But .St. Paul (assuming' the year to be 57) must have reached Corinth by the end of November (Ac '203. 6)^ and this pushes back the dispatch (15) of 2 Co into the month of October. Now the new year, according to the Macedonian calendar, bej^an on Sept. 21, and the civil reckoning of the Jews (1 Tisri) coincided within a few days. St. Paul, therefore, could easily speak of the first mission of Titus (S) as ' last year.' I-Yom the bef/inning of October (which we adopt in order to deal liberally with the time) the 20 weeks carry us back to the midsummer solstice, or over three weeks after Pentecost (May 28). These three weeks then are at our disposal as spare time. To these we add the time between Pentecost and the previous (1 Co 16">) dispatch o(
1 Co (8) ; to this interval we cannot assign a definite value, un- less (following a possible suggestion from 1 Co 6) we place i Co about the paschal season. If so, there is time for Titus to rejoin St. P.aul (11) at Eph., even if he returned through Macedonia; but there is no strong reason to suppose that he aid not return, as he probably went, by sea (supr. § 4, a, cf. 6)
There is thus no impcssibility in the view taken by the majority of critics, that 2 Co was written in the autumn of the limtuin year, in the spring of which the apostle had written I Co. The separa- tion of the two Epistles by a longer interval is not, indeed, forbidden by their contents ; but the neces- sity of finding a place here for an evangelization of Illyricum (Godet, Clemen), in order to satisfy Ko 15'", is not so apjinrenl as to claim a voice in the settlement of our question. 1 Co IG' ia prima /a<-ie, evidence that St. Paul's three months at Corinth belong to the winter next following that Epistle ; nor are his changes of plan revealed in 2 Co such as to affect the broad outline. At the same time, the question as to the interval between the two Epistles must be finally decided, if at all, by refer- ence to the general chronology of St. Paul's Epistles (see on 1 Cor. § 6, and art. Chhonolooy of NT) ; always recollecting that the two must, by 2 Co 8'" 9^ 1 Co 16"' (assuming' the integrity of 2 Co 1-9, see below, § 8), fall within two successive calendar years.
7. The purpose of the Epistle follows from the circumstances of its origin. The ell'uct of 1 Co had been, it would seem, good at first. Titus had begun actively the organization of the \oyla (2 Co H' 9-) in a spirit to the purity of which the apostle appeals as a fact above question (the exact force of
2 Co 12" is often overlooked, e.g. by Clemen). Titus had needed encouragement(irape)[ii\f(ra), and St. Paul had given this in the form of a warm recommenda- tion of the Corinthians (7'*), which was fully justi- fied only after serious disappointments. Mean- while, api)arently, St. Paul was incurring the dani^er at Ephesus described 1' (cf. Ko l(i*[?], Ac 19»S. ^vy]) of which he characteristically first infortns the Corinthians when the worst of the crisis at Corinth is over. St. Paul had formed the plan of visiting Corinth earlier tlian he had intended (§ '*./). when the return of Titus with bad news of a quite unlooked-for character convinced him that such a visit would be most painful to both sides. Hence the painful letter, again dispatched by Titus, and the reversion to the Simple Plan of 1 Co 16'. This was before the apostle's departure from Eiihesus ; and the period immediately succeed- ing, during which St Paul moved first toTro«s{2"'"
496
IL CORINTHIANS
IL CORINTHIANS
and then on to Macedonia, anxiously awaiting the return of Titus to put an end to his suspense, is the time of intense mental strain of which our Epistle is the outcome. The relief expressed in 1-7 finds its outlet along with much of the pent-up indignation and self-vindication (10-13) which had been all the while accumulatinir in the apostle's mind. The main purpose of tlie Epistle, then, turns upon the new troubles at Corinth, which ditt'erentiate our Epistle from 1 Co. These have been touched upon above (§ 4, e), but require a little further examination in this connexion.
The difference between the new troubles at Corinth and those connected with the * Christ-party ' of 1 Co is one of degree, not of Itind. But the difference of de^ee is very great, and is prob- ably due to the arrival of a fresh agitator (lOl"* ^a-Zv) or fresh agitators (1012 114) on the scene. Can we identify them with any closeness? The trip** liocyyiXiov of ll-* links them on to the agitators of Gal 16. At Corinth, this is rather in prospect than actually preached ; but 11'^ siiows that we have to do with Christians of Jewish birth. Were they personal disciples of Christ? (107, cf. 1118 612). This is matter for conjecture rather than proof. The original Twelve seem to be referred to in the twice- recurring phrase u^ipxia.* awetrraXot (115 1211); but to suppose that any of the Twelve were personally concerned is out of tile question, St. Paul would not in that case have stigma- tized them as '^ivZoLTcffToXoi, etc. (1113). But did the agitators claim to represent the Twelve, to whose superior authority- they certainly made appeal? In this connexion, the Letters of Intro- duction (31, cf. Ko 161) are of importance. As the i{ i^» of 31 is meant rather to point the contrast with 3^ than to posi- tively describe the ri,:f, we must understand that the claims of the latter were backed hy these letters. These claim." would have lost all their danger and prestige had not the letters come from some well-known names. That the agitators used letters of merely personal commend.ation for purposes bej'ond the scope of such letters is, of course, possible (Gal 212, Ac 151- ^). At any rate St. Paul ignores any real connexion between the agitators and the Twelve. In loyal conformity to his side of the Jeru- salem agreement (Gal 210) he pushes forward the Xoy/ac (cf. 911 18 with Ro 1530'.), in the assurance that his uncompromising warfare against the agitators will in no way compromise his relation with the older apostles. Chapters 8. 9 therefore stand in a close relation to the main purpose of the Epistle. The first (even chapters, with their suggestive passages on the relation ,'»f the Law to the Gospel, their profound glances into the ioctrine of Redemption, also lead up to the same principal purpose {tup. i 3). Whether the ixxi 'UireSi of 11* (cf. 51- lia) refers to a lower view of the Person of Christ, cannot be re- garded as certain. Unquestionably, the question of Christology underlies the question of Law and Grace, of Faith and Works"; but this fundamental issue is felt rather than perceived in the NT as a rule. At any rate it was necessary to throw aside all thoughts of compromise, and to endeavour to stamp out from Corinth a movement which bade fair to result in complete apostasy (11^). Hence the peculiar transition in the i^pistle from thankful reconciliation (1-7) to bitter polemic (10-13), the alternating tones of endearment and rebuke, first the appeal to Ibe higher, then the withering exposure of the lower tendencies at work among the Corinthians.