Ver. 15a. ‘‘ But for my part, I have used none of these things:’’ does Paul mean “none of the privileges”’ included in the above ἐξουσία 2 or “none of the
13—16.
150. Οὐκ ἔγραψα δὲ ταῦτα ἵνα οὕτω γένηται 7 ἐν ἐμοί "
851
*® Καλὸν Y So used,
Mt. xvii. , ROA a ν b , 1 le / 3. πο Tek: γάρ µοι ean ἀποθανεῖν ἢ τὸ peu hey wa? τις" "κενώσῃ." τι, τὴ 23% M 29 > ld > ” , se iii. : 16. a γὰρ Μος οὐκ ἔστι µοι νὰ ποπ ve pop tae efe2 ξοὺ f εξ ἑὰ + ὐ 3 1 Jo. iv. ο. μοι “‘émixertor, Σοὐαὶ δέ por Ε ἐστὶν ἐὰν μὴ "εὐαγγελίζωμαι τα a Mk. ix. 42; Acts xx. 35; cf. Phil. i. 23. b See v. 6. c See i. 17. d See i. 17, for absol. use. e See vii. 37. Iliad, vi. 458, κρατερὴ 8 émexeioer’ ἀνάγκη. f Heb: ix. 10; Acts xxvii. 20; Jo. xi. 35.
g Jude 11; Syn. Gospp., Rev., passin; with εστιν, N.T. A.1.; Hos. ix. 12.
lovders, N*BD* 17, sah. basm., Tert., Ambrst. wa τις: NCCDbcKLP, etc., vg., Bas., Chr., Hier., Aug.
τις (interr.), G 26. 2xevwoet, all uncc. but K.
ουθεις µη, A.
δευναγγελισωμαι (2), BCDG, vg., Aug., Ambrst. So Tr., W.H. ἐλέ., Nestle.
ευαγγελιζωµαι, SAK (LP, -ζομαι), etc.
; Tisch., W.H. marg.
The Westerns (DG, etc.) have -ισωμαι twice in this ver.
reasons’? by which they have been en- forced (so Hf., Hn., the former with ex- clusive ref. to 13 f.)? The parl. sentence of ver. 12, and the οὕτως γένηται of the next clause, are decisive for the former view. “The authority’”’ in question in- cluded a number of rights (4 ff.), all of which P. has foregone.—éy® emphasises, in preparation for the sequel, and in dis- tinction from the broader statement of ver. 12, etc., Paul’s individual position: in the matter; and the pf. κέχρηµαι (re- placing the historical aor. of 12) affirms a settled position; the refusal has become a rule. From this point to the end of the ch. the Ap. writes in the rst sing., revealing his inner thoughts respecting the conduct of his own ministry.
§ 29. PAuL’s RENOUNCEMENT OF RIGHT FOR THE GOosPEL’s SAKE, ix. 156-23. The Ap. has been insisting all this time on the right of Christ’s ministers to material support from those they serve, in order that for his own part he may explicitly renounce it. This renunciation is his “boast,” and his “'reward’’; of his office he cannot boast, nor seek reward for it, since it was imposed upon him (15-18). In this abnegation P. finds his freedom, which he uses to make himself impartially the slave ofall; untrammelled by any particular ties, he is able to adapt himself to every condition and class of men, and thus to win for the Gospel larger gains (19-22). For himself, his best hope is to partake in its salvation with those he strives to save (23).
Ver. 156, “Now I have not written this (4-14) in order that it should be so done (viz., provision made for ‘living of the gospel’) in my case.” The epis- tolary ἔγραψα may refer either to a whole letter now completed (Rom. xv. 15), or to words just written (Wr., p. 347; ef.
v. I1).—év ἐμοί (the sphere of applica- tion), ‘‘in the range of my work and re- sponsibility,” not ‘to me’? (dat. of person advantaged, as in vv. 20 ff.); cf. iv. 2, 6. —On the best-attested reading, καλὸν γάρ pou μᾶλλον ἀποθανεῖν ἤ- τὸ καύχηµά µου ovdels κενώσει, the sentence is in- terrupted at 4: “For it is well for me rather to die than’’—P. breaks off, im- patient of the very thought of pecuniary dependence (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 10), and in- stead of completing the comparison by the words “that any one should make void my boast,” he exclaims vehemently, «ΜΥ boast no one shall make void!” (so ΑΙ., Ed.). μᾶλλον ἢ qualifies the whole clause, not καλὸν alone. This anacolu- thon, or aposiopesis, if it has no exact parl. in the N.T., is only an extreme instance of Pauline oratio variata (suchas appears, ¢.g., in Gal. ii. 4 f. and again in ver. 6, and in Rom. v. 12-15), where an extended sentence forgets its beginning, throwing itself suddenly into a new shape; this occurred in a smaller way in vil. 37 above. Strong feeling (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 9 ff., on the same point) is apt to dis- order Paul’s grammar in this way. He began to say that he would rather die than be dependent on Cor. pay; he ends by saying, absolutely, he will never be so dependent. The T.R. attempts to patch the rent.—Other explanations of the older txt. are given: (a) Lachmann puts a stop after καύχ. pov— Better for me to die than my boast; no one shall make it void!”’ (6) Mr. and Bt. make 4 disjunc- tive, despite the μᾶλλον: “ Better for me to die—or (sc. if I live) no one shall make void my boast!’’ (c) Ev. and El. read ovdels κενώσει as equivalent to ἵνα τις κενώσει, Supposing ἵνα to be understood and the οὐ to be pleonastic—expedients for which there is a precarious grammati-