Hodge - Commentary on 2 Corinthians

333 Pages·1996·0.93 MB·English

by  Charles Hodge

T AGES D L
HE IGITAL IBRARY
COMMENTARY
A E
N XPOSITION OF
II C
ORINTHIANS
by Charles Hodge
B o o k s F o r Th e A g e s
AGES Software • Albany, OR USA
Version 2.0 © 1996, 1997
2
HYPERTEXT TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
1. Corinth.
2. Paul’s Labors In Corinth.
3. State Of The Church In Corinth.
4. Date. — Contents Of The Epistle.
5. Importance Of This Epistle.
The Commentary
Chapter I
Chapter II
Chapter III
Chapter IV
Chapter V
Chapter VI
Chapter VII
Chapter VIII
Chapter IX
Chapter X
Chapter XI
Chapter XII
Chapter XIII
Footnotes
Publishers Notes
3
An Exposition of
nd
2 CORINTHIANS
by
CHARLES HODGE
(no date)
4
[Editor’s Note: Charles Hodge evidently wrote no specific introduction to his
commentary on II Corinthians. His introductory comments to the combined volume of
commentaries on Corinthians is included here for the convenience of the reader.]
INTRODUCTION
1. CORINTH.
The Grecian Peloponnesus is connected with the continent by an isthmus
from four to six miles wide. On this isthmus stood the city of Corinth. A
rocky eminence, called the Acrocorinthus, rises from the plain almost
perpendicularly, to the height of two thousand feet above the level of the
sea, and is sufficiently broad at the summit for a town of considerable size.
From the top of this abrupt hill the eye reaches towards the east over the
expanse of the Aegean Sea, with its numerous islands; and westward,
towards the Ionian Sea, a prospect scarcely less inviting was presented.
Looking towards the north, the eye rests on the mountains of Attica on the
one hand, and northeastern Greece on the other; the Acropolis of Athens
being clearly visible at a distance of forty-five miles. As early as the days
of Homer, Corinth was an important city. Its position made it, in a
military point of view, the key of the Peloponnesus; and its command of a
port on two seas made it the center of commerce between Asia and
Europe. The supremacy enjoyed by one Grecian State after another, had at
last fallen to the lot of Corinth. It became the chief city of Greece, not only
in authority, but in wealth, magnificence, literature, the arts, and in luxury.
It was characteristic of the place, that while the temple of Minena crowned
the Acropolis of Athens, the Acrocorinthus was the site of the temple of
Venus. Of all the cities of the ancient world it was most notorious for
licentiousness. It was entirely destroyed by the Roman consul Mummius,
120 years B.C., its inhabitants were dispersed, and the conqueror carried
with him to Rome the richest spoils that ever graced the triumph of a
Roman general. For a century after this event it lay in ruins, serving only
as a quarry whence the Roman patricians gathered marble for their palaces.
Julius Caesar, recognizing the military and commercial importance of the
5
position, determined to rebuild it, and for that purpose sent thither a
colony consisting principally of freed men. This accounts for the
predominance of Latin names which we meet with in connection with the
Christians of this city. Erastus, Phoebe, and Sosthenes are Greek names;
but Gaius, Quintus, Fortunatus, Crispus, Justus, Achaicus, are of Roman
origin. This colony, however, was little more than the nucleus of the new
city. Merchants flocked thither from all parts of Greece; Jews also were
attracted by the facilities of commerce; wealth, art, literature, and luxury
revived. The Isthmian games were again celebrated under the presidency of
the city. It was made the capital of Achaia, which as a Roman province,
included the greater part of Greece. Under the fostering care of Augustus,
Corinth regained much of its ancient splendor, and during the century
which had nearly elapsed since its restoration, before it was visited by the
Apostle Paul, it had reached a pre-eminence which made it the glory of
Greece. It was at this time under the rule of the Proconsul Gallio, the
brother of Seneca, — a man distinguished for integrity and mildness. His
brother says of him: Nemo enim mortalium uni tam dulcis est, quam hic
omnibus. His refusal to entertain the frivolous charges brought by the Jews
against Paul (Acts 18:14-16), is in keeping with the character given of him
by his contemporaries. He was one of the victims of the cruelty of Nero.
2. PAUL’S LABORS IN CORINTH.
As Corinth was not only the political capital of Greece, but the seat of its
commercial and intellectual life; the place of concourse for the people not
only of the neighboring cities, but of nations; a source whence influences of
all kinds emanated in every direction, it was specially important for the
diffusion of the gospel. Paul, therefore, leaving Athens, which he had
visited in his second missionary journey, went alone to Corinth, where he
was soon after joined by Silas and Timotheus, who came from Macedonia.
(Acts 18:5.) A stranger in this great city, and without the means of
support, he associated himself with Aquila, a Jew lately come from Italy,
in consequence of the edict of Claudius banishing the Jews from Rome.
While living in the house of Aquila, and working with him at his trade of
tent-making, Paul attended the synagogue every Sabbath, and “persuaded
the Jews and Greeks.” But “when they opposed themselves and
6
blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be
upon your own heads; I am clean: henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.
And he departed thence, and went into a certain man’s house, named
Justus, one who worshipped God, and whose house joined hard to the
synagogue. And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the
Lord, with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing it believed,
and were baptized. Then spake the Lord to Paul by night, by a vision, Be
not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: for I am with thee, and no
man shall set on thee to hurt thee; for I have much people in this city. And
he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among
them.” (Acts 18:1-11.) The success of Paul aroused the enmity of the
Jews, who determined to arraign him before the Roman governor. As soon
as the governor ascertained the nature of the charge, he refused to listen to
it, and dismissed the accusers from the judgment-seat with evident
displeasure which encouraged the bystanders to beat the Jews. Thus the
opposers of the apostle were ignominiously defeated. After remaining
some time longer in Corinth, he sailed from Cenchrea, the eastern port of
the city, to Ephesus, with Aquila and Priscilla. Leaving his friends in that
city, he sailed to Caesarea, and thence went up to Jerusalem. After
remaining a short time in the Holy City, he went to Antioch, and thence,
through Phrygia and Galatia, again to Ephesus. Shortly after Paul left
Ephesus the first time, Apollos, an Alexandrian Jew, having been more
fully instructed in the doctrine of Christ by Aquila and Priscilla, went to
Corinth, and there “mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly,
shewing by the Scripture that Jesus was the Christ.” (Acts 18:24-28.) It is
altogether probable, considering the constant commercial intercourse
between Corinth and Ephesus, that the apostle had frequent opportunities
of hearing of the state of the Corinthian church during his three years’
residence in the latter city. The information which he received led him, as
is generally supposed, to write a letter no longer extant, exhorting them
“not to keep company with fornicators.” (See 1 Corinthians 5:9.) Not
satisfied with this effort to correct an alarming evil, he seems himself to
have made them a brief visit. No record is indeed found in the Acts of his
having been to Corinth more than once before the date of this epistle; but
there are several passages in his second epistle which can hardly be
understood otherwise than as implying an intermediate visit. In 2
Corinthians 12:14 he says, “Behold, the third time I am ready to come to
7
you.” This may indeed mean that for the third time he had prepared to go
to Corinth; but this the context does not suggest, and would really amount
to nothing. It was not how often he had purposed to visit them, but how
often he had actually made the journey, which was the point on which
stress is laid. In ch. 13:1 he says, “This is the third time I am coming to
you,” which is still more explicit. In ch. 2:1 he says, “I determined I would
not come again to you in heaviness.” This supposes that he had already
made them one sorrowful visit, i.e., one in which he had been obliged to
cause sorrow, as well as to experience it. See also ch. 12:21, and 13:2,
where further allusion seems to be made to a second visit. Notwithstanding
his frequent injunctions, the state of things in Corinth seemed to be getting
worse. The apostle therefore determined to send Timothy and Erastus to
them. (1 Corinthians 4:17. Acts 19:22.) Whether Timothy reached Corinth
at this time is doubtful; and it would seem from 1 Corinthians 16:10, that
the apostle himself feared that he might not be able to accomplish all that
had been appointed him in Macedonia, and yet get to Corinth before he
arrival of this letter. After the departure of Timothy, Paul received such
intelligence from the household of Chloe, and from a letter addressed to
him by the Corinthians themselves (1 Corinthians 7:1), that he determined
at once to write to them.
3. STATE OF THE CHURCH IN CORINTH.
The state of the church in Corinth may be partially inferred from the
character and circumstances of the people, but with certainty only from
the contents of this and the following epistles. As remarked above, the
population of the city was more than ordinarily heterogeneous. The
descendants of the colonists sent by Julius Caesar, the Greeks who were
attracted to the principal city of their own country, Jews and strangers
from all parts of the Roman Empire, were here congregated. The
predominant character of the people was doubtless Grecian. The majority
of the converts to Christianity were probably Greeks, as distinguished
from Jews. (See ch. 12:1.) In all ages the Greeks were distinguished by
their fondness for speculation, their vanity and love of pleasure, and their
party spirit. A church composed of people of these characteristics, with a
large infusion of Jewish converts, educated in the midst of refined
8
heathenism, surrounded by all the incentives to indulgence, taught to
consider pleasure, if not the chief good, yet in any form a good, plied on
every hand by philosophers and false teachers, might be expected to
exhibit the very characteristics which in this epistle are brought so clearly
into view.
Their party spirit. “One said I am of Paul, another I am of Apollos;
another I of Cephas, another I of Christ.” Much ingenuity and learning
have been expended in determining the nature of these party divisions.
What may be considered as more or less satisfactorily determined is, —
1. That there were factions in the church of Corinth which called
themselves by the names above mentioned, and therefore that the
names themselves give a clue to the character of the parties. The idea
that the names of Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, are used figuratively,
when other teachers were really intended, is so unnatural, and has so
little to sustain it, that it is now almost universally repudiated.
2. There can be little doubt that those who called themselves by the name
of Paul, or made themselves his partisans, were in the main the Gentile
converts, — men brought up free from the bondage of the Mosaic law,
and free from the influence of Jewish ideas and usages. They were
disposed to press to extremes the liberty of the gospel, to regard as
indifferent things in themselves sinful, and to treat without respect the
scruples of the weak.
3. The intimate relations which subsisted between Paul and Apollos, as
indicated in these epistles, authorizes the inference that it was not on
doctrinal grounds that the followers of the latter differed from those of
the former. It is probable that those who objected to Paul that he did
not preach with the “wisdom of words,” were those attracted by the
eloquence of Apollos.
4. It is scarcely less certain that those who said, “We are of Peter,” were
the Judaizers, as Peter was specially the apostle of the circumcision.
There is no evidence, however, from this epistle, that the leaders of
this party had attempted to introduce into Corinth the observance of
the Jewish law. But they were determined opponents of the Apostle
Paul. They had come to Corinth with letters of commendation (2
Corinthians 2:1). They were Hebrews (2 Corinthians 11:22); they
9
professed to be ministers of Christ (ch. 11:23); they were false
apostles (ch. 11:13); the ministers of Satan, handling the word of God
deceitfully. These men, as is evident from the defense which the
apostle makes of his divine commission (1 Corinthians 9:1-3, 2
Corinthians 12:11, 12), called in question his apostleship, probably on
the ground that he was not of the original twelve. On this ground, also,
to give themselves the greater authority they claimed to be disciples of
Peter, who was the first of the apostles. They also accused Paul of
inconstancy and insincerity (2 Corinthians 1:17-24). In short, they
stirred up against him all the elements of discord which they could find
in a congregation composed of such incongruous materials.
5. With regard to those who said, We are of Christ, only two things are
certain. First, that they were as much to blame as the other parties. It
was in no Christian spirit that they set up their claim to be of Christ.
And secondly, that they assumed to have some relation to Christ,
which they denied to others. Whether it was because they had seen and
heard him, or because they claimed connection with “James, the
brother of the Lord,” or because they were the only genuine Christians,
inasmuch as through some other channel than the apostles, they had
derived, as they pretended, their knowledge of the gospel, is a matter
of conjecture.
Billroth and Baur regard this class as identical with the followers of Peter,
who claimed to be of Christ, because Paul was no apostle, and therefore
his disciples were not “of Christ.” According to this view there were only
two, instead of four, parties in Corinth — the followers of Paul and
Apollos belonging in one class. This, however, does violence to the plain
meaning of the passage in 1 Corinthians 1:12. These neutrals were
probably the worst class in the congregation, as is commonly the case with
those who claim to be Christians to the exclusion of all others.
Another great evil in the Corinthian church was the violation of the
seventh commandment in various forms. Educated as we are under the light
of the gospel, in which the turpitude of such sins is clearly revealed, it is
impossible for us to appreciate correctly the state of feeling in Corinth on
this subject. Even by heathen philosophers offenses of this kind were
regarded as scarcely deserving of censure, and by the public sentiment of
the community they were considered altogether indifferent. They were in
10
fact so associated with their religious rites and festivals as to lose their
character as immoralities. With such previous training, and under the
influence of such a public sentiment, and surrounded by all incitements and
facilities to evil, it is surely not a matter of surprise that many of the
Corinthians should take the ground that things of this class belonged to the
same category with questions of food (1 Corinthians 6:12). It is certain,
from numerous passages in these epistles, that the church of Corinth was
not only very remiss in the exercise of discipline for such matters, but also
that the evil was widely extended.
Another indication of the latitudinarian spirit of one portion of the church,
was their conduct in reference to the sacrificial offerings and feasts of the
heathen. They had been accustomed not only freely to eat meat which had
been offered in sacrifice to idols, but to attend the feasts held in the
temples. As they were told as Christians that the distinction between clean
and unclean meats was abolished, and that the gods of the heathen were
nothing, they insisted on their right to continue in their accustomed habits.
This gave rise to great scandal. The stricter portion of the church, whether
Jews or Gentiles, regarded all use of sacrificial meat as involving in some
form connection with idolatry. This, therefore, was one of the questions of
conscience which was answered differently by different parties, and no
doubt contributed to promote the divisions existing among them.
The turbulent and independent spirit of the people also was
conspicuously manifested in their public assemblies. Instead of following
the instructions of the apostles and the usages of the church, they
converted the Lord’s Supper into a disorderly common meal; in violation
of the public sentiment and the custom of all the churches, they allowed
women to appear unveiled in their congregations and to speak in public;
and in the spirit of emulation and ostentation they exercised their gifts of
prophecy and speaking with tongues, without regard to order or
edification. Besides all this, under the influence probably of the heathen
philosophy, some among them denied the doctrine of the resurrection, and
thus subverted the very foundation of the gospel.
Such is the picture presented in this epistle of one of the most flourishing
churches of the apostolic age, drawn, not by an enemy, but by the apostle