((•) The person of Titus (cf. in/r. §§ 6, 7) forms the link between the \oyia and the more painful ijuestions between St. Paul and the Church of Corinth. The question whether Titus paid yet a third visit thither depends upon the consideration of the troubles which threatened to estrange St. Paul and the Corinthi.ans. Firstly, the ca.se of incest (1 Co 5'") was dealt with in 1 Co, and the expulsion there ordered would naturally follow upon the airi al of the letter. Did it? It is the preva.ent view (the grounds for it are stated with admirable conciseness by Holtzmann, Eiii/.' p. 25.t) that
2 Co 2'-" ( =7"") records the seiiuel. Stung by St. Paul's summons, the Corinthians, by a majority
IL CORINTHIANS
IL CORINTHIANS
493
(2*), inflict a punishment wUich St. Paul pronounces luflicient, and, lest the pain of it should drive the ofl'ender to desperation, advises the Corinthians to relax. The punishment had been inflicted in the presence and at the summons (7'°) of Titus, who reported the contrition, zeal, and loyalty wrou''ht by the letter he had bonie. This letter would accordintjly be 1 Co, unless we should have, on further consideration, to infer that the in- att«;ntion or disali'ection with which that letter had been leceived, or some other cause, had necessitated the dispatch by the hand of Titus of a sharper summons (see below, g).
[d) liut a closer examination of the pa.ssages we are considering makes it doubtful whether they really relate to the ofleuder of 1 Co 5'. The object in view, in St. Paul's treatment of the case now in question, had been to prove the loyalty of the Corinthians to himself ("'-'' 2'-'). To have persisted in withholding pardon would have been to give Satan an advantage over them all, St. Paul included ; i.e. to have inten.silied the very evil St. Paul was combating. Moreover, St. Paul is specially careful to depreciate the grief inflicted upon himself (2'), which strongly suggests that the iStKijOfls of 7" is also none other than himself. The oix foexev toC i5iK-q(ramo! of the latter verse contradicts the tva of 1 Co 5"" even more sharply than the notion of a personal wrv7u/, the prominent thought in 2 Co 2. 7, contrasts with that of a sin against God, such as the vopytia of 1 Co 5. There are, then, weighty grounds for eliminating from these verses any reference to the incestuous offender (who may none the less be glanced at among the irpoijMapTTjvAres of 12^' 13-), and for referring tliem to some other individual. Here, again, it is a question of probability ; but the view adopted by very many scholars,* that the ofl'ender of 2 Co 2. 7 is a personal opponent of St. Paul, who has grossly slandered him, and has temporarily succeeded in undermining the loyalty of the Corinthians, has much to recommend it. On this view, which is as old as Tertullian, de Pud. xiii. U'., this mission of Titus, and the letter then carried by him, must be quite independent of, and subse- quent tu. 1 Co. The ayvovs of 2 Co 7" then har- monizes iu sen.se witli H".
(«) Tbp rxl'itaTa of 1 Co 1-4 have undergone a changB of aspect in 2 Co. Of the watchwords Paul, Apollos, Cei)haa, we hear no more. It is otherwise with the name of Christ. In the section 10-13'° a distinct group of opponents are iu view who arrogate the distinction X/)«rTo5 (hat (10'). The final consideration of this movement must be deferred (see below, § 7). For our present pur- pose it is enough to dwell on the marked change of situation. In 1 Co indeed we trace tlie ten- dency to arraign (ivaKplvuy, 4") the apostle, and to question his apostolic rank ('J'"-) But it is disposed of briefly and quietly ; it is not as in 2 Co the subject of a long and passionate indictment. The first (1-7) and last (10-13"') sections of the Epistle present somewhat dill'erent aspects of the case. In the former, wo have references to ' the many who tradic in the word of God ' (2" ; cf. 4') ; to ' certain, who need letters of introduction ' to the Corinthians (3') ; to imputations against the apostle of tleslily motives, of duplicity (l"' " 4^ 6"). Inese imputations proceed, it would seem, from diTKrToi, men blinded by worldliness to the light of the gospel (4*), who yet, as we infer from 5'", lay great stress on having known Christ after the flesh. The last two points throw light on the
• It Ib well put by Dr. Llewelyn Davies in Smith's DD, g.r. Paul, It had been maintained tjy Bieelc. Cre'iner, Olnhaiiaen. Neander, Kwald ; and is also aflnpt«d by llilj;enfcld, Weiz- l.acker, Jiilicher, Otxiet, etc. Krenkel and Clemen Hvippnse tlmt the Blander wan directly aimed, not at St. Paul, but at a fellow- worker. Sm Schmiedcl, Exa. oo 2 Co 2U.
purpose of such passages as 1" 2'*'", above all a"-'" S"". The Judaizing tendencies faintly trace- able in 1 Co have assumed a doctrinal character. Still, the polemic of these chapters is not direct ; St. Paul assumes that his readers are with him ; so far as they are concerned (ef ns iv Xpiirrv, con- trast IS'-') 'old things are passed away, and new things have come.' We seem to hear 'not the threatenings of a coming so much as the rumblings of a departing storm.' But wlien we turn to the concluding chapters (10-13'") the brightness and confidence of tone is gone. The features of the opposition of 1-7 are still there. St. Paul is charged with fleshly motives (10^), with lording it over the Church (10« 13'» ; cf. l*"), with decei* (IP'). llis opponents still come armed with letters of introduction (lO'""*), they are — not now iiriiTTOi but — ministers of Satan, false apostles (1113-15) . they preach another Jesus, another gospel (11^); they claim to be ministers of Christ, to be ' Christ's ' (IF-" 10' ; cf. 1 Co I'-). All the features of the opponents of 1-7 are here, but they are heightened, and the polemic against them is more jiainfuUy intense. Their accusations against St. Paul, too, are more direct and audaciou.s, — em- bezzlement (12'""), bullying by letters (lO'") in contr:ist with weakness when lace to face, reck- less folly (11"), are imputed to him ; if he refuses direct sustentation, it is because he knows he has no right to it, being no true apostle (11° 12"-"'). liut, worse than all, St. Paul is conscious that his readers are not with him ; their loyalty is under- mined. Their obedience is unfulfilled — ' Ye look at the outside of things ' (10°- '). They are in imminent peril of being corrupted, in fact they tolerate an- other gospel, — yes, gladly tolerate the yoke of ' the fools' who are tyrannizing over them (ll'"*-'"--"") ; they accept the invidious construction put upon St. Paul's conduct, are prepared to doubt his love for them (11''"; cf. 12'""'"). They are wavering in faith, Christ can hardly be in them ; St. Paul drcails to think of the impenitent state in which he will find them, dreads the humiliation which awaits hira at Corinth, dreads the unsparing severity he will have to e.\ercise (12'*-13'"),— his last hope is tliat the letter may pave the way to better things. Note that St. Paul is addressing the community as a whole throughout, not the Judaizing rii-^s, not a minority still under their influence ; of this the chapters give no hint. Can the situation still be that of 1-7, or even that of 8. 9? There is sorne plausibility, priind fiicie, in the severance of 10- 13'" from the rest of the Epistle. But in any case the situation in these chapters is a new one as compared with that in 1 Co ; and from its nature can hardly have been revealed to St. Paul by the arrival of Titus in Macedonia, for ho brought news of quite a dill'erent kind (7").