of Israel,’ the people of God, the nation of the Theocracy and the sacred Commonwealth (Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:13); see on Romans 9:5. It was perhaps most of all to be of the ‘seed of Abraham,’ to whom the original promises respecting the Messiah had been made. Understood in this way, ‘seed of Abraham’ leads on readily to the ministers of the Messiah. But this interpretation of the three terms cannot be regarded as certain. If the terms are understood of the persons to whom each can be applied, they seem to be in the wrong order; we should expect ‘seed of Abraham,’ ‘Israelites, ‘Hebrews.’ For ‘seed of Abraham’ includes Ishmaelites and Edomites as well as Israelites, and ‘Israelites’ includes those Hellenists who did not speak Aramaic as well as the ‘Hebrews.’ who did speak it.

It may seem strange that in a Church which was composed almost entirely of Gentiles the Judaizing teachers had based their claims on the fact that they were in the fullest sense Jews. But they wished to show that they came from the original Church of Jerusalem and with the authority of the Twelve. They questioned whether St Paul had any right to the title of Apostle, and they may have questioned whether one who was born at Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts 9:11, Acts 9:30, Acts 9:11:25, Acts 9:22:3), and who disparaged circumcision and the whole of the Mosaic Law, was really a Jew.† Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. 16) tells us that somewhat later than this the Ebionites declared that Paul was a Gentile, who had submitted to circumcision in order to marry the high-priest’s daughter.

On the smooth breathing for Ἐβραῖος, Ἐβραΐς, Ἐβραιστί see WH. ii p. 313. In English, and perhaps in Latin, the aspirate seems to be comparatively modern. Here, as well as in Philippians 3:5 and Acts 6:1, not only Wiclif but Tyndale (a.d. 1534) have ‘Ebrue.’ Coverdale (a.d. 1535) has ‘Hebrue’ in all three places; but it is not yet well established, for Cranmer (a.d. 1539) has ‘Hebrue’ in Acts, but ‘Ebrue’ in the Epistles. White (Vulgate, 1911) prints the aspirate in all three passages, but the fact that Wiclif omits it is evidence that his MSS. did not have it. Ἰσραελεῖται is the spelling in B* D* E* other witnesses have Ισραελῖται

23. διάκονοι Χριστοῦ εἰσίν; This is a much more serious question than the first three, and as such comes last. The false teachers had claimed to be Christ’s men (10:7) and ‘Apostles of Christ’ (11:13), and διάκονος is used here as equivalent to ‘Apostle’: it does not of course mean that they had ministered to Jesus or had been His disciples. Nor is it likely that St Paul is now speaking, not of his opponents at Corinth, but of those whom they claimed as their supporters in Jerusalem. He still has the Judaizing teachers in view. He has just called them ‘sham apostles’ and ‘ministers of Satan’ (vv. 13, 15); but for the sake of argument he is willing to assume that in some sense they are what they claim to be.*

παραφρονῶν λαλῶ. ‘I am talking like a madman,’ a stronger expression than ἐν�2 Peter 2:16, παράφρων nowhere. In LXX παραφρονέω (Zechariah 7:11), παραφρόνησις (Zechariah 12:4), and παράφρων (Wisd. 5:20) are found once each, παραφρονία nowhere.

ὕπερ ἐγώ. ‘I more’ (RV) is more probably right, than ‘I am more’ (AV), where ‘am’ ought to be in italics. It is less improbable that St Paul should allow for the sake of argument that the ‘superextra apostles’ may be called ‘ministers of Christ,’ than that he himself should claim to be ‘more than a minister of Christ.’ What could that mean? But if that rendering be adopted, then παραφρονῶν refers to it. A man must be mad to make such a claim. ‘I have a better claim to be called a διάκονος Χρ. than they have’ is more probably right, although the plus (not magis)ego of the Vulg. points the other way, and Luther certainly agrees with AV, ich bin wohl mehr. Augustine has super ego. This adverbial use of ὑπέρ can be matched in class. Grk. (Soph. Ant. 518; cf. Hdt. 1. xix. 3, where we have μετὰ δέ for ἔπειτα δέ), but it is unique in N.T. Winer, p. 526; Blass, § 42. 5.

ἐν κόποις περισσοτέρως.Here he begins the evidence that his claim to be a minister of Christ is well founded; he has had a large share in the sufferings of Christ (1:5). But we must not assume that the comparative adverb necessarily implies comparison with his opponents; it may mean ‘more abundantly than most men’ or ‘than you would believe’; cf. 1:12, 2:4, 7:13, 15, 12:15. The comparative form is dropped after the repeated περισσοτέρως, and therefore only in these first two clauses is there even in form any possibility of comparison with the Judaizers. It is possible that after ὑπέρ ἐλώ they are altogether banished from consideration, and that περισσοτέρως means ‘very abundantly.’* It is not likely that he meant that he had been put in prison more often than his opponents; they may have worked hard, but it is not likely that any of them had been imprisoned.

Just as the four questions seem to form a climax, the fourth being far more serious than the other three, so also these four clauses beginning with ἐν. Whether or no ἐν πληλαῖς is to be regarded as worse than ἐν κόποις and ἐν φυλακαῖς, ἐν θανάτοις is much worse than the other three. Then, just as the reply to the fourth question is developed in the clauses which follow, so the fourth clause here is explained and expanded in the sentences which follow. The rhythm and balance of clauses continues until the exceedingly matter-of-fact statement in vv. 32, 33 is reached, and it is impossible to discern how much of it is premeditated and how much due to the emotion of the moment. The substance of this vigorous assertion of his claim to be a minister of Christ must have been thought over beforehand, and perhaps the Apostle, knowing how important it was that this appeal should be successful, had also considered the form in which it should be presented. With regard to the substance it is remarkable that he does not, as elsewhere, base his claim on his relation to the Risen Lord, or on the success with which God has crowned his work, but on his sufferings and sacrifices. What he has endured is the seal of his Apostleship.

There is no need to discuss in each case what verb is to be supplied, whether ἐγενόμην, γέγονα, εἰμί, or ἦν. The verbless clauses are thoroughly intelligible both in Greek and in English.

ἐν φυλακαῖς περισσοτέρως. The text is somewhat confused and uncertain, but περισσοτέρως is used twice, and therefore we have three different adverbs, not four, as Vulg. and AV would lead us to suppose; in laboribus plurimis, in carceribus abundantius, in plagis supra modum, in mortibus frequenter. Clement of Rome (Cor. 5) says that St Paul was imprisoned seven times, ἑπράκις δεσμὰ φορέσας. We know of only five; at Philippi before 2 Corinthians; Jerusalem, Caesarea, and twice at Rome after 2 Corinthians. But there may easily have been two others. See below, on v. 24.

ἐν πληγαῖς ὑπερβαλλόντως. ‘In stripes (6:5) very exceedingly.’ The adv. is fairly common in later Greek; μεγάλως ὑπερβαλλάντως λελάληκας (Job 15:11); but in N.T. it is a ἅπξ λεγόμενον. For St Paul’s fondness for compounds with ὑπέρ see on v. 5 and 12:7.

ἐν θανάτοις πολλάκις. On a number of occasions, and in a variety of ways, through violence, illness, and accidents, he had nearly lost his life. Cf. 1:9, 10, 4:11; 1 Corinthians 15:32; Romans 8:36. A few of those are forthwith specified (vv. 24, 25); πολλάκις γάρ εἰς κινδύνους παρεδόθην θάνατον ἕχοντας (Chrys.). Cf. καθʼ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, μᾶλλον δὲ ὥραν, προαποθνήσκω, πολλοὺς θανάτους ὑπομένων,�

λαλως א B K L M P) rather than λέγω (D E G Latt. dico, as in v v. 16, 16, not loquor, as in v. 17). ἐν φυλακαῖς περισσοτέρως, ἐν πληγαίς ὑπερβαλλόντως B D * E 17, d e g Vulg. Goth. Aeth.) rather than ἐν φυλ. ὑπερβαλλόντως ἐν πληγ. περισσοτέρως (P), or ἐν πληγ. περισσοτέρως, ἐν φυλ. ὑπερβαλλόντως א F G, g), though this is followed by Tisch. with his prefernce for a, or ἐν πληγ. ὑπερβλλόντως, ἐν φυλ. περισσοτέρως א3 D2 K L M, Syrr. Copt. Arm.) followed in T.R. Tertullian (Scrop. 13) has in laboribus abundantius, in carceribus piurimum, in mortitus saepius. Augustine has in laboribus plurimum.

24. ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων. He begins with sufferings which were inflicted on him by officials, Jewish and Roman, in the name of law; then, after one outrage inflicted by a lawless mob, he mentions a number which were due to the operations of nature. This use of ὑπό, ‘at the hands of,’ is classical and is found in papyri, but it is rare in N.T. In 1 Thessalonians 2:14 and Matthew 17:12 we have πάσχειν ὑπό. Winer, p. 462. We expect ὑπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν with the next statement, but in the rapid enumeration it is omitted. He naturally begins with what his own nation, which had become bitterly hostile, had done to him.

πεντάκις τεσσεράκοντα παρὰ μίαν ἔλαβον. ‘Five times I received forty save one.’* The omission of πληγάς is idiomatic; see on Luke 12:47. These Jewish floggings are not mentioned in Acts or in any other Epistle. The earliest passage in which this kind of punishment is mentioned is Deuteronomy 25:1-3, where see Driver’s notes. More than 40 stripes could not lawfully be inflicted, and it is said that the executioner who exceeded 40 was liable to be flogged himself; hence only 39 were inflicted for fear of a miscount. Some say that only 13 were given with a whip that had three lashes, and that they counted as 39, or that 13 were given on the breast and 13 on each shoulder. ‘Cause to lie down’ (Deuteronomy 25:2) does not necessarily imply the bastinado, and there seems to be no tradition that the punishment ever took this form. It was administered in the synagogue (Matthew 10:17), and during the infliction passages from Deut. and the Psalms were read. Josephus (Ant. IV. viii. 21) calls it τιμωρόαν ταύτην αἰσχίτην, but he does not intimate that death often ensued, and it is improbable that Jewish magistrates would allow death to be risked.† But the frail and sensitive Apostle might feel that he had nearly died under the infliction. This use of παρά is found in Josephus, not in iv. viii 21, where he has πληγὰς μιᾷ λειπούας τεσσεράκοντα, but in iv. viii. 1, τεσσεράκοντα ἐτῶν παρὰ τριάκονθʼ ἡμέρας, and in Herodotus (ix. 23), παρὰ ἓν παλαίσμα ἔδραμε νικᾶν Ὀλυμπιάδα, ‘he won an Olympic victory all but one wrestling-bout.’ Cf. Psalms 8:6, quoted Hebrews 2:7, ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ τι παρʼ�

25. τρὶς ἐραβδίσθην. Ter vergis caesus sum. This was a Roman, and therefore a Gentile punishment, and of the three inflictions we know of only one, that inflicted at Philippi, in violation of Roman Law (ὑβρισθέντες ἐν Φιλίπποις, 1 Thessalonians 2:2), by the praetors there (Acts 16:22, Acts 16:23, Acts 16:37). Cf. Acts 22:25-29. Cicero says that to beat a Roman citizen was scelus, but that reckless and ruthless magistrates sometimes committed the outrage (In Verr. v. 62, 66). Gessius Florus, who succeeded Albinus as procurator of Judaea, A.D. 64 or 65, caused persons of equestrian rank to be scourged and crucified, ignoring their rights as Romans (Joseph. B.J. II. xiv. 9). The fact that St Paul was thrice treated in this way is evidence that being a Roman citizen was an imperfect protection when magistrates were disposed to be brutal. We may be sure that he protested at Philippi, but there was an excited mob to hound on the domineering praetors. Ramsay, St Paul the Traveller, p. 219.

The best MSS. have ἐραβδίσθην, not ἐρραβδίσθην. “In most cases verbs beginning with ρ do double the ρ after the initial ἐ of the augmented tenses. Usually the evidence for the single ρ is overwhelming” (WH. App. p. 163).

ἅπαξ ἐλιθάσθην. At Lystra, and of this we have a full account. The Apostles had a narrow escape from stoning at Iconium. Their Jewish enemies followed them to Lystra, and there St Paul was nearly killed (Acts 14:5, Acts 14:6, Acts 14:19). Clement of Rome (Cor. 5) has λιθασθείς after ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας, φυγαδευθείς. Paley, Hor. Paul. iv. 9. In N.T. λιθοβολέω is more freq. than λιθάζω, and in LXX it is much more freq. In Acts we find both.

τρὶς ἐναυάγησα. We know nothing of these, for the one recorded in Act_27 took place later. The verb is classical, but it is very rare in Bibl. Grk. Cf. 1 Timothy 1:19.

νυχθήμερον. A very rare word, meaning a complete day and night.

πεποίηκα. The change from aorists to perfect is not casual. The perf. shows that the dreadful experience is vividly before the Apostle’s mind, and possibly indicates that the occurrence was recent. J. H. Moulton, p. 144.* Ποιέω occurs fairly often of spending time; Acts 15:33, Acts 15:28:23, Acts 15:20:3; James 4:13; Tobit 10:7. ‘Make time’ in English is not parallel.

ἐν τῷ βυθῷ. Vulg., in profundo maris. This translation has helped the extraordinary idea that the Apostle had spent twentyfour hours under water; but ἐν τῷ βυθῷ means simply ‘in the sea,’ in alto mari, far away from land. In the other shipwrecks he was near the shore, which he soon reached, as in Act_27.; but in this case he was tossed about, probably on a bit of wreckage, for a night and a day. Chrysostorn rejects the other explanation as improbable, because St Paul is here speaking of his sufferings, not of his miracles. Those who adopt the miraculous interpretation point to Jonah as a case in point, as if that could be regarded as history. Cf. τὰ θαυμάσια αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βυθῷ (Psalms 106:24), which certainly does not refer to the wonderful things in the depths of the ocean. Theophylact says that there was an underground chamber in which St Paul lay concealed after the peril at Lystra and that this was called βυθός. He gives this as a mere tradition; τινὲς δέ φασιν.

26. ὁδοιπορίαις πολλάκις. The ἐν of v. 23 is dropped here and resumed in v. 27, and these changes, although they make little difference to the sense, might be marked in translation; ‘By journeyings often.’ Journeys of long duration were often undertaken for pleasure or profit, and lest anyone should think that this is what he means here, the Apostle proceeds to enlarge upon the dangers, of eight different kinds, which his travels involved. ‘By perils of rivers, perils of robbers; perils from my countrymen, perils from Gentiles; perils in the city, perils in the wilderness; perils in the sea, perils among false brethren.’ The first six of these κίνδυνοι are arranged in contrasted pairs; but there is not much contrast between the sea and false brethren. To find here a comparison between mare infidum (Plautus), or insidiae mari factae (Cicero), or fallacior undis (Ovid) and ‘false brethren’ is fanciful. From Acts we can illustrate some of these κίνδυνοι, and obviously several of them overlap; e.g. those ἐκγένους. Acts 9:23, Acts 9:29, Acts 9:13:50, Acts 9:14:5, Acts 9:23:12, Acts 9:24:27, all of which passages would also illustrate κίνδυνοι ἐν πόλει. Cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:14 f., and see Harnack, Mission and Expansion, i. pp. 57, 487, ii p. 43. The changes of constr. (simple gen., ἐκ, ἐν) avoid monotony. All three are intelligible, but the simple gen. in this sense is not common; κινδ. θαλασσῶν is parallel. Rivers are often flooded, sometimes suddenly, and bridges and ferries were rare. Frederick Barbarossa was drowned in the Calycadnus in Cilicia in the third Crusade, June 1190. Brigands and pirates often made travel both by land and sea dangerous. Perils from Gentiles were found at Philippi, Acts 16:20, and at Ephesus, Acts 19:23 f. ‘False brethren’ may be a glance at the false teachers in Corinth and in Galatia. We know least about κίνδυνοι ἐν ἐρημίᾳ, but they would overlap with rivers and robbers. Ramsay’s very full article on “Roads and Travel (in N.T.),” in Hastings, DB. v. pp. 375 ff., does not say much about the dangers of travelling in the first century. The evidence is somewhat meagre. See Deissmann, St Paul, pp. 36, 37.

Excepting in the Apocrypha, κίνδυνος is surprisingly rare both in LXX (Psalms 114:3 [116] only) and in N.T. (here and Romans 8:35 only). The rhythmic repetition of the same word is found often in literature, esp. in rhetorical passages. Cf. 7:2, 4; 1 Corinthians 13:4-9; Philippians 2:2, Philippians 2:4:8; 1 John 2:12-14. With the absence of the art. in ἐν πόλει and ἐν ἐρημία comp. ἐν οἲκῳ and ἐν�

ἐν Ψευδαδέλφοις. This was the most insidious peril of all. The other dangers threatened life and limb and property, but this one imperilled, and sometimes ruined, his work. The others often caused delay, but this one generally caused disaster. In writing to Corinthians, as to Galatians, he would mean by these ‘false brethren’ the Jewish Christians who wished to impose on all Christians the yoke of the Law. But they were not the only persons who could be thus described. The Epistles of St Jude and St John, the Didache and 2 Peter, together with portions of the Apocalypse, show us how seriously the Apostolic Church suffered from an evil of which Simon Magus, the Nicolaitans, the ‘Jezebel’ prophetess, and the libertines who preached licentiousness as the logical fruit of Christian freedom, are illustrations. That St Paul means spies, who pretended to be Christians, in order to learn all about the brethren, and then betray them, is not probable. The change from ἐκ γένους and ἐξ ἐθνῶν to ἐν ψευδαδέλφοις may be accidental, owing to the intervening ἐν .. ἐν .. ἐν. But it may be deliberate, in order to mark a difference between external foes, who were not always with him, and those of his own household, among whom he was compelled to live and work.

27. Having explained in vv. 24, 25 what he meant by being ἐν θανάτοις πολλάκις, and in v. 26 what ὁδοιπορίαις πολλάκις involved, he now adds a series of varied sufferings which continue the cumulative argument that his claim to be a minister of Christ is overwhelmingly stronger than that of his opponents. The verse consists of two evenly balanced lines, followed by a much shorter line, which is all the more effective through its being ended so abruptly. It leaves the hearer expectant.

27. κόπῳ καὶ μόχθῳ. ‘By labour and travail,’ or ‘By toil and moil,’ for it is possible that St Paul combines the two words here, as in 1 Thessalonians 2:9 and 2 Thessalonians 3:8, because of the similarity in sound. We have the same combination in Hermas, Sim. 5, 6:2, οὐδεὶς γὰρ δύναται σκαφεῦσαι ἄτερ κόπου ἤ μόχθου. Of the two words, μόχθος is active, indicating struggle and toil, while κόπος is passive, indicating the lassitude which results from prolonged exertion. Lightfoot on 1 Thessalonians 2:9. The words are therefore not in logical order. In 1 and 2 Thess., Vulg. is more logical than exact with labor et fatigatio: here it has labor et aerumna. In all three places the Apostle refers to his working with his hands to maintain himself.

ἐν�Acts 20:9-11, Acts 20:31) often kept him from sleep. Cf. 6:5. The word is freq. in Ecclus, elsewhere very rare in Bibl. Grk. In the prologue to Ecclus. and 2 Macc. 2:26 it is used of sitting up at night writing a book. In Ecclus. 38:26-30 it is used repeatedly of labourers and artisans working at night. On the other hand, in 36:1 [31], 2, 20 and 42:9 it is used of sleeplessness caused by anxiety or discomfort.

ἐν λιμῷ καὶ δίψει. The hunger and thirst caused by inability to obtain food and drink (Deuteronomy 28:48; Isaiah 49:10). This is involuntary fasting.

ἐν νηστείαις πολλάκις. Some commentators explain this also of involuntary fasting. But this makes it a mere repetition of ἐν λιμῷ καὶ δίψει. Ἐν�1 Corinthians 9:27) are less probable, for these would hardly be included in a list of hardships. But seeing that the Apostle is accumulating evidence that he is a true minister of Christ, it is not impossible that the work of bringing his body into subjection is included; quin νηστείαις enim, quum λιμῷ καὶ δίψει adjungantur, jejunia voluntarie ac sine necessitate servata intelligenda sint, nemo prudens dubitat (Cornely).* Cf. Romans 8:35-37.

ἐν ψύχει καὶ γυμνότητι. When he was thrown into prison, or drenched by rain, or stripped by brigands.

All this argument is in strong contrast to the comfortable doctrine of the Jews, and doubtless of the Judaizers at Corinth, that to be in easy circumstances and general prosperity was a sign of Divine favour. Chrysostom points out that St Paul says nothing about results, as to the number of converts that he had made: he counts up only what he has suffered in his missionary work. And this he does not merely out of modesty, but because his labours, even if fruitless, proved the reality of his mission.

א3 K L M P, f Vulg. support ἐν before κόπῳ καὶ μόχθῳ: but we may safely omit ἐν with א* B D E F G, d e g Goth. It would be more likely to be inserted as probable than dropped as unnecessary. Note the divergence of f from F.

28. χωρὶς τῶν παρεκτός. The meaning of this must remain uncertain, for the gender of τῶν is doubtful, and so also is the meaning of παρεκτός, and the different translations which these uncertainties render possible will all of them make sense in this context. But it is certain that the words are to be taken with what follows, and not as the close of the long sentence which precedes (Chrys.). We are fairly safe in assuming that τῶν is neuter; for if ‘those persons that are without,’ i.e. who assail me from the outside, had been the meaning, we should probably have had οἱ ἔξωθεν (1 Timothy 3:7; cf. Joseph. B.J. IV. iii., where τὸ μὲν τοῖς ἔξωθεν ὑπακούειν is opposed to (τὸ δὲ τοῖς οἰκείοις ἔκειν), or still more probably οἱ ἔξω (1 Corinthians 5:12, 1 Corinthians 5:13; Colossians 4:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:12), an expression which seems to be of Rabbinical origin and came to mean all who were outside the Christian Church, whether heathen or Jews; cf. Mark 4:11. What then does τὰ παρεκτός mean? Probably not ‘those things which are without’ (AV, RV),* for which we should have had τὰ ἔξω or τὰ ἔξωθεν, but ‘those things which are besides these,’ viz. ‘the things which I omit’ (RV. marg. 1). Of the two halves of the compound word παρεκτός it is the παρά (v. 24) rather than the ἐκτός which dominates, the idea of exception rather than that of externality. But ἐκτός is used in the sense of ‘except’ or ‘besides’ (1 Corinthians 15:27; Acts 26:22; Judges 8:26, Judges 8:20:15, Judges 8:17; etc.). In LXX παρεκτός does not occur, except as a very questionable v.l. Leviticus 23:38; and Aquila has it Deuteronomy 1:36. But the meaning in both places is ‘except,’ LXX πλήν. In the Testaments (Zebulon 1:4) we have ‘I did not know that I sinned except in thought,’ παρεκτὸς ἐννοίας. These facts justify us in adopting as the rendering of τὰ παρεκτός ‘the things which I omit,’— τὰ παραλειφθέντα, as Chrysostom paraphrases the expression. The Apostle has mentioned a great many things; then he continues, ‘Besides the things which I do not mention, there is, etc.’ This makes good sense; but it is impossible to say how much he omits, though Chrysostom thinks that the half is not told.† The second rendering in RV. marg., ‘the things which come out of course,’ i.e. ‘exceptional things,’ is not probable. Such a meaning would probably have been expressed otherwise.

ἡ ἐπίστασίς μοι ἡ καθʼ ἡμέραν. If μου were the right reading, this might mean, ‘my daily observation,’ ‘my daily attentiveness.’ But μοι is firmly established, and thus the other meaning of ἐπίστασις becomes necessary, ‘that which presses (or rushes) upon me daily,’ ‘the daily onset upon me.’ See crit. note below. Augustine has incursus in me, and a concursus in me, which perhaps represents ἐπισύστασις μοι, although D reads ἐπίστασις μου. Ἐπισύστασις (Numbers 16:40 [17:5], 26:9, of the conspiracy of Korah) means ‘hostile combination,’ or ‘combined attack,’ and in that case ἡ μέριμνα πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν does not explain the preceding clause but states an additional cause of suffering. But both here and Acts 24:12 ἐπίστασις is the better reading, and the word occurs nowhere else in N.T. The meaning ‘pressure’ or ‘onset’ is confirmed by 2 Macc. 6:3 δυσχερὴς ἡ ἐπίστασις τῆς κακίας, as also by such renderings as instantia (Vulg. here), concursus (Vulg. Acts 24:12), and incursus; and with this rendering ἡ μερ. π. τ. ἐκκλ is probably epexegetic. But this is not certain; by ‘the daily pressure’ the Apostle may mean something different from anxiety about all the Churches. There were the criticisms and suspicions to which he was every day exposed, as also the demands that were made upon his time by unreasonable persons,—the pressing business of each day. ‘The concourse of people to see me’ is too definite.

ἡ μέριμνα πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν. ‘My anxiety for all the Churches.’ “This was the chief thing of all,” says Chrysostom, “that his soul was distracted, and his thoughts divided.”* Cf. Mark 4:19 = Matthew 13:22 = Luke 8:14; also Luke 21:34. ‘Care’ in English is ambiguous; either that which anxious people feel, or that which considerate people bestow; see the Greek of 1 Peter 5:7. Either meaning would suit this passage, and the second is often understood; but μέριμνα means the former, the anxiety which torments him. Therefore this does not mean that St Paul claimed jurisdiction over all Churches, whether founded by himself or not; he is not thinking of jurisdiction at all. But every Christian centre had claims on his thought and sympathy, those most of all of which he had intimate knowledge. The intercourse between the chief centres was fairly constant, he was frequently receiving information which gave him plenty to think about (1 Corinthians 1:11, 1 Corinthians 16:17), and anxiety about people generates care for them, when care is possible. This was specially the case with so sensitive a nature as that of St Paul. What he experienced went deep and moved him strongly. See Index IV.

ἐπίστασις (א B D F G 17) rather than ἐπισύστασις (K L M P). μοι (א* B F G 17) rather than μον (א3 D E K L M P).

29. τίς�1 Corinthians 9:22; cf. 1 Corinthians 8:11, 1 Corinthians 8:12; Romans 4:19, Romans 4:14:1, Romans 4:2). But other forms of weakness are doubtless included. Of course he does not mean, ‘Who is weak, if I am not? If anyone can be called weak, I can.’ For that, ἐγώ must have been expressed, and the wording would have been different. Both�

τίς σκανδαλίζεται καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ πυροῦμαι; ‘Who is made to stumble (1 Corinthians 8:13) and I burn not’ with shame and distress? Cf. ἕνα ἕκαστον ὑμῶν ὡς πατὴρ τέκνα ἑαυτοῦ (1 Thessalonians 2:11). When any Christian, and especially one of his own converts, is seduced into sin or grievous error, the Apostle shares his remorse; quanto major caritas, tanto majores plagae de peccatis alienis (Aug.). The exact meaning of πυροῦμαι depends in each case on the context (see on 1 Corinthians 7:9; Ephesians 6:16; 2 Peter 3:12; Revelation 1:15, Revelation 3:18), and here it means feeling burning shame with the sinner rather than hot indignation against the seducer. In Latin we find such expressions as flagrare pudore, dolorum faces, dolor ardentes faces intentat,—the last two in Cicero. Note the emphatic ἐγώ in this question; in the first question the emphasis is on οὐκ, and Cyprian (Ep. xvii. 1) marks the change with a change of order; ego non … non ego; Vulg. has ego non in both places. The second question is a studied advance on the first, for σκανδαλίζεται and πυροῦμαι express a great deal more than�

30. τὰ τῆς�Philippians 3:10) and his unlikeness to them: οὗτος�

31. ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ οἶδεν. There is no reason to confine this to what follows. Like καυχήσομαι, it looks both ways. The Corinthians may be sceptical about what he has enumerated and what he has still to mention in the long series of τὰ τῆς�Galatians 1:20; Romans 9:1; 1 Timothy 2:7; also 2 Timothy 4:1. The strong language here and 1:23 is indirect evidence of the calumnies which were circulated about him; he said ‘yes’ when he meant ‘no,’ or said both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ in one breath (1:17); he could not speak the truth.

D E K L M P, d e f Vulg. Copt. add Χριστοῦ. Omit with א B F G 17, 37, Goth. Arm. Note the divergence of f from F.

32, 33. Here again we are confronted with difficulties through ignorance of the situation. The abrupt descent from the lofty rhetoric of a rhythmically arranged argument to the very prosaic statement of a simple matter of fact is in itself surprising, and is all the more so, when we take it in connexion with the solemn asseveration which immediately precedes it. This latter difficulty might be removed by supposing that the asseveration refers to what precedes and has no connexion with the verses which follow it; that, however, is an unsatisfactory solution, and it leaves the sudden transition unexplained.

Baljon, Hilgenfeld, Holsten, and Schmiedel find the want of connexion so surprising that they would banish these two verses, with or without all or part of 12:1, as an interpolation, unskilfully inserted to illustrate τὰ τῆς�Acts 9:23-25, St Luke tells this story about his friend without any apparent feeling that it was from any point of view discreditable. We must be content therefore to leave the reason for the sudden mention of this incident open. To us it serves as an example of τὰ τῆς�

ἐν Δαμασκῷ ὁ ἐθνάρχης Ἁρέτα τοῦ βασιλέως κ.τ.λ. This statement raises historical questions, the answers to which are not quite simple. The Romans occupied the Nabataean territory b.c. 65, 64, and Damascus coins show that Damascus was still under the Roman Empire a.d. 33; but from a.d. 34 to 62 no such coins are extant, and after 62 the coins of Damascus are those of Nero. Damascene coins of Caligula and Claudius are wanting. The Nabataean king Aretas iv., whose reign extends from b.c. 9 to a.d. 39, had used some frontier-disputes as a reason for making war on Herod Antipas, who about a.d. 28 had divorced the daughter of Aretas in order to marry Herodias; and he utterly defeated Antipas about a.d. 32. Antipas complained to Tiberius, who in a rage commanded Vitellius to capture Aretas and either bring him alive or send his head. Vitellius had no love for Antipas, and in the course of his march against Aretas went up to Jerusalem near Pentecost a.d. 37, where he heard of the death of Tiberius (16 March) and the accession of Caligula, and he at once stopped the expedition against Aretas, for Caligula liked Antipas as little as Vitellius did (Joseph. Ant. XVIII. v. 1-3).

In order to explain how an ethnarch of Aretas was governor of Damascus when Saul of Tarsus made his escape from the city we have these possibilities.

1. To mark his dislike for Antipas, Caligula may have given Damascus to his great enemy Aretas. In this case the escape of St Paul cannot be placed earlier than the latter part of a.d. 37, and this would give a.d. 35 or 36 as the earliest date for his conversion. On the whole, this is the most probable explanation.

2. But it is not impossible, though hardly probable, that the subtle Tiberius may have thought it worth while to secure the friendship of Aretas by letting him have Damascus. If so, this must have taken place before the complaints of Antipas reached Tiberius, and in that case the conversion of St Paul might be placed still nearer to the Crucifixion.

3. The conquest of Damascus by Aretas at any time is so improbable that it may safely be rejected from consideration.

The precise meaning of ἐθνάρχης is uncertain and not very important. The government of the Nabataean kingdom of Aretas seems to have been tribal, and ἐθνάρχης occurs in inscriptions as the head of a tribal district. Jewish governors in Palestine and Alexandria had the title, and perhaps ‘viceroy’ would be the modern equivalent (1 Macc. 14:47, 15:1, 2). It was applied to vassal princes, and it was under this title that the high priests governed the Jews (Joseph. Ant. XVII. xiii. 4; B.J. II. vi. 3).

There is no discrepancy between the statement here, that ‘the ethnarch guarded the city to take me,’ and that in Acts 9:24, that ‘the Jews watched the gates night and day to kill him.’ It was the Jews who urged the ethnarch against Saul, and they were very numerous in Damascus (B.J. II. xx. 2, VII. viii. 7), and they would watch the gates along with the guards set by the ethnarch, who would not be sorry to gratify this turbulent element among his subjects by so simple a concession. Saul had already caused disturbance, and it would be an advantage to get him out of the way. But the total difference of wording, and the omission of the retirement to Arabia, show that Luke wrote quite independently of his friend’s letters. See Zahn, Intr. to N.T. iii. pp. 121, 140.

On these various problems see Hastings, DB. i. pp. 145, 424, 793; Enc. Bibl. i. 296, 815; Herzog, Real. Enc. i. p. 618 (Hauck, i p. 795); Schürer, Jewish People in the Time of J.C. 1. ii. pp. 89, 356, 11. i. p. 98; Lewin, Fasti Sacri, pp. 226, 249; Knowling on Acts 9:23, Acts 9:24; Zahn, Intr. to N.T. iii. p. 445; also Intr. to 1 Cor. p. xxviii.

32. Ἁρέτα. Note the aspirate. The original form of the name was Haritha, which in Greek would become Ἁρέθας. But the influence of�

ἐφρούρει. In LXX the verb is mostly used in the literal sense, as here; but elsewhere in N.T. it is metaphorical. In Philippians 4:7 we have the striking picture of ‘the peace of God standing sentry over your hearts.’ See also Lightfoot on Galatians 3:23 and Hort on 1 Peter 1:5. In dictating, St Paul seems to have forgotten that he began his sentence with ἐν Δαμασκῷ. We should have expected τὰς πύλας to follow ἐφρούρει rather than τὴν πόλιν Δαμασκηνῶν.

πιάσαι. The verb is freq. in Jn. of attempts to arrest Jesus (7:30, 32, 44, 8:20, 10:39, etc.).



We should probably omit θέλων, which א D3 E K L M P insert after πιάσαι με, and F G, g Copt. Syr-Hark. insert before it. B D *, d e f Vulg. and Syr-Pesh. omit. Note the divergence of e from E and of f from F.

33. διὰ θυρίδος. A small opening in the wall is still shown as the ‘little door’ through which St Paul was let down. Διὰ τῆς θυριδος occurs Joshua 2:15 of the escape of the spies from the city wall at Jericho, and 1 Samuel 19:12 of the escape of David from his own house, when Saul sent men to watch him and slay him.

ἐν σαργάνῃ. Acts 9:25 says ἐν σφυρίδι, the word always used respecting the Feeding of the 4000 (Mark 8:8, Mark 8:20; Matthew 15:37, Matthew 16:10), while κόφινος is always used of the Feeding of the 5000. The rare word σαρλάνη, like σφυρίς or στυρίς, probably means a basket made of plaited or woven material. It is said to be used in the Δηθή of the comic poet Timocles for a fish basket. As stated above, the mode of escape, for which Theodoret thinks it necessary to apologize by pointing out the greatness of the danger, had probably been in some way used to the discredit of the Apostle, and hence his abrupt and dry mention of it here. But there is nothing to show that he was then “in a state of nervous prostration” and merely “passively acquiesced in the action of his disciples” (Rackam). At any rate he himself regards it as a leading illustration of τὰ τῆς�

It is impossible to be certain whether this escape from ‘the city of the Damascenes’ took place before or after the retirement into Arabia (Galatians 1:17). Luke in Act_9. does not mention the retirement, possibly because, when he wrote, he was not aware of it, but more probably because it was not an incident on which he cared to lay stress. Some place it before v. 19; others refer it to the ἡμέραι ἱκαναί in v. 23; others again place it after v. 25, i.e. after the escape from Damascus. It is more probable that this famous incident took place after the return from Arabia,* and in that case the best position for it in Acts is in the middle of 9:19, where both WH. and RV., and also Souter, begin a new paragraph. Ἐγένετο δέ in N.T. is peculiar to Lk. and Acts, and is freq. in both writings to mark a fresh start in the narrative. This, however, is no proof that Luke at this point was consciously passing over the Arabian interval. See A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of St Paul, pp. 76-79; Redlich, S. Paul and His Companions, pp. 22:23; Ramsay, St Paul the Traveller, p. 380; Emmet on Galatians 1:17.

διὰ τοῦ τείχους. Why should διὰ θυρίδος be ‘through a window’ and διὰ τοῦ τείχους be ‘by the wall’ (AV, RV)? ‘Through’ is probably right in both cases; he was let down (Mark 2:4) through an opening through the wall. In Acts 9:25 RV. has ‘through the wall’ for διὰ τοῦ τείχους. Epictetus (Dis. ii. 6 sub init.) says that, when he finds the door closed, he must either go away again or enter through the window (διὰτῆς θυρίδος). It is said that the wall in which is the aperture that is now shown as the place of escape is a modern one.

ἐξέφυγον τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ. This is the usual constr. after ἐκφεύγω (Romans 2:3; Acts 16:27; etc.), but we sometimes have ἐκ (Acts 19:16) or�

* Lietzmann contends that if�

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

P P (Ninth century). Codex Porfirianus Chiovensis, formerly possessed by Bishop Porfiri of Kiev, and now at Petrograd.

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.

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

G G (Late ninth century). Codex Boernerianus; at Dresden. Interlined with the Latin (in minluscules). The Greek text is almost the same as that of F, but the Latin (g) shows Old Latin elements.

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

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

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

17 17. (Evan. 33, Acts 13:0. 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.

† ,μνηστείας γάρ ἐστι καιρὸς ὁ παρὼν καιρός ὁ δὲ τῶν παστάδων ἕτερος, ὅταν λέγωσιν,�

† Among the surprising things in the Bampton Lectures of 1913 is the contention that “Peter had been paying a visit of such duration to Corinth as to have created a following who boasted themselves distinctively, as being the discipies of one whom they looked upon as a ‘super-eminent Apostle’” (p. 78). That St Peter had visited Corinth is assumed from 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Corinthians 1:9:5; and from 1 Corinthians 9:6 it is assumed that Barnabas had been there also. The evidence is not strong.

* Bachmann doubts this; but why does the Apostle defend the practice, if he had not been censured for it? See Ramsay, Cities of St Paul, p. 231.

* Aquila had it Exodus 3:22, where LXX has σκυλεύσατε τοὺς Αίγυπτίους.

* Both ἑσύλησα and ὀΨώνιον are military words, and St Paul may be resuming the thought that missionary work is a campaign (10:3-6). An invading army must have supplies, and sometimes has to employ strong measures to obtain them.

* The conjectural interpretation of Oecumenius and Theoplylact, οὐκ ἠμέλησα ἦ π̔ᾳθυμότερος πρὸς τό κήρυγμα γέγονα does not suit either this passage or 12:13, 14. Beza has non obtorpui cum cujusquam incommodo, which is equally faulty.

* Calvin remarks that in these verses (10,11) we have the equivalents of two oaths. It is fanatical to maintain that oaths may never be taken.

* It is a truism to say that, in order to tempt us, evil must be made to look attractive. The point here is that it can be made to look like innocence or like virtue.

R R (Eighth century). Codex Cryptoferratensis. One leaf at Grotta Ferrata contains 2 Corinthians 11:9-19.

m m (Ninth century). Speculum pseudo-Augustinianum; at Rome. Fragments.

* Here, as in v. 1, Vulg. has modicum quid; Beza has paulisper in v. 1 and paululum quiddam here: aliquantulum might be better in both places.

* Cf. οὐ κατʼ ἐπιταγὴν λέγω (8:8): οὐχ ὄτι καθʼ ὑστέρησιν λέγω (Philippians 4:11). Winer, p. 502. ‘If to your disgrace’ is the meaning (1 Corinthians 6:5, 1 Corinthians 15:34), then there is no irony.

† For�1 Corinthians 15:43, but 1 Corinthians 11:14 and Romans 1:26 ignominia, and Romans 9:21 conlumelia. Ignominia would be better throughout.

* Cf. Genesis 14:13, where Abraham is called ὀ περάτης as the equivalent of ‘Hebrew.’

† The statement of jerome (De. Vir. ill.), that St Paul was born at Gischala in Galilee, may safety be disregarded, but his parents may have come from Gischala as emigrants or prisoners of war.

* We may compare the action of Christ, who does not challenge the confident statement of either the rich man (Mark 10:20.) or the sons of Zebedee (10:39), but answers as if it were true.

† Minus sapiens dico (Vulg.) is wrong of both words; delirans loqauor would be right, but Vulg. tanslates the reading λέγω..

* Ueber die Massen (Bachman) or überrichlich (Bousset) rather than viel reichlicher (Lietzmann).

* Clement of Rome (Cor. 5) speaks of St Paul’s sufferings thus; “Through jealousy and strife Paul too made attestation of the prize of stead, fast endurance. Seven times the suffered bonds, he was driven into exile, he was stoned.’ It is manifest that Clement did not know 2 Corinthians 11:24 f. Kennedy, p. 150; Rendall, p. 90.

† In the Mishna, in the section called Makkoth, Rabbinical thoroughness provides for such an event, which might occur from heart failure, but it cannot have been common. Roman scourgings sometimes were fatal. The tractate Makkoth is now very accessible in two small editions, Strack, Leipzig, 1910, and Hö Tübingen, 1910. Deissmann (St Paul, p. 64) calls it “a thrilling commentary on that simple line in 2 Corinthians.”

* Button § Blass, § 59. 3, and Simcox, Lang. of the N. T. p. 104, take other views of this perfect. If it points to a recent occurrence, we might assign it to the intermediate and painful visit.

* Wetstein quotes from Ovid, multa prius pelago, multaque passeis humo: and from Plutarch, πλάνας ἐν ἐρημίᾳ καὶ κινδύνους ἐν θαλανσσῃ.

* Its place in the list is against this interpretation. If that were the meaning, it should have come at the end. It is not supposed that ‘cold and nakedness’ refer to self-discipline.

* There seems to he no passage in which παρεκτός means ‘outside,’ extinsecus (Vulg.).

† πλείονα τὰ παραλειφθέντα τῶν�

* Μέριμνα significat curam sollicitam et dubiam, quae mentem in partes divisas uclut dividet, a μερίζω τὸν νοῦν. This derivation, though probable, is not niversally accepted. Vulg. has sollicitudo here, Matthew 13:22, and 1 Peter 5:7, aeriemna, Mark 4:19, and cura, Luke 21:34. Other Latin texts have cogitatio. See on Luke 21:34, and Scrivener, Codex Besae, pp. xliv. f.

37 37. (Evan. 69, Acts 69, Revelation 14:0. Fifteenth century). The well-known Leicester codex; belongs to the Ferrar group.

* This proposal, as Lietzmann points out, is based on the asaumption that the Apostle’s thoughts must proceed in a logically consecutive manner, and this they frequently do not do.

* Lewin, Fasti Sairi, pp. 254, 263.