The Pulpit Commentary — 2 Corinthians — Section 6

but place himselr on a level with his converts, necessity mere hwman plans, and therefore 11nd imply that they mutually gloried in liable to be over~uled by God's will?" Thus each other. In the da:, of the Lord J'ellUI the meaning of the" or" is doubtful, and (see on 1 Cor. iii. 13), also the meaning of" ac,x;,,ding t,o the jleJJh." Vore. 15-22.-His change of purpose in Generally this phrase is usetl in a bad sense, not visiting Oorinth. as in eh. x. 2 and Rom. viii. l; but it may also Ver. 15.-In this oon11.denoe. In reliance be used to mean "in a human way," as in on the mutual respect and affection which eh. v. 16. That with me there should be exists between ue. I was minded. The yea :,ea, and na:, nay. There is probo.bly stress is partly on the tense: "my original no clause in the New Testament of which desire was." When speaking or me.tters tbe certain sense must be left so inde- purely persona,], St. Paul generally reverts terminate as this. (1) The Authorized to the first person. To oome unto you before. Version gives one way of taking the clause. I meant to visit you, firat on my we,y to The grammar equally admits of the render- Me.cedooie., and again on my return from ing. (2) That with me the yea should be yea, Me.cedonia, as explained in the next verse. and the 11ay nay. Whichever rendering we A. seoond benefit; rather, a second grace. adopt, it may be explained in accordance There is another reading, xapo.v, joy, and with tho view indicated in the last note. the word xc!pis itself sometimes has this "I was not showing the levity which my sense (as in Tobit vi_i. 18), bnt not in the opponents speak of, but my purposes are New Teste.ment. Here, ago.in, there is no necessarily mere human purposes, and boe.stfulnees. St. Pe.ul, filled as he was therefore my 'yes' and 'no' co.a be only with the power of the Holy Spirit, was able 'yes' and 'no' when I make a pla.n. My to impart to his converts some spiritmLl 'yes' or 'no' mo.y ho overruled by the gifts (Rom. i. 11 ), and this was the chief Spirit (Acts xvi. 7) or even hindered by reason wby his visits were so eagerly desired, Satan, and that more than once ( l These and why his change of plan had co.used ii. 18)." " With me," i.e. as for as I am such bitter disappointment to the Corin- concerned, I co.n only so.y "yes" or" no;" but thians. The importance of the Church of l'homme propose, Dieu dispose. His intended Corinth, its central position, and its un- double visit to them was pre~ented, not by settled state made it desirable that he any frivolity of his, but, o.s ho afterward& should give them as much as possible of shows, by their own unfaithfulness and his his personal supervision. desire to spare them. There is yet a third Ver. 16.-To be brought on my way (see way of taking it which involves a different note on 1 Cor. xvi. 6) toward Judaia (1 Cor. meaning-" In order that with me the 'yea xvi. 4-6). yea' mny be also 'nay nay.'" Am I incon- Ver. 17.-When I therefore was thus sistent? or, are my purposes merely co.rno.l minded. Without saying in so mo.ny words purposes, in order that my "yes yes" may that all this plan was now given up, he be, as fo.r as I am concerned, no better than proceeds to defend himself against the "no no "-like the mere shifting feebleness charges which had been evidently brought of an aimless mo.n? A fourth wo.y of taking against him by his opponents. The Co- the clause, 11,dopted by St. Chrysostom o.nd rinthians were aware that he no longer ma.ny others, is, "Do I plo.n nfter the flesh, meant to come to them direct from Ephesus. i.e. with carnal obstino.oy, eo thnt my ' yeo.' They had certainly been informed of this and 'no.y • must be co.rried out at all costs?" by 'l'itus, and he had indeed briefly stated This suggestion oan hardly be right; for St. it in l Cor. xvi. 5. Their disappointment Paul was oho.rged, not withobstinncy, but with had led some of them into angry criticisms indecision. The phrllBes," yee." and "nay," upon the "indecision" of the apostle, the as mentioned in Matt. v. 37 and Jns. v. 12, more so because he had (out of kindness, as throw no ligbt on the passage, unless intleed he here shows) spared them the po.in of some one ho.d misquoted ago.inst St. Pnul expressing his ,·easuns, Did I use lightness 1 our Lord's words I\S a re11son for adhering W11s this cho.nge of plan a sign of "the in violn.bly to a pl11n once formed. Of levity" with which some of you cht1r"e me? these various methods I ndopt the first, Or the_ things that I purpose, do I purpose btco.use it seems to be, on tho whole, mo,t aooording to the 11.eah, etc. ? Every phrase in in accordance with the context. For on that ~his clause is of ombiguous mee.ning. l!'or view of the passage he contents himself rnst:rnce, the "or" mo.y imply another with tho remark that it co.nnot be incon• cha.rge, no.mely, that his pnl'poees 11,re carnal, sistenoy or levity on hie pll.rt to alter pla.ns nntl theroforn capricious ; or it mo.y be the which are liable to nll the chance and change o.ltern,itive view of his conduct. sto.ted by or ortlino.ry circumsto.nces; o.ud then tcl ls wo.y of sell~tlefence-namely, " Does wy them that there wo.s ono po.rt of his teacll- cha.nge of plo.n iinply that I o.ro frivolous? ing which h11s nothing to do with mere or, on the contrary, 111e not my plans of human weakness, but WW! God's everlnstin:, 6 TB:E SECOND EPISTLE 'llQ TRE CORtN'rHIANS. [cir. x. 1-~4.