cause that suffered wrong, but that our care for you in the sight of God might appear unto you.
Wherefore. That is, because my letter has produced such results. The eflects produced by his letter was the end he had in view in writing it. Though I wrote to you, i. e. al- though I interfered with your affairs. His motive in writing he states first negatively and then positively. It was neither for the sake of him who did wrong, nor for him who suffered wrong. His primary object was neither to have the offender punished, nor to secure justice being done to the injured party, viz., the father whose wife the son had married. This is the common and natural interpretation. As, however, nothing is elsewhere said of the father, and as the form of ex- pression in 1 Cor. 5, 1, {yvvaiKa ^x^iv, to marry,) seems to im- ply that the father of the offender was dead, since otherwise, it is said, there could have been no marriage in the case, vari- ous other exj^lanations of this passage have been proposed. Some say that he " who suffered wrong " was the apostle him- self; others, as Bengel, say it was the Corinthians, the singu- lar being taken for the plural. Others, as Neander, Billroth, &c., say that dSt/cr^^eVro? is neuter, the icrong deed ; so that the meaning is, ' Neither for the oflender nor for the offence.' But these explanations are all unnatural and unnecessary. The ordinary interpretation is the only one which the words suggest, and what is said in 1 Cor. 5 is perfectly consistent with the assumption that the father of the offender was still alive. The positive statement of his object in writing is that our care for you in the sight of God might ap^jear unto you. The first question concerning this clause relates to the text. Instead of i7/>tan/ {our), Lachmann, Meyer and others read v/xcijv {your). This latter reading is followed by Calvin and Luther as well as by many of the modern commentators. As the ex- ternal authorities are nearly equally divided, the decision rests mainly on internal evidence. In favour of the common text is first, the consideration that the manifestation of his love or care for them is elsewhere said to have been his motive in writing his former letter, 2, 4 ; and, secondly, the words irpos {»/xas are more easily explained. ' Our care for you might ap- pear unto you,' is plain. But if ^/xcov is read these words give difiiculty. They must be rendered {apud vos) "with you." ' Your care for us might be manifest with (i, e. among) you.' That is, that the zeal Avhich you have for us might be brought