Calvin’s Commentaries2 Corinthians 1

1. Paul an Apostle As to the reasons why he designates himself an Apostle of Christ, and adds that he has obtained this honor by the will of God, see the foregoing Epistle, where it has been observed that none are to be listened to but those, who have been sent by God, and speak from his mouth, and that, consequently, to secure authority for any one, two things are required — a call, and fidelity on the part of the person who is called, in the execution of his office. (See Calvin on the Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 48.) Both of these Paul claims for himself. The false apostles, it is true, do the same; but then, by usurping a title that does not belong to them, they gain nothing among the sons of God, who can with the utmost ease convict them of impertinence. Hence the mere name is not enough, if there be not the reality along with it, so that he who gives himself out as an Apostle must also show himself to be such by his work. To the Church of God We must always keep it in view, his recognising a Church to exist, where there was such a conflux of evils. For the faults of individuals do not prevent a society that has genuine marks of religion (See Calvin on the Corinthians, vol. 1, pp. 51, 52.) from being recognised as a Church. (“A true child of God may have sad falls, as we see in Peter and David, yet for all this not be quite excluded out of the covenant of grace: they did not lose their sonship, even in those sad transgressions, and will God be more severe to a whole Church than to one person?” — Burgesse on 2 Corinthians 1. (Lond. 1661) — Ed.) But what does he mean by the expression — with all saints? Were those saints unconnected with the Church? I answer, that this phrase refers to believers, who were dispersed hither and thither, throughout various corners of the province — it being likely, that in that greatly disturbed period, when the enemies of Christ were everywhere venting their rage, many were scattered abroad, who could not conveniently hold sacred assemblies.

3 Blessed be God He begins (as has been observed) with this thanksgiving — partly for the purpose of extolling the goodness of God — partly, with the view of animating the Corinthians by his example to the resolute endurance of persecutions; and partly, that he may magnify himself in a strain of pious glorying, in opposition to the malignant slanderings of the false apostles. For such is the depravity of the world, that it treats with derision martyrdoms, (“Des martyres et afflictions des fideles;” — “The martyrdoms and afflictions of believers.”) which it ought to have held in admiration, and endeavours to find matter of reproach in the splendid trophies of the pious. (“Cherche matiere de mespris et diffamation aux enseignes magnifiques de victoire, lesquelles Dieu dresse à ses enfans;” — “Seeks matter of contempt and defamation in those splendid tokens of victory, which God furnishes to His children.”) Blessed be God, says he. On what account? who comforteth us (“Who is comforting (ὁ παρακαλῶν) — that doth never cease to do it, that never withdraweth his consolations. It is his nature to be always comforting — as the devil is called ὁ πειραζων, because he is always tempting.” — Burgesse on 2 Corinthians p. 157 — Ed.) — the relative being used instead of the causal particle. (“Ce mot, Qui, est mis pour Car, ou, Pource que;” — “This word, Who, being used instead of For, or, Because.”) He had endured his tribulations with fortitude and alacrity: this fortitude he ascribes to God, because it was owing to support derived from his consolation that he had not fainted. He calls him the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and not without good reason, where blessings are treated of; for where Christ is not, there the beneficence of God is not. On the other hand, where Christ intervenes, by whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
(Ephesians 3:15,) there are all mercies and all consolations of God — nay, more, there is fatherly love, the fountain from which everything else flows.

4. That we may be able to comfort There can be no doubt, that, as he had a little before cleared his afflictions from reproach and unfavorable reports, so now he instructs the Corinthians, that his having come off victorious through heavenly consolation was for their sake and with a view to their advantage, that they may stir themselves up to fellowship in suffering, instead of haughtily despising his conflicts. As, however, the Apostle lived not for himself but for the Church, so he reckoned, that whatever favors God conferred upon him, were not given for his own sake merely, (“Pour son proufit particulier;” — “For his own private advantage.”) but in order that he might have more in his power for helping others. And, unquestionably, when the Lord confers upon us any favor, he in a manner invites us by his example to be generous to our neighbours. The riches of the Spirit, therefore, are not to be kept by us to ourselves, but every one must communicate to others what he has received. This, it is true, must be considered as being applicable chiefly to ministers of the Word. (“It is not enough for the ministers of the gospel to have devoured many books of learning, to be able to decide polemical questions in divinity, to convince gainsayers, to be doctors angelical, subtle or profound; to be mallei hereticorum — the hammer of heretics. Unless also they have the experimental works of God’s Spirit upon their own souls, they are not able to apply themselves to the hearts of others. Paul had not been able to comfort others, if the Lord had not practically acquainted him with heavenly consolations.” — Burgesse on 2 Corinthians 1, p. 178 — Ed.) It is, however, common to all, according to the measure of each. Thus Paul here acknowledges, that he had been sustained by the consolation of God, that he might be able himself to comfort others

5. For as the sufferings of Christ abound — This statement may be explained in two ways — actively and passively. If you take it actively, the meaning will be this: “The more I am tried with various afflictions, so much the more resources have I for comforting others.” I am, however, more inclined to take it in a passive sense, as meaning that God multiplied his consolations according to the measure of his tribulations. David also acknowledges that it had been thus with him: According to the multitude, says he, of my anxieties within me,
thy consolations have delighted my soul. (Psalm 94:19.) In Paul’s words, however, there is a fuller statement of doctrine; for the afflictions of the pious he calls the sufferings of Christ, as he says elsewhere, that he fills up in his body what is wanting in the
sufferings of Christ. (Colossians 1:24.) The miseries and vexations, it is true, of the present life are common to good and bad alike, but when they befall the wicked, they are tokens of the curse of God, because they arise from sin, and nothing appears in them except the anger of God and participation with Adam, which cannot but depress the mind. But in the mean time believers are conformed to Christ, and bear about with them in their body his dying, that the life of Christ may one day be manifested in them. (2 Corinthians 4:10.) I speak of the afflictions which they endure for the testimony of Christ, (Revelation 1:9,) for although the Lord’s chastisements, with which he chastises their sins, are beneficial to them, they are, nevertheless, not partakers, properly speaking, of Christ’s sufferings, except in those cases in which they suffer on his account, as we find in 1 Peter 4:13. Paul’s meaning then is, that God is always present with him in his tribulations, and that his infirmity is sustained by the consolations of Christ, so as to prevent him from being overwhelmed with calamities.

2 Corinthians 1:6-11

6. And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation. 6. Sive autem affligimur pro vestra consolatione et salute, (“Pour vostre consolation et salut, ou, C’est pour vostre;” — “For your consolation and salvation, or, It is for your,” etc.) quae efficitur in tolerantia ipsarum passionum, quas et nos patimur: sive consolationem accipimus pro vestra consolatione et salute:

7. And our hope of you is stedfast, knowing, that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so shall ye be also of the consolation. 7. Spes nostra firma est de vobis, (“Nostre esperance est ferme de vous, ou, Et l’esperance que nous auons de vous est ferme, scachans;” — “Our hope is firm respecting you, or, And the hope which we have respecting you is firm. Knowing.”) scientes, quod quemadmodum socii estis passionum, ita et consolationis.

8. For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life: 8. Nolo enim vos nescire, fratres, de tribulatione nostra, quae accidit nobis in Asia: nempe quod praeter modum gravati fuerimus supra vires, ita ut de vita quoque anxii essemus.

9. But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead: 9. Quin etiam (“Mesme, ou, Mais;” — “Nay more, or, But.”) ipsi in nobis ipsis sententiam mortis acceperamus: ne confideremus in nobis, sed in Deo, qui ad vitam suscitat mortuos:

10. Who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver: in whom we trust that he will yet deliver us; 10. Qui ex tanta morte eripuit nos, et eripit, in quo spem fixam habemus, quod etiam posthaec eripiet;

11. Ye also helping together by prayer for us, that for the gift bestowed upon us by the means of many persons thanks may be given by many on our behalf. 11. Simul adiuvantibus et vobis per deprecationem pro nobis: ut donum, ex multis personis erga nos collatum, gratiarum actione per multos (“Pour l’esgard de plusieurs personnes, ou, Par le moyen de plusieurs personnes;” — “For the sake of many persons, or, By means of many persons.”) celebretur pro nobis.

6. Whether we are afflicted. From the circumstance that before the clause our hope of you is steadfast, there is introduced the connecting particle and, Erasmus has conceived the idea, that some word must be understood to correspond with those words — for your consolation and salvation — in this way, whether we are afflicted, IT IS for your consolation. I think it, however, more probable, that the connecting particle and is used here as meaning: Thus also, or in both cases. He had already stated, that he received consolation in order that he might communicate it to others. Now he goes a step farther, and says, that he has a steadfast hope, that they would be partakers of the consolation Besides, some of the most ancient Greek manuscripts introduce immediately after the first clause this statement — and our hope of you is steadfast. (Dr. Bloomfield, who gives to this reading of the passage his decided preference, says of it: “The evidence in its favor is exceedingly strong; while that for the common reading is exceedingly weak.” — Ed.) This reading removes all ambiguity. For when it is introduced in the middle, we must necessarily refer it to the latter clause, equally as to the former. At the same time, if any one wishes to have a complete sentence in each clause, by supplying some verb, there will be no great harm in this, and there will be no great difference as to the meaning. For if you read it as one continued statement, you must, at the same time, explain the different parts in this manner — that the Apostle is afflicted, and is refreshed with consolation for the advantage of the Corinthians; and that he entertains, therefore, the hope, (“Qu’il ha certain espoir;” — “That he has a sure hope.”) that they will be at length partakers of the same consolation, with what is in reserve for himself. For my own part, I have adopted the way that I have judged the more suitable. It is, however, to be observed, that the word afflicted here refers not merely to outward misery, but also to that of the mind, so as to correspond with the opposite term comforted. (παρακαλεῖσθαι ) Thus the meaning is, that the person’s mind is pressed down with anxiety from a feeling of misery. (“θλίψις”, says Dr. Bloomfield, in his Notes on Matthew 24:9, “properly signifies compression, and figuratively constraint, oppression, affliction, and persecution.” — Ed.) What we render consolation, is in the Greek παράκλησις, — a term which signifies also exhortation. If, however, you understand that kind of consolation, by which a person’s mind is lightened of grief, and is raised above it, you will be in possession of Paul’s meaning. For example, Paul himself would well-nigh have fallen down dead under the pressure of so many afflictions, had not God encouraged him, by raising him up by means of his consolation. Thus, too, the Corinthians derive strength and fortitude of mind from his sufferings, (“Voyans les passions du sainct Apostre;” — “Beholding the sufferings of the holy Apostle.”) while they take comfort from his example. Let us now sum up the whole matter briefly. As he saw that his afflictions were made by some an occasion of holding him in contempt, with the view of calling back the Corinthians from an error of this nature, (“Afin d’oster aux Corinthiens ceste mauuaise fantasie;” — “With the view of ridding the Corinthians of this wicked fancy.”) he shows in the first place that he ought to be in high esteem among them, in consideration of advantage redounding to themselves; and then afterwards he associates them with himself, that they may reckon his afflictions to be in a manner their own. “Whether I suffer afflictions, or experience consolation, it is all for your benefit, and I cherish an assured hope, that you will continue to enjoy this advantage.” (“Iusques en la fin;” — “Until the end.”) For such were Paul’s afflictions, and his consolations also, that they would have contributed to the edification of the Corinthians, had not the Corinthians of their own accord deprived themselves of the advantage redounding from it. He, accordingly, declares his confidence in the Corinthians to be such, that he entertains the assured hope that it will not be vain, that he has been afflicted, and has received consolation for their advantage. The false apostles made every effort to turn to Paul’s reproach everything that befell him. Had they obtained their wish, the afflictions which he endured for their salvation, had been vain and fruitless; they would have derived no advantage from the consolations with which the Lord refreshed him. To contrivances of this nature he opposes his present confidence. His afflictions tended to promote the comfort of believers, as furnishing them with occasion of confirmation, on their perceiving that he suffered willingly, and endured with fortitude so many hardships for the sake of the gospel. For however we may acknowledge that afflictions ought to be endured by us for the sake of the gospel, we, nevertheless, tremble through a consciousness of our weakness, and think ourselves not prepared for it. (“Et ne pensons point estre assez forts;” — “And do not think that we are sufficiently strong.”) In that case, we should call to mind the examples of the saints, which should make us more courageous. On the other hand, his personal consolation flowed out to the whole Church, inasmuch as they concluded, (“Les fideles recueilloyent de là, et s’asseuroyent;” — “Believers inferred from this, and assured themselves.”) that God who had sustained and refreshed him in his emergency, would, in like manner, not be wanting to them. Thus their welfare was promoted in both ways, and this is what he introduces as it were by way of parenthesis, when he says — which is made effectual in the endurance, etc. For he wished to add this clause, by way of explanation, that they might not think that they had nothing to do with the afflictions which he alone endured. Erasmus takes the participle γουμένης in an active sense, (“Traduisant, Qui oeuure ou besongne;” — “Rendering it, Which works or labors.”) but a passive signification is more suitable, (Dr. Bloomfield, in his Notes on 1 Thessalonians 2:13, explains ἐνεργεῖται, to mean — “is made effectual,” or “shews itself in its effects,” and adds: “This view I find supported by the opinion of Schott, who maintains that ἐνεργεῖσθαι, is never in the New Testament used as a middle form, with an active sense; but always (especially in St. Paul’s writings) as a passive. Indeed, Bp. Bull, Exam. p. 9, goes yet farther, and asserts, that it is scarcely ever so used, even in the Classical writers (I believe he might have said never) but always in a passive sense.” — Ed.) as Paul designed simply to explain in what respect everything that befell him was for their salvation. He says, accordingly, that he suffers, indeed, alone, but that his sufferings are of use for promoting their salvation — not as though they were expiations or sacrifices for sins, but as edifying them by confirming them. Hence he conjoins consolation and salvation, with the view of pointing out the way in which their salvation was to be accomplished.

7. Knowing, that as However there might be some of the Corinthians that were drawn away for the time by the calumnies of the false Apostles, so as to entertain less honorable views of Paul, on seeing him shamefully handled before the world, he, nevertheless, associates them with himself both in fellowship of afflictions, and in hope of consolation. (The Corinthians were κοινωνοί partakers of, or in communion with him in his afflictions. What is more humble and lowly (τί ταπεινοφρωνέστερον) than Paul in this expression? saith Chrysostom — they who had not in the least measure shared with him in sufferings, yet he maketh them copartners with him. They are, as Salmeron expresseth it, Copartners in the gain and in the loss with Paul. They venture (as it were) in the ship together.” — Burgesse. — Ed.) Thus he corrects their perverse and malignant view, without subjecting them to an open rebuke.

8. For I would not have you ignorant He makes mention of the greatness and difficulty of his conflicts, that the glory of victory may thereby the more abundantly appear. Since the time of his sending them the former epistle, he had been exposed to great dangers, and had endured violent assaults. The probability, however, is that he refers here to the history, which Luke relates in Acts 19:23, though in that passage he does not so distinctly intimate the extent of the danger. As, however, he states that the whole city was in a tumult, (Acts 19:29,) it is easy from this to infer the rest. For we know what is the usual effect of a popular tumult, when it has been once kindled. By this persecution Paul declares he had been oppressed beyond measure, nay more, above strength, that is, so as not to be able to endure the burden. For it is a metaphor taken from persons who give way under the pressure of a heavy load, or from ships that sink from being overladen — not that he had actually fainted, but that he felt that his strength would have failed him, if the Lord had not imparted fresh strength. (“Pressed above measure. (καθ ᾿ ὑπερβολὴν ἐβαρήςθημεν.) The words βάρος and βάρουμαι, are applied sometimes to the enduring of a burden, (Matthew 20:12; Galatians 6:2,) whether it be a temporal burden or spiritual [...] In this place it seemeth to be taken from porters, who have a burden imposed upon them, more than they are able to stand under; or as Chrysostom, from ships which are over much burdened, and so are in danger of being lost. And as if there were not emphasis enough in the word pressed, he addeth another to aggravate it — (καθ ᾿ ὑπερβολήν) — above measure — Above strength. (ὑπὲρ δύναμιν.) Chrysostom observeth this differeth from the other. For a burden may be exceeding heavy, yet to some mighty man it may not be above his strength. When Samson (Judges 16:3) carried away the gates of the city Gaza, with the posts and barre upon his shoulders, here was a burden out of measure heavy; no ordinary man could do so; but yet to Samson it was not above his strength. Thus it was with Paul, who may be called a spiritual Samson, for that heavenly might and power which God had endowed him with; he is assaulted with a trouble that was not only hyperbolically weighty, but also above his strength. Paul had no more power to stand under it.” — Burgesse on 2 Corinthians 1, pp. 269, 270, 278. — Ed.) So that we were in anxiety even as to life itself — that is, “So that I thought life was gone, or at least I had very little hope of it remaining, as those are wont to feel who are shut up so as to see no way of escape.” Was then so valiant a soldier of Christ, so brave a wrestler, left without strength, so as to look for nothing but death? (“Vn champion si preux et magnanime, perdoit — il courage attendant la mort?” — “Did a champion so valiant and magnanimous lose heart, looking for nothing but death?”) For he mentions it as the reason of what he had stated — that he despaired of life. I have already observed, that Paul does not measure his strength in connection with help from God, but according to his own personal feeling of his ability. Now there can be no doubt, that all human strength must give way before the fear of death. Farther, it is necessary that even saints themselves should be in danger of an entire failure of strength, that, being put in mind of their own weakness, they may learn, agreeably to what follows, to place their entire dependence on God alone. At the same time I have preferred to explain the word ἐξαπορεῖσθαι, which is made use of by Paul, as denoting a trembling anxiety, rather than render it, as Erasmus has done by the word despair; because he simply means, that he was hemmed in by the greatest difficulties, so that no means of preserving life seemed to remain. (Εξαπορεῖσθαι properly signifies to be utterly at a stand, not knowing how to proceed. — In Psalm 88:8, where David says — I am shut up, and I cannot come forth, the Hebrew words ולא אצא(velo etse,) are rendered in the Septuagint — καὶ οὐκ ἐξεπορευόμην — and I could not come forth. It is worthy of notice that, in the metre version, the idea expressed by Calvin, as implied in the verb ἐξαπορεῖσθαι, is fully brought out — “find no evasion for me.” — Ed.)

9. Nay more, we had the sentence of death This is as though we should say — “I had already laid my account with dying, or had regarded it as a thing fixed.” He borrows, however, a similitude from those who are under sentence of death, and look for nothing but the hour when they are to die. At the same time he says, that this sentence had been pronounced by him upon himself, by which he intimates, that it was in his own view that he had been sentenced to death — that he might not seem to have had it from any revelation from God. In this sentence, (“The Greek word is ἀποςκριμα, used here in this place only in the New Testament. [...] The most genuine translation is sentence; for so Hesychius expounds the word κατακριςμα — ψὢφο”, whom Favorinus followeth verbatim in this, as in many other particulars. [...] The word then doth signifie a sentence passing upon him, that he must die. This he had received, but from whom? Not from God, for God delivered him; nor from the magistrate; there was no such decree that we read of against him. Therefore it was onely from his own feares, his own thoughts, which maketh him say — he had received it in himself. [...] God’s thoughts were other than Paul’s. Paul absolutely concluded he should die, but God had purposed the contrary.” — Burgesse. — Ed.) therefore, there is something more implied than in the feeling of anxiety (ἐξαπορεῖσθαι) that he had made mention of, because in the former case there was despair of life, but in this case there is certain death. We must, however, take notice, chiefly, of what he adds as to the design — that he had been reduced to this extremity, that he might not trust in himself For I do not agree with what Chrysostom says — that the Apostle did not stand in need of such a remedy, but set himself forth to others as a pattern merely in appearance. (“Il se propose aux autres comme pour exemple, non pas qu’il en fust ainsi quant à luy;” — “He sets himself forth, as it were by way of example — not that it had been so as to himself.”) For he was a man that was subject, in other respects, to like passions as other men — (James 5:17) — not merely to cold and heat, but also to misdirected confidence, rashness, and the like. I do not say that he was addicted to these vices, but this I say, that he was capable of being tempted to them, and that this was the remedy that God seasonably interposed, that they might not make their way into his mind. (“De peur qu’ils ne saisissent plenement son esprit et son coeur;” — “That they might not take full possession of his mind and his heart.”) There are, accordingly, two things to be observed here. In the first place — that the fleshly confidence with which we are puffed up, is so obstinate, that it cannot be overthrown in any other way than by our falling into utter despair. (“Sinon que nous tombions en telle extremite que nous ne voyons aucune esperance en nous;” — “Except by our falling into such an extremity, that we see no hope in ourselves.”) For as the flesh is proud, it does not willingly give way, and never ceases to be insolent until it has been constrained; nor are we brought to true submission, until we have been brought down by the mighty hand of God. (1 Peter 5:6.) Secondly, it is to be observed, that the saints themselves have some remains of this disease adhering to them, and that for this reason they are often reduced to an extremity, that, stript of all self-confidence, they may learn humility: nay more, that this malady is so deeply rooted in the minds of men, that even the most advanced are not thoroughly purged from it, until God sets death before their eyes. And hence we may infer, how displeasing to God confidence in ourselves must be, when for the purpose of correcting it, it is necessary that we should be condemned to death. But in God that raiseth the dead As we must first die, (“Comme il nous est necessaire premierement de venir comme à mourir;” — “As we need first to come as it were to die”) in order that, renouncing confidence in ourselves, and conscious of our own weakness, we may claim no honor to ourselves, so even that were not sufficient, if we did not proceed a step farther. Let us begin, therefore, with despairing of ourselves, but with the view of placing our hope in God. Let us be brought low in ourselves, but in order that we may be raised up by his power. Paul, accordingly, having brought to nothing the pride of the flesh, immediately substitutes in its place a confidence that rests upon God. Not in ourselves, says he, but in God The epithet that follows, Paul has adapted to the connection of the subject, as he does in Romans 4:17, where he speaks of Abraham. For to believe in God, who calleth those things that are not, as though they were, and to hope in God who raiseth the dead, are equivalent to his setting before him as an object of contemplation, the power of God in creating his elect out of nothing, and raising up the dead. Hence Paul says, that death had been set before his eyes, that he might, in consequence of this, recognize the more distinctly the power of God, by which he had been raised up from the dead. The first thing in order, it is true, is this — that, by means of the strength with which God furnishes us, we should acknowledge him as the Author of life; but as in consequence of our dulness the light of life often dazzles our eyes, it is necessary that we should be brought to God by having death presented to our view. (“Il nous est necessaire pour estre amenez à Dieu, d’estre reduits â telle extremite que nous voyons la mort presente deuant nos yeux;” — “It is necessary, in order that we may be brought back to God, that we should be brought to such an extremity, that we see death presented before our eyes.”)

10. Who hath delivered us from so great a death Here he applies to himself personally, what he had stated in a general way, and by way of proclaiming the grace of God, he declares that he had not been disappointed in his expectation, inasmuch as he had been delivered from death, and that too, in no common form. As to his manner of expression, the hyperbole, which he makes use of, is not unusual in the Scriptures, for it frequently occurs, both in the Prophets and in the Psalms, and it is made use of even in common conversation. What Paul acknowledges as to himself personally, let every one now take home as applicable to himself. In whom we have an assured hope. He promises himself as to the future, also, that beneficence of God, which he had often experienced in the past. Nor is it without good reason; for the Lord, by accomplishing in part what he has promised, bids us hope well as to what remains. Nay more, in proportion to the number of favors that we receive from him, does he by so many pledges, or earnests, as it were, confirm his promises. (Granville Penn reads the passage as follows: “Who hath delivered us from so great a death; and will deliver us: in whom we hope that he will deliver us.” — “The Vat. and Ephrem MSS.” he observes, “read ῥύσεται, not ῥύεται, as in the rec. text. The latter reading seems to have been substituted, because ῥύσεται, occurs again in the following sentence; but the Apostle repeats the word, that he may qualify it by ἠλπίκαμεν, (we hope.”) — Ed.) Now, although Paul had no doubt that God would of his own accord be present with him, yet he exhorts the Corinthians to commend to God in their prayers his safety. For when he assumes it as certain, that he will be aided by them, this declaration has the force of an exhortation, and he means that they would not merely do it as a matter of duty, but also with advantage. (“Mais aussi auec bonne issue, d’autant qu’ils seront exaucez;” — “But also with good success, inasmuch as they will be heard.”) “Your prayers, also,” he says, “will help me.” (“L’aide, dit il, que vous me feriez par vos prieres, ne sera point sans fruit;” — “The aid, he says, that you will afford me by your prayers, will not be without advantage.”) For God wills not that the duty of mutual intercession, which he enjoins upon us, should be without advantage. This ought to be a stimulus to us, on the one hand, to solicit the intercession of our brethren, when we are weighed down by any necessity, and, on the other, to render similar assistance in return, since we are informed, that it is not only a duty that is well pleasing to God, but also profitable to ourselves. Nor is it owing to distrust that the Apostle implores the friendly aid of his brethren, (“You also helping together by prayer for us, (Συνυπουργούντων καὶ ὑμῶν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὣ δεήσει.) The particle καί is emphatical, You also — implying, that neither God’s promise, nor his power, would procure this mercy alone without their prayer. Besides the goodness of God on his part, there must be prayer on their part. The word in the original for helping is emphatical, being twice compounded. ̔υπουργούντων doth denote the service and ministry of those who are under us; and so it doth imply, that the Church doth owe as a debt unto their spiritual guides earnest prayer for them. [...] Then there is the preposition σύν added, which doth denote not only their effectual prayers, but their concord and agreement therein, and that in their public and solemn assemblies. Again, the word signifying — to work, and labor, doth denote what the nature of prayer is — that the soul labors therein, is fervent, full of agonies; which showeth that the customary formal prayers of most people are not worthy of the name: there is no labor, or fervency of the soul therein. — They labored by prayer. They did not labor by using friends to solicit the magistrate in Paul’s behalf, for there was no hope from them, but they made their addresses to God.” — Burgesse. — Ed.) for, while he felt assured, that his safety would be the object of God’s care, (“Que Dieu auroit soin de son salut et proufit;” — “That God would take care of his safety and advantage.”) though he were destitute of all human help, yet he knew that it was well pleasing to God, that he should be aided by the prayers of the saints. He had respect, also, to the promises that were given, that assistance of this kind would not be in vain. Hence, in order that he might not overlook any assistance that was appointed to him by God, he desired that the brethren should pray for his preservation. The sum is this — that we follow the word of God, that is, that we obey his commandments and cleave to his promises. This is not the part of those who have recourse to the assistance of the dead; (“Qui out leurs recours aux prieres des saincts trespassez;” — “Who have recourse to the prayers of departed saints.”) for not contented with the sources of help appointed by God, they call in to their aid a new one, that has no countenance from any declaration of Scripture. For whatever we find mentioned there as to mutual intercession, has no reference to the dead, but is expressly restricted to the living. Hence Papists act childishly in perverting those passages, so as to give some colour to their superstition. (“Pour desguiser et farder leur superstition;” — “To disguise and color over their superstition.”)

11. That the gift bestowed upon us through means of many persons. As there is some difficulty in Paul’s words, interpreters differ as to the meaning. I shall not spend time in setting aside the interpretations of others, nor indeed is there any need for this, provided only we are satisfied as to the true and proper meaning. He had said, that the prayers of the Corinthians would be an assistance to him. He now adds a second advantage that would accrue from it — a higher manifestation of God’s glory. “For whatever God will confer upon me,” says he, “being as it were obtained through means of many persons, will, also, by many be celebrated with praises:” or in this way — “Many will give thanks to God in my behalf, because, in affording help to me, he has favorably regarded the prayers, not merely of one but of many.” In the first place, while it is our duty to allow no favor from God to pass without rendering praise, it becomes us, nevertheless, more especially when our prayers have been favorably regarded by him, to acknowledge his mercy with thanksgiving, as he commands us to do in Psalm 50:15. Nor ought this to be merely where our own personal interest is concerned, but also where the welfare of the Church in general, or that of any one of our brethren is involved. Hence when we mutually pray one for another, and obtain our desire, the glory of God is so much the more set forth, inasmuch as we all acknowledge, with thanksgiving, God’s benefits — both those that are conferred publicly upon the whole Church, and also those that are bestowed privately upon individuals. In this interpretation there is nothing forced; for as to the circumstance that in the Greek the article being introduced between the two clauses by many persons, and the gift conferred upon me appears to disjoin them, (“Car à suyure l’ordre du texte Grec il y auroit ainsi mot à mot, Afin que de plusieurs personnes, à nous le don conferé, par plusieurs soit recognu en action de graces pour nous;” — “For, following the order of the Greek text, it would be literally thus: In order that from many persons the gift conferred upon us, may by many be acknowledged with thanksgiving on our account.”) that has no force, as it is frequently found introduced between clauses that are connected with each other. Here, however, it is with propriety introduced in place of an adversative particle; (“En lieu de quelque article aduersative qu’on appelle, comme Toutesfois ou Neantmoins;” — “In place of some adversative particle, as it is called, as for example, Notwithstanding or Nevertheless.”) for although it had come forth from many persons, it was nevertheless peculiar to Paul. To take the phrase διὰ πολλῶν (by means of many) in the neuter gender, (“De rapporter ce mot Par plusieurs, aux choses;” — “To take this phrase, By means of many, as referring to things.”) as some do, is at variance with the connection of the passage. It may, however, be asked, why he says From many persons, rather than From many men, and what is the meaning of the term person here? I answer, it is as though he had said — With respect to many. For the favor was conferred upon Paul in such a way, that it might be given to many. Hence, as God had respect to many, he says on that account, that many persons were the cause of it. Some Greek manuscripts have ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν — on your account; and although this appears to be at variance with Paul’s design, and the connection of the words, it may, nevertheless, be explained with propriety in this manner: “When God shall have heard you in behalf of my welfare, and that too for your own welfare, thanks will be given by many on your account.”

2 Corinthians 1:12-14

12. For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward. 12. Nam gloriatio nostra haec est: testimonium conscientiae nostrae, quod in simplicitate et puritate (“Purete, ou, integrite;” — “Purity, or integrity.”) Dei, non in sapientia carnali, sed in gratia Dei versati sumus in mundo; abundantius autem erga vos.

13. For we write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end; 13. Non enim alia scribimus vobis quam quae recognoscitis vel etiam agnoscitis: spero autem, quod usque in finem agnoscetis:

14. As also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus. 14. Quemadmodum et agnovistis nos ex parte: siquidem gloriatio vestra sumus: sicuti et vos nostra in die Domini Iesu.

12. For our glorying is this. He assigns a reason why his preservation should be a subject of interest to all — that he had conducted himself (“We have had our conversation (ἀνεστράφημεν.) The verb ἀναστρέφω, is compounded of ἀνὰ, again, and στρέφω, to turn — a continual coming back again to the point from which he set out — a circulation — beginning, continuing, and ending everything to the glory of God; setting out with divine views, and still maintaining them; beginning in the Spirit, and ending in the Spirit; acting in reference to God, as the planets do in reference to the sun, deriving all their light, heat, and motion from him; and incessantly and regularly revolving round him. Thus acted Paul: thus acted the primitive Christians; and thus must every Christian act who expects to see God in his glory.” — Dr. Adam Clarke. — Ed.) among them all in simplicity and sincerity He deserved, therefore, to be dear to them, and it would have been very unfeeling not to be concerned in reference to such a servant of the Lord, that he might be long preserved for the benefit of the Church. “I have conducted myself before all in such a manner, that it is no wonder if I have the approbation and love of all good men.” He takes occasion from this, however, for the sake of those to whom he was writing, to make a digression for the purpose of declaring his own integrity. As, however, it is not enough to be approved of by man’s judgment, and as Paul himself was harassed by the unjust and malignant judgments of some, or rather by corrupt and blind attachments, (“Par les affections qu’ils portoyent à d’autres pour des raisons friuoles, et quasi sans scauoir pourquoy;” — “By attachments that they cherished towards others on trivial grounds, and in a manner without knowing why.”) he adduces his own conscience as his witness — which is all one as though he had cited God as a witness, or had made what he says matter of appeal to his tribunal. But how does Paul’s glorying in his integrity comport with that statement, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord?
(2 Corinthians 10:17.) Besides, who is so upright (“Qui est celuy, tant pur et entier soit il?” — “Where is the man, be he ever so pure and perfect?”) as to dare to boast in the presence of God? In the first place, Paul does not oppose himself to God, as though he had anything that was his own, or that was from himself. Farther, he does not place the foundation of his salvation in that integrity to which he lays claim, nor does he make confidence in that the ground of his dependence. Lastly, he does not glory in God’s gifts in such a way as not at the same time to render all the glory to him as their sole Author, and ascribe everything to him. (“Et rapporte toutes choses a sa bonte;” — “And ascribes everything to his goodness.”) These three exceptions lay a foundation for every godly person glorying on good grounds in all God’s benefits; while the wicked, on the other hand, cannot glory even in God, except on false and improper grounds. Let us therefore, first of all, acknowledge ourselves to be indebted to God for everything good that we possess, claiming no merit to ourselves. Secondly, let us hold fast this foundation — that our dependence for salvation be grounded exclusively on the mercy of God. Lastly, let us repose ourselves (“Arrestons nous et reposons du tout;” — “Let us stay ourselves, and wholly repose.”) in the sole author of every blessing. Then in that there will be a pious (“Bonne et saincte;” — “Good and holy.”) glorying in every kind of blessing. That in the simplicity (“The most ancient MSS. read ἁγιοτητι, (holiness) — not ἁπλοτητι, (simplicity.)” — Penn) of God. He employs the expression simplicity of God here, in the same way as in Romans 3:23, the glory of God; and in John 12:43, the glory of God and of men. Those who love the glory of men, wish to appear something before men, or to stand well in the opinion of men. The glory of God is what a man has in the sight of God. Hence Paul does not reckon it enough to declare that his sincerity was perceived by men, but adds, that he was such in the sight of God. Εἰλικρινείᾳ (which I have rendered purity) is closely connected with simplicity; for it is an open and upright way of acting, such as makes a man’s heart as it were transparent. (“The word used here εἰλικρινείᾳ and rendered sincerity — denotes properly — clearness, such as is judged of or discerned in sunshine, (εἴλη, sunshine, and κρίνω, to judge,) and thence pureness, integrity. It is most probable that the phrase here denotes that sincerity which God produces and approves; and the sentiment is, that pure religion, the religion of God, produces entire sincerity in the heart. Its purposes and aims are open and manifest, as if seen in the sunshine. The plans of the world are obscure, deceitful, and dark, as if in the night.” — Barnes. The same term is made use of by Paul in 1 Cor. 5:8, and in 2 Corinthians 2:17 On comparing the various instances in which this term is employed by the Apostle, we have occasion to observe the admirable harmony between his exhortations and practice. — Ed.) Both terms stand opposed to craft, deception, and all underhand schemes. Not in fleshly wisdom. There is here a sort of anticipation; for what might be felt to be wanting in him he readily acknowledges, nay more, he openly proclaims, that he is destitute of, but adds, that he is endowed with what is incomparably more excellent — the grace of God “I acknowledge,” says he, “that I am destitute of fleshly wisdom, but I have been furnished with divine influence, and if any one is not satisfied with that, he is at liberty to depreciate my Apostleship. If, on the other hand, fleshly wisdom is of no value, then I want nothing that is not fitted to secure well-grounded praise.” He gives the name of fleshly wisdom to everything apart from Christ, that procures for us the reputation of wisdom. See the first and second chapters of the former epistle. Hence, by the grace of God, which is contrasted with it, we must understand everything that transcends man’s nature and capacity, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which openly manifested the power of God in the weakness of the flesh. More abundantly towards you Not that he had been less upright elsewhere, but that he had remained longer at Corinth, in order that he might (not to mention other purposes) afford a fuller and clearer proof of his integrity. He has, however, expressed himself intentionally in such a way as to intimate that he did not require evidences that were far-fetched, inasmuch as they were themselves the best witnesses of all that he had said.

13. For we write no other things Here he indirectly reproves the false apostles, who recommended themselves by immoderate boastings, while they had little or no ground for it; and at the same time he obviates calumnies, in order that no one may object, that he claims for himself more than is his due. He says, therefore, that he does not in words boast of anything that he is not prepared to make good by deeds, and that, too, from the testimony of the Corinthians. The ambiguity, however, of the words, has given occasion for this passage being misinterpreted. Αναγινώσκειν, among the Greeks, signifies sometimes to read, and at other times to recognize. Επιγινώσκειν sometimes signifies to discover, while at other times it means what the Latins properly express by the verb agnoscere, to own, as among lawyers the phrase is used to own a child, (“Ce que disons Auouer: comme on dira Auouer vn enfant;” — “What we express by the verb to own, as when you speak of owning a child.”) as Budaeus also has observed. In this way ἐπιγινώσκειν means more than ἀναγινώσκειν For we say that a person recognises a thing, that is, that being silently convinced of it in his judgment, he perceives it to be true, while at the same time he does not acknowledge it, or, in other words, cordially intimate his assent to it. Let us now examine Paul’s words. Some read thus — We write no other things than what ye read and acknowledge, which it is very manifest is exceedingly lifeless, not to say senseless. For as to Ambrose’s qualifying the statement in this way — You not only read, but also acknowledge, there is no one that does not perceive that it is quite foreign to the import of the words. And the meaning that I have stated is plain, and hangs together naturally, and, up to this point, there is nothing to prevent readers from understanding it, were it not that they have had their eyes shut, from being misled by the different meanings of the word. The sum is this — that Paul declares, that he brings forward no other things than what were known and perceived by the Corinthians — nay more, things as to which they would bear him witness. The first term employed is recognoscere, (to recognize,) which is applicable, when persons are convinced from experience that matters are so. The second is agnoscere, (to acknowledge,) meaning that they give their assent to the truth. (The word ἀςναγινώσκετε, “properly means to know accurately, to distinguish. It is probably used here in the sense of knowing accurately or surely, of recognizing from their former acquaintance with him.” ᾿Επιγινώσκειν “here means that they would fully recognize, or know entirely to their satisfaction, that the sentiments which he here expressed were such as accorded with his general manner of life.” — Barnes. Dr. Bloomfield, who approves of the view taken by Calvin of the meaning of the verb ἀναγινώσκετε, remarks, that the word is employed in the same sense by Xenophon. Anab., 5:8, 6, as well as elsewhere in the Classical writers. — Ed.) And, I hope, will acknowledge even to the end. As the Corinthians had not yet perfectly returned to a sound mind, so as to be prepared to weigh his fidelity in a just and even balance, (“C’est à dire, pour en iuger droitement;” — “That is to say, to judge of it aright.”) but at the same time had begun to abate somewhat of their perverse and malignant judgment respecting him, he intimates, that he hopes better as to the future. “You have already,” says he, “to some extent acknowledged me. I hope that you will acknowledge more and more what I have been among you, and in what manner I have conducted myself.” (“Que vous cognoistrez de plus en plus comme i’ay conversé entre vous, et comme ie m’y suis gouuerné, et ainsi auouërez ce que maintenant i’en di;” — “That you will acknowledge more and more how I have conducted myself among you, and how I have regulated myself, and thus you will assent to what I now say.”) From this it appears more clearly what he meant by the word ἐπιγινώσκειν. (acknowledge (“Que c’est qu’il a entendu par le dernier des deux mots desquels nous auons parler, lequel nous auons traduit Auouer;” — “What it was that he meant by the last of the two words of which we have spoken, which we have rendered — Acknowledge.) ) Now this relates to a season of repentance, for they had at the beginning acknowledged him fully and thoroughly; afterwards their right judgment had been beclouded (“Obscurci et abbastardi en eux par les propos obliques des faux — Apostres et autres malins;” — “Obscured and corrupted by the unfair statements of the false Apostles, and other malicious persons.”) by unfair statements, but they had at length begun to return in part to a sound mind.

14. For we are your glorying. We have briefly adverted to the manner in which it is allowable for saints to glory in God’s benefits — when they repose themselves in God alone, and have no other object of aim. Thus it was a ground of pious glorying on the part of Paul, that he had, by his ministry, brought the Corinthians under obedience to Christ; and of the Corinthians, on the other hand, that they had been trained up so faithfully and so virtuously by such an Apostle — a privilege that had not been allotted to all. This way of glorying in men does not stand in the way of our glorying in God alone. Now he instructs the Corinthians, that it is of the greatest importance for themselves that they should acknowledge him to be a faithful, and not a merely pretended, servant of Christ; because, in the event of their withdrawing from him, they would deprive themselves of the highest glory. In these words he reproves their fickleness, inasmuch as they voluntarily deprived themselves of the highest glory, by listening too readily to the spiteful and envious. In the day of the Lord By this I understand the last day, which will put an end to all the fleeting (“Vaines et caduques;” — “Empty and fading.”) glories of this world. He means, then, that the glorying of which he is now speaking is not evanescent, as those things are that glitter in the eyes of men, but is abiding and stable, inasmuch as it will remain until the day of Christ. For then will Paul enjoy the triumph of the many victories that he had obtained under Christ’s auspices, and will lead forth in splendor all the nations that have, by means of his ministry, been brought under Christ’s glorious yoke; and the Church of the Corinthians will glory in having been founded and trained up by the services of so distinguished an Apostle.

2 Corinthians 1:15-20

15. And in this confidence I was minded to come unto you before, that ye might have a second benefit; 15. Et hac fiducia volui primum ad vos venire, ut secundam (“Seconde, ou double;” — “Second, or double.”) gratiam haberetis,

16. And to pass by you into Macedonia, and to come again out of Macedonia unto you, and of you to be brought on my way toward Judaea. 16. Et per vos transire in Macedoniam: (The Latin text "et per vos transire in Macedoniam:" in the original manuscript was at the end of verse 15, I have moved it to match the Vulgate (possible error in the Edinburgh edition.) — fj.) et rursum e Macedonia venire ad vos, et a vobis deduci in Iudaeam.

17. When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay? 17. Hoc igitur quum animo propositum haberem, nuncubi levitate usus sum? aut quae cogito, secundum carnem cogito? ut sit apud me Etiam, etiam: et Non, non.

18. But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay. 18. Fidelis Deus, quod sermo noster apud vos non fuit Etiam et non.

19. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. 19. Dei enim Filius Iesus Christus in vobis per nos praedicatus, per me, et Silvanum, et Timotheum, non fuit Etiam et non: sed Etiam fuit in ipso.

20. For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us. 20. Quaecunque enim sunt Dei promissiones, in illo sunt Etiam: quare et per ipsum sit Amen Deo ad gloriam per nos.

15. In this confidence. After having given them reason to expect that he would come, he had subsequently changed his intention. This was made an occasion of calumny against him, as appears from the excuse that he brings forward. When he says that it was from relying on this confidence that he formed the purpose of coming to them, he indirectly throws the blame upon the Corinthians, inasmuch as they had, by their ingratitude, hindered, to some extent, his coming to them, by depriving him of that confidence. That ye might have a second benefit The first benefit had been this — that he had devoted himself for the entire period of a year and six months (Acts 18:11) to the work of gaining them to the Lord; the second was their being confirmed, by means of his coming to them, in the faith which they had once received, and being stirred up by his sacred admonitions to make farther progress. Of this latter benefit the Corinthians had deprived themselves, inasmuch as they had not allowed the apostle to come to them. They were paying, therefore, the penalty of their own fault, and they had no ground for imputing any blame to Paul. If any one, however, prefers, with Chrysostom, to take χάριν (benefit) as used instead of καράν, (joy,) I do not much object to it. (“Most modern Commentators explain the χάριν gift or benefit; but the ancient Commentators, and some modern ones, as Wolf and Schleus, gratification for χαράν. It should seem to mean benefit generally, every spiritual advantage, or gratification from his society, imparted by his presence.” — Bloomfield One MS. reads χαράν Kypke, who renders χάριν, joy adduces instances in support of this meaning of χάρι”, though acknowledged to be unusual, from Plutarch, Polybius, and Euripides. The phrase is rendered in Tyndale’s version, (1534,) and also in Cranmer’s, (1539,) and Geneva, (1557,) versions — one pleasure moare. — Ed.) The former interpretation, however, is more simple.

17. Did I use fickleness? There are two things, more especially, that prevent the purposes of men from being carried into effect, or their promises from being faithfully performed. The one is that they make changes upon them almost every hour, and the other is that they are too rash in forming their plans. It is a sign of changeableness to purpose or promise what you almost immediately afterwards regret. With that fault Paul declares he had not been chargeable. “I have not,” says he, “through fickleness drawn back from the promise that I made.” He declares also that he had been on his guard against rashness and misdirected confidence; for such is the way in which I explain the expression — purpose according to the flesh For it is, as I have stated, the common practice of men, as though they were not dependent on God’s providence, and were not subject to his will, to determine rashly and presumptuously what they will do. Now God, with the view of punishing this presumption, defeats their plans, so as to prevent them from having a prosperous issue, and in many instances holds up themselves to ridicule. The expression, it is true, according to the flesh, might be extended farther, so as to include all wicked schemes, and such as are not directed to a right end, as for example such as are dictated by ambition, avarice, or any other depraved affection. Paul, however, in my opinion, did not intend here to refer to any thing of that nature, but merely to reprove that rashness which is but too customary on the part of man, and in daily use in the forming of plans. To purpose, therefore, according to the flesh, is not owning God as our ruler, but, instead of this, being impelled by a rash presumption, which is afterwards justly derided by God, and punished. The apostle, with the view of clearing himself from these faults, proposes a question, as if in the person of his opponents. Hence it is probable, as I have already said, that some unfavorable report had been put in circulation by wicked persons. That with me there should be yea, yea Some connect this statement with what goes before, and explain it thus: “As if it were in my power to perform whatever I purpose, as men determine that they will do whatever comes into their mind, and order their ways, as Solomon speaks, (Proverbs 16:1,) while they cannot so much as govern their tongue.” And, undoubtedly, the words seem to imply this much — that what has been once affirmed must remain fixed, and what has been once denied must never be done. So James in his Epistle (James 5:12) says, Let your yea be yea, and your nay nay, lest ye fall into dissimulation. Farther, the context would in this way suit exceedingly well as to what goes before. For to purpose according to the flesh is this — when we wish that, without any exception, our determinations shall be like oracles. (“Que nos deliberations et conseils soyent comme oracles et reuelations Diuines;” — “That our purposes and plans shall be like oracles and Divine revelations.”) This interpretation, However, does not accord with what immediately follows — God is faithful, etc., where Paul makes use of the same form of expression, when he has it in view to intimate, that he had not been unfaithful in his preaching. Now it were absurd, if almost in the same verse he reckoned it as a fault that his yea should be yea, and his nay nay, and yet at the same time laid claim to it as his highest praise. I am aware of what could be said in reply, if any one were disposed to sport himself with subtleties, but I have no relish for anything that is not solid. I have, therefore, no doubt, that in these words Paul designed to reprove fickleness, although they may seem to be susceptible of another meaning, for the purpose of clearing himself from that calumny — that he was accustomed to promise in words what he failed to perform in deeds. (“He (the apostle) anticipates and repels a reproach of ἰλαφρία, or ‘lightness of purpose,’ in that change of mind, as if he was ‘a yea and nay man,’ (Shaksp.), on whose word no secure reliance could be placed. In the next verse he calls God to witness that his word to them was not, ‘both yea and nay;’ and in the beginning of the following chapter, he explains to them, that it was for their sakes that he abstained from executing his first intention.” — Penn. — Ed.) Thus the reiterating of the affirmation and negation will not have the same meaning as in Matthew 5:37 and in James, but will bear this meaning — “that yea should with me be in this instance yea, and on the other hand, when it pleases me, nay, nay ” At the same time it is possible that it may have crept in through the ignorance of transcribers, as the old translation does not redouble the words, (The rendering of the Vulgate is as follows: “Ut sit apud me est et non;” — “That with me there should be yea and nay.” This reading — τὸ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὔ, (yea and nay), is found in one Greek MS., as stated by Semler. Wiclif, (1380,) following the Vulgate, reads — “that at me, be it is and it is not.” — Ed.) However this may be, we ought not to be very solicitous as to the words, provided we are in possession of the apostle’s intention, which, as I have said, clearly appears from what follows. (“It was a proverbial manner among the Jews (see Wet.) of characterizing a man of strict probity and good faith, by saying, ‘his yes is yes, and his no is no’ — that is, you may depend upon his word; as he declares, so it is; and as he promises, so he will do. Our Lord is therefore to be considered here (Matthew 5:37) not as prescribing the precise terms wherein we are to affirm or deny; in which case it would have suited better the simplicity of his style to say barely ναὶ καὶ οὔ (yea and nay,) without doubling the words; but as enjoining such an habitual and inflexible regard to truth, as would render swearing unnecessary. That this manner of converting these adverbs into nouns, is in the idiom of the sacred penmen, we have another instance, (2 Corinthians 1:20,) ‘For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen.’ (ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ναὶ καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ἀμὴν) — that is, certain and infallible truths. It is indeed a common idiom of the Greek tongue, to turn by means of the article any of the parts of speech ‘into a noun.” — Campbell on the Gospels, volume 2. — Ed.)

18. God is faithful. By the term word he means doctrine, as is manifest from the reason that he adds, when he says, that the Son of God, who is preached by him, is not variable, etc. As to his being always consistent with himself in point of doctrine, and not differing from himself, (“N’a point dit l’vn, puis l’autre;” — “Does not say one thing and then another.”) he intends that by this they shall form a judgment as to his integrity, and in this way he removes every unfavorable suspicion of fickleness or unfaithfulness. It does not, however, necessarily follow, that the man who is faithful in doctrine, is also observant of truth in all his words. But as Paul did not reckon it of much importance in what estimation he was held, provided only the majesty of his doctrine remained safe and sound, he, on that account, calls the attention of the Corinthians chiefly to that matter. He intimates, it is true, that he observed in his whole life the same course of fidelity, as the Corinthians had seen in his ministry. He seems, however, as if intentionally, in repelling the calumny, to transfer it from his person to his doctrine, because he was unwilling that his apostleship should be indirectly defamed, while he was not greatly concerned as to himself in other respects. But observe, with what zeal he applies himself to this. For he calls God to witness, how simple and pure his preaching was — not ambiguous, not variable, not temporizing. In his oath, too, he connects the truth of God with the truth of his doctrine. “The truth of my preaching is as sure and stable as God is faithful and true.” Nor is this to be wondered at, for the word of God, which Isaiah says endureth for ever, (Isaiah 40:8,) is no other than what prophets and apostles published to the world, as Peter explains it. (1 Peter 1:25.) Hence, too, his confidence (“De là vient aussi que S. Paul est bien si hardi;” — “Hence, too, it comes that St. Paul is so very bold.”) in denouncing a curse upon angels, if they dared to bring another gospel, one that was at variance with his. (Galatians 1:8.) Who would dare to make the angels of heaven subject to his doctrine, if he had not God as his authority and defense? With such an assurance of a good conscience does it become ministers (“Et annonciateurs de la parolle de Dieu;” — “And heralds of the word of God.”) to be endowed, who mount the pulpit to speak the word in Christ’s name — so as to feel assured that their doctrine can no more be overthrown than God himself.

19. For the Son of God Here we have the proof — because his preaching (“Il dit donc que sa parolle n’a point este oui et non, c’est à dire variable; pource que sa predication,” etc.; — “He says, then, that his word had not been yea and nay, that is to say, variable; because his preaching,” etc.) contained nothing but Christ alone, who is the eternal and immutable truth of God. The clause preached by us is emphatic. For, as it may be, and often does happen, that Christ is disfigured by the inventions (“Et mensonges;” — “And fallacies.”) of men, and is adulterated, as it were, by their disguises, he declares that it had not been so as to himself or his associates, but that he had sincerely and with an integrity that was befitting, held forth Christ pure and undisguised. Why it is that he makes no mention of Apollos, while he mentions by name Timotheus and Silvanus, does not exactly appear; unless the reason be, as is probable, that the more that individuals were assailed by the calumnies of the wicked, (“Des calomniateurs et mesdisans;” — “By calumniators and slanderers.”) he was so much the more careful to defend them. In these words, however, he intimates that his whole doctrine was summed up in a simple acquaintance with Christ alone, as in reality the whole of the gospel is included in it. Hence those go beyond due limits, who teach anything else than Christ alone, with whatever show of wisdom they may otherwise be puffed up. For as he is the end of the law, (Romans 10:4,) so he is the head — the sum — in fine, the consummation — of all spiritual doctrine. In the second place, he intimates that his doctrine respecting Christ had not been variable, or ambiguous, so as to present him from time to time in a new shape after the manner of Proteus; (“En sorte qu’il l’ait transfiguré, maintenant en vne sorte, tantost en vne autre, comme les Poëtes disent que Proteus se transformoit en diuerses sortes;” — “So as to present him in different shapes, now in one form, then in another, as the poets say that Proteus transformed himself into different shapes.” The following poets (among others) make mention of the “shape — changing” Proteus: — Virgil, (Georg. 4:387); Ovid, (Met. 8:730); Horace, (Sat. 2:3, 71, Ep. I. 1:90.) See Calvin on John, vol. 2, p. 256, n. 1. — Ed.) as some persons make it their sport to make changes upon him, (“En toutes manieres;” — “In every way.”) just as if they were tossing a ball to and fro with their hand, simply for the purpose of displaying their dexterity. Others, with a view to procure the favor of men, present him under various forms, while there is still another class, that inculcate one day what on the next they retract through fear. Such was not Paul’s Christ, nor can that of any true apostle (“Celui de tous vrais et fideles ministres;” — “That of all true and faithful ministers.”) be such. Those, accordingly, have no ground to boast that they are ministers of Christ, who paint him in various colors with a view to their own advantage. For he alone is the true Christ, in whom there appears that uniform and unvarying yea, which Paul declares to be characteristic of him.

20. For all the promises of God — Here again he shows how firm and unvarying the preaching of Christ ought to be, inasmuch as he is the groundwork (“Le fondement et la fermete;” — “The foundation and security.”) of all the promises of God. For it were worse than absurd to entertain the idea that he, in whom all the promises of God are established, is like one that wavers. (“Que celuy en qui toutes les promesses de Dieu sont establies et ratifices, fust comme vn homme chancelant et inconstant;” — “That he, in whom all the promises of God are established and ratified, should be like a man that is wavering and unsteady.”) Now though the statement is general, as we shall see ere long, it is, notwithstanding, accommodated to the circumstances of the case in hand, with the view of confirming the certainty of Paul’s doctrine. For it is not simply of the gospel in general that he treats, but he honors more especially his own gospel with this distinction. “If the promises of God are sure and well-founded, my preaching also must of necessity be sure, inasmuch as it contains nothing but Christ, in whom they are all established.” As, however, in these words he means simply that he preached a gospel that was genuine, and not adulterated by any foreign additions, (“Il a presché le vray et pur Evangile, et sans y auoir lien adiousté qu’il ait corrompu ou falsifié;” — “He preached the true and pure gospel, and without having added to it anything that had corrupted or adulterated it.”) let us keep in view this general doctrine, that all the promises of God rest upon Christ alone as their support — a sentiment that is worthy of being kept in remembrance, and is one of the main articles of our faith. It depends, however, on another principle — that it is only in Christ that God the Father is propitious to us. Now the promises are testimonies of his fatherly kindness towards us. Hence it follows, that it is in him alone that they are fulfilled. The promises, I say, are testimonies of Divine grace: for although God shows kindness even to the unworthy, (Luke 6:35,) yet when promises are given in addition to his acts of kindness, there is a special reason — that in them he declares himself to be a Father. Secondly, we are not qualified for enjoying the promises of God, unless we have received the remission of our sins, which we obtain through Christ. Thirdly, the promise, by which God adopts us to himself as his sons, holds the first place among them all. Now the cause and root of adoption is Christ; because God is not a Father to any that are not members and brethren of his only-begotten Son. Everything, however, flows out from this source — that, while we are without Christ, we are hated by God rather than favorably regarded, while at the same time God promises us everything that he does promise, because he loves us. Hence it is not to be wondered if Paul here teaches, that all the promises of God are ratified and confirmed in Christ. It is asked, however, whether they were feeble or powerless, previously to Christ’s advent; for Paul seems to speak here of Christ as manifested in the flesh. (1 Timothy 3:16.) I answer, that all the promises that were given to believers from the beginning of the world were founded upon Christ. Hence Moses and the Prophets, in every instance in which they treat of reconciliation with God, of the hope of salvation, or of any other favor, make mention of him, and discourse at the same time respecting his coming and his kingdom. I say again, that the promises under the Old Testament were fulfilled to the pious, in so far as was advantageous for their welfare; and yet it is not less true, that they were in a manner suspended until the advent of Christ, through whom they obtained their true accomplishment. And in truth, believers themselves rested upon the promises in such a way, as at the same time to refer the true accomplishment of them to the appearing of the Mediator, and suspended their hope until that time. In fine, if any one considers what is the fruit of Christ’s death and resurrection, he will easily gather from this, in what respect the promises of God have been sealed and ratified in him, which would otherwise have had no sure accomplishment. Wherefore, also, through him let there be Amen. Here also the Greek manuscripts do not agree, for some of them have it in one continued statement — As many promises of God as there are, are in him Yea, and in him Amen to the glory of God through us. (“The most ancient MSS. and versions read the verse thus: — ὃσαι γὰρ ἐπαγγελίαι Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ναὶ διό καὶ δι ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ᾿Αμὴν, τῷ Θεῷ πρὸς” δοξαν δι ᾿ ἡμῶν;” — “For all the promises of God are in him yea; because they are, through him, who is the Amen, to the glory of God by us.” — Penn) The different reading, however, which I have followed, is easier, and contains a fuller meaning. For as he had said, that, in Christ, God has confirmed the truth of all his promises, so now he teaches us, that it is our duty to acquiesce in this ratification. This we do, when, resting upon Christ by a sure faith, we subscribe and set our seal that God is true, as we read in John 3:33, and that with a view to his glory, as this is the end to which everything should be referred. (Ephesians 1:13, and Romans 3:4.) The other reading, I confess, is the more common one, but as it is somewhat meagre, I have not hesitated to prefer the one that contains the fuller meaning, and, besides, is much better suited to the context. For Paul reminds the Corinthians of their duty — to utter their Amen in return, after having been instructed in the simple truth of God. If, however, any one is reluctant to depart from the other reading, there must, in any case, be an exhortation deduced from it (“Qu’il scache tousiours qu’il en faut tirer vne exhortation;” — “Let him always know this — that we must deduce from it an exhortation.”) to a mutual agreement in doctrine and faith.

2 Corinthians 1:21-22

21. Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; 21. Qui autem confirmat nos vobiscum in Christo, et qui unxit nos, Deus est:

22. Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. 22. Qui et obsignavit nos, et dedit arrhabonem Spiritus in cordibus nostris.

God, indeed, is always true and steadfast in his promises, and has always his Amen, as often as he speaks. But as for us, such is our vanity, that we do not utter our Amen in return, except when he gives a sure testimony in our hearts by his word. This he does by his Spirit. That is what Paul means here. He had previously taught, that this is a befitting harmony — when, on the one hand, the calling of God is without repentance, (Romans 11:29,) and we, in our turn, with an unwavering faith, accept of the blessing of adoption that is held out to us. That God remains steadfast to his promise is not surprising; but to keep pace with God in the steadfastness of our faith in return — that truly is not in man’s power. (“D’apporter de nostre costé vne correspondance mutuelle à la vocation de Dieu en perseuerant constamment en la foy;” — “To maintain on our part a mutual correspondence to the call of God by persevering steadfastly in the faith.”) He teaches us, also, that God cures our weakness or defect, (as they term it,) when, by correcting our belief, he confirms us by his Spirit. Thus it comes, that we glorify him by a firm steadfastness of faith. He associates himself, however, with the Corinthians, expressly for the purpose of conciliating their affections the better, with a view to the cultivation of unity. (“Expressement afin de les gaigner et attirer a vraye vnite;” — “Expressly for the purpose of gaining them over and drawing to a true unity.”) 21. Who hath anointed us. He employs different terms to express one and the same thing. For along with confirmation, he employs the terms anointing and sealing, or, by this twofold metaphor, (“Par les deux mots qui sont dits par metaphore et similitude;” — “By these two words which are employed by way of metaphor and similitude.”) he explains more distinctly what he had previously stated without a figure. For God, by pouring down upon us the heavenly grace of the Spirit, does, in this manner, seal upon our hearts the certainty of his own word. He then introduces a fourth idea — that the Spirit has been given to us as an earnest — a similitude which he frequently makes use of, and is also exceedingly appropriate. (“Αῤρ᾿αβὡν and the Latin arrhabo are derived from the Hebrew ערבון (gnarabon) — a pledge or earnest; i.e., a part of any price agreed on, and paid down to ratify the engagement; German, Hand — gift.” — Bloomfield. “The word appears to have passed, probably as a commercial term, out of the Hebrew or Phenician into the western languages.” — Gesenius. — Ed.) For as the Spirit, in bearing witness of our adoption, is our security, and, by confirming the faith of the promises, is the seal (σφραγὶς), so it is on good grounds that he is called an earnest, (“If God having once given this earnest, should not also give the rest of the inheritance, he should undergoe the losse of his earnest, as Chrysostome most elegantly and soundly argueth.” — Leigh’s Annotations. — Ed.) because it is owing to him, that the covenant of God is ratified on both sides, which would, but for this, have hung in suspense. (“A seal was used for different purposes: to mark a person’s property, to secure his treasures, or to authenticate a deed. In the first sense, the Spirit distinguishes believers as the peculiar people of God; in the second, he guards them as his precious jewels; in the third, he confirms or ratifies their title to salvation. [...] An earnest is a part given as a security for the future possession of the whole. The Holy Ghost is the earnest of the heavenly inheritance, because he begins that holiness in the soul which will be perfected in heaven, and imparts those joys which are foretastes of its blessedness.” — Dick’s Theology, volume 3 — Ed.) Here we must notice, in the first place, the relation (“La correspondance mutuelle;” — “The mutual correspondence.”) which Paul requires between the gospel of God and our faith; for as every thing that God says is more than merely certain, so he wishes that this should be established in our minds by a firm and sure assent. Secondly, we must observe that, as an assurance of this nature is a thing that is above the capacity of the human mind, it is the part of the Holy Spirit to confirm within us what God promises in his word. Hence it is that he has those titles of distinction — the Anointing, the Earnest, the Comforter, and the Seal. In the third place we must observe, that all that have not the Holy Spirit as a witness, so as to return their Amen to God, when calling them to an assured hope of salvation, do on false grounds assume the name of Christians.

2 Corinthians 1:23-24

23. Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth. 23. Ego autem testem invoco Deum in animam meam, quod parcens vobis nondum venerim Corinthum.

24. Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand. 24. Non quod dominemur fidei vestrae, sed adiutores sumus (“Nous sommes adiuteurs de vostre ioye; ou, nous aidons a;” — “We are helpers of your joy, or, we aid.”) gaudii vestri: fide enim statis.

2 Corinthians 2:1-2

1. But I determined this with myself, that I would not come again to you in heaviness. 1. Decreveram autem hoc in me ipso, non amplius venire in tristitia ad vos. (“De ne venir à vous derechef auec tristesse, ou, pour vous apporter fascherie;” — “Not to come again to you in sorrow, or, to cause you distress.”)

2. For if I make you sorry, who is he then that maketh me glad, but the same which is made sorry by me? 2. Si enim ego contristo vos: et quis est qui me exhilaret, nisi is qui erit tristitia affectus ex me?

23. I call God for a witness. He now begins to assign a reason for his change of purpose; for hitherto he has merely repelled calumny. When, however, he says that he spared them, he indirectly throws back the blame upon them, and thus shows them that it would be unfair if he were put to grief through their fault, but that it would be much more unfair if they should permit this; but most of all unfair if they should give their assent to so base a calumny, as in that case they would be substituting in their place an innocent person, as if he had been guilty of their sin. Now he spared them in this respect, that if he had come he would have been constrained to reprove them more severely, while he wished rather that they should of their own accord repent previously to his arrival, that there might be no occasion for a harsher remedy, (“Remede plus aspre et rigoureux;” — “A harsher and more rigorous remedy.”) which is a signal evidence of more than paternal lenity. For how much forbearance there was in shunning this necessity, when he had just ground of provocation! He makes use, also, of an oath, that he may not seem to have contrived something to serve a particular purpose. For the matter in itself was of no small importance, and it was of great consequence that he should be entirely free from all suspicion of falsehood and pretence. Now there are two things that make an oath lawful and pious — the occasion and the disposition. The occasion I refer to is, where an oath is not employed rashly, that is, in mere trifles, or even in matters of small importance, but only where there is a call for it. The disposition I refer to is, where there is not so much regard had to private advantage, as concern felt for the glory of God, and the advantage of the brethren: For this end must always be kept in view, that our oaths may promote the honor of God, and promote also the advantage of our neighbours in a matter that is befitting. (“Moyennant que ce soit en chose iuste et raisonable;” — “Provided it is in a matter that is just and reasonable.”) The form of the oath must also be observed — first, that he calls God to witness; and, secondly, that he says upon my soul For in matters that are doubtful and obscure, where man’s knowledge fails, we have recourse to God, that he, who alone is truth, may bear testimony to the truth. But the man that appeals to God as his witness, calls upon him at the same time to be an avenger of perjury, in the event of his declaring what is false. This is what is meant by the phrase upon my soul. “I do not object to his inflicting punishment upon me, if I am guilty of falsehood.” Although, however, this is not always expressed in so many words, it is, notwithstanding, to be understood. For if we are unfaithful, God remaineth faithful
and will not deny himself (2 Timothy 2:13.) He will not suffer, therefore, the profanation of his name to go unpunished.

24. Not that we exercise dominion He anticipates an objection that might be brought forward. “What! Do you then act so tyrannically (“Es — tu si insupportable, et si orgueilleux?” — “Are you so insufferable and so proud?”) as to be formidable in your very look? Such were not the gravity of a Christian pastor, but the cruelty of a savage tyrant.” He answers this objection first indirectly, by declaring that matters are not so; and afterwards directly, by showing that the very circumstance, that he had been constrained to treat them more harshly, was owing to his fatherly affection. When he says that he does not exercise dominion over their faith, he intimates, that such a power is unjust and intolerable — nay more, is tyranny in the Church. For faith ought to be altogether exempt, and to the utmost extent free, from the yoke of men. We must, however, observe, who it is that speaks, for if ever there was a single individual of mortals, that had authority to claim for himself such a dominion, Paul assuredly was worthy of such a privilege. Yet he acknowledges, (“Il confesse franchement;” — “He frankly confesses.”) that it does not belong to him. Hence we infer, that faith owns no subjection except to the word of God, and that it is not at all in subjection to human control. (The views here expressed by Calvin are severely animadverted upon in the following terms by the Romanists, in the Annotations appended to the Rheims version of the New Testament: “Calvin and his seditious sectaries with other like which despise dominion, as St. Jude describeth such, would by this place deliver themselves from all yoke of spiritual Magistrates and Rulers: namely, that they be subject to no man touching their faith, or for the examination and trial of their doctrine, but to God and his word only. And no marvel that the malefactors and rebels of the Church would come to no tribunal but God’s, that so they may remain unpunished at least during this life. For though the Scriptures plainely condemne their heresies, yet they could writhe themselves out by false glosses, constructions, corruptions, and denials of the bookes to be canonical, if there were no lawes or judicial sentences of men to rule and represse them.” To these statements Dr. Fulke in his elaborate work in refutation of the errors of Popery, (Lond. 1601,) p. 559, appropriately replies as follows: “This is nothing els but a lewd and senselesse slander of Calvin and vs, that we despise lordship, because we will not be subject to the tyranny of Antichrist, that would be Lord of our faith, and arrogateth vnto himselfe auctoritie to make new articles of fayth, which have no ground or warrant in the word of God. But CALVIN did willingly acknowledge all auctoritie of the ministers of the Church, which the Scripture doth allow unto them, and both practiced, and submitted himselfe to the discipline of the Church, and the lawful gouernours thereof, although he would not yield unto the tyrannicall yoke of the Pope, who is neither soueraigne of the Church, nor any true member of the same. Yea, Calvin and we submit ourselves, not only to the auctoritie of the Church, but also of the Ciuile Magistrates to be punished, if we shall be found to teach or doe any thing contrary to the doctrine of faith, receyued and approved by the Church, whereas the Popish clergy, in causes of religion, will not be subject to the temporal gouernors, judgement, and correction.” — Ed.) Erasmus has observed in his Annotations, that by supplying the Greek particle ἕνεκα, it may be understood in this way — Not that we exercise dominion over you — with respect to your faith — a rendering which amounts almost to the same thing. For he intimates, that there is no spiritual dominion, except that of God only. This always remains a settled point — pastors have no peculiar dominion over men’s consciences, (“Que les Pasteurs et Evesques n’ont point de iurisdiction propre sur les consciences;” — “That Pastors and Bishops have no peculiar jurisdiction over consciences.”) inasmuch as they are ministers, not lords. (1 Peter 5:3.) What then does he leave to himself and others? He calls them helpers of their joy — by which term I understand happiness. At the same time he employs the term joy as opposed to the terror which tyrants awaken through means of their cruelty, and also false prophets, (“Et les faux — apostres aussi;” — “And false Apostles also.”) resembling tyrants, that rule with rigor and authority, as we read in Ezekiel 34:4. He argues from contraries, that he did by no means usurp dominion over the Corinthians, inasmuch as he endeavored rather to maintain them in the possession of a peace that was free, and full of joy. For by faith ye stand. As to the reason why he adds this, others either pass it over altogether in silence, or they do not explain it with sufficient distinctness. For my part, I am of opinion that he here again argues from contraries. For if the nature and effect of faith be such that we lean, in order that we may stand, (“Afin que nous demeurions fermes;” — “In order that we may remain secure.”) it is absurd to speak of faith as being subject to men. Thus he removes that unjust dominion, with which, he had a little before declared, he was not chargeable. CHAPTER 2