17. did I use lightness<\/em>?] Literally, the<\/strong> lightness<\/em>, i.e. either the lightness with which St Paul had been reproached, or perhaps merely the abstract quality. The reproach of fickleness was cast upon the Apostle for his change of purpose. It is to be remarked that this<\/em> is the only charge he is attempting to meet in this and the next six verses. One of the special features of this Epistle, according to Robertson, is its exhibition of “the way in which a Christian may defend himself when maligned or misrepresented An uncontradicted slander is believed readily, and often for long, and meanwhile influence is crippled or lost. Conceive what might have ensued, had St Paul not met the slander against his character with denial at once! For few persons take the trouble to sift a charge which is not denied.”<\/p>\n according to the flesh<\/em> ] i.e. ‘Are they the decisions of my human will, which is subject to change through caprice, or are they decisions made according to the promptings of God’s Spirit, and, as such, removed out of the region of human inconstancy of purpose?’ Cf. Act 19:21<\/span>. See also note on ch. 2Co 5:16<\/span>, and ch. 2Co 10:2-3<\/span>.<\/p>\n that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay<\/em> ] Some have rendered this (1) that with me the yea should be yea and the nay nay<\/em>, as though in this last member of the sentence St Paul was shewing how impossible it was for him to be obstinate and to refuse to change his purpose for a reasonable cause. But the context is against this. Chrysostom, who adopts this view, lays the stress upon the words ‘with me,’ as though St Paul’s private and individual will were contrasted with the dictates of the Spirit, which he was bound to follow, whether they laid him open to the charge of inconsistency or not. But the best way is (2) to<\/strong> interpret the passage in the usual manner, and to regard the Apostle as denying that he was infirm of purpose, and as reminding the Corinthians that he had but one definite end in view which he was resolutely bent upon attaining, namely, the ministering to them the Spirit of Jesus Christ To this one purpose all minor plans and resolutions must give way. See last note on 2Co 1:19<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n When I therefore was thus minded – <\/B>When I formed this purpose; when I willed this, and expressed this intention.<\/P> Did I use lightness? – <\/B>The word <\/SPAN><\/span> elaphria (from <\/SPAN><\/span> elaphros) means properly lightness in weight. Here it is used in reference to the mind; and in a sense similar to our word levity, as denoting lightness of temper or conduct; inconstancy, changeableness, or fickleness. This charge had been probably made that he had made the promise without any due consideration, or without any real purpose of performing, it; or that he had made it in a trifling and thoughtless manner. By the interrogative form here, he sharply denies that it was a purpose formed in a light and trifling manner.<\/P> Do I purpose according to the flesh – <\/B>In such a manner, as may suit my own convenience and carnal interest. Do I form plans adapted only to promote my own ease and gratification, and to be abandoned when they are attended with inconvenience? The phrase according to the flesh here seems to mean in such a way as to promote my own ease and gratification; in a manner such as the people of the world form; such as would be formed under the influence of earthly passions and desires, and to be forsaken when those plans would interfere with such gratifications. Paul denies in a positive manner that he formed such plans; and they should have known enough of his manner of life to be assured that that was not the nature of the schemes which he had devised? Probably no man ever lived who formed his plans of life less for the gratification of the flesh than Paul.<\/P> That with me there should be yea, yea, and nay, nay? – <\/B>There has been a great variety in the interpretation of this passage; see Bloomfield, Critical Digest in loco. The meaning seems to be, that there should be such inconstancy and uncertainty in my counsels and actions, that no one could depend on me, or know what they had to expect from me. Bloomfield supposes that the phrase is a proverbial one, and denotes a headstrong, self-willed spirit which will either do things, or not do them as pleases, without giving any reasons. He supposes that the repetition of the words yea and nay is designed to denote positiveness of assertion – such positiveness as is commonly shown by such persons, as in the phrases, what I have written I have written, what I have done I have done. It seems more probable, however, that the phrase is designed to denote the ready compliance which an inconstant and unsettled man is accustomed to make with the wishes of others; his expressing a ready assent to what they propose; falling in with their views; readily making promises; and instantly, through some whim, or caprice, or wish of others, saying yea, nay, to the same thing; that is, changing his mind, and altering his purpose without any good reason, or in accordance with any fixed principle or settled rule of action. Paul says that this was not his character. He did not affirm a thing at one time and deny it at another; he did not promise to do a thing one moment and refuse to do it the next.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 17. Did I use lightness?<\/B><\/I>] When I formed this purpose, was it without due consideration? and did I abandon it through fickleness of mind?<\/P> <\/P> That with me there should be yea<\/B><\/I>, &c.] That I should act as carnal<\/I> men, who change their purposes, and falsify their engagements, according as may seem best to their secular interest?<\/P><\/p>\n When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness?<\/B> Though the apostle doth not in so many words tell us so, yet it is apparent from this verse, that some of the Corinthians had taken occasion from his not coming at this time to Corinth, to charge him with levity and inconstancy, as if his words were not to be regarded. It is very observable, how little things the men of the world will take advantage from, to vilify and lessen the reputation of Gods faithful ministers and people. How many others might have promised to be in such a place at such a time, and have failed, without the reproach of the men of the world! Who would have been so charitable to them, as to have excused them, by saying: They spake according to their present intentions and resolutions, but they were hindered by the providence of God; but if Paul fails, they will interpret it to be from the lightness and inconstancy of his mind: so charitable is the world to its own; so uncharitable to those who are not of the world, but by God called out of the world. From this imputation the apostle cleareth himself, denying that he used lightness, <\/I>and that his not coming proceeded from any levity or inconstancy of mind; for he did fully purpose to have come. <\/P> Or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh?<\/B> Or (saith he) did I purpose after the manner of carnal men, who make no conscience of their word, who promise and deny both in a breath? <\/P> That with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay; <\/B>should there be in me such a spirit as to speak a thing with my lips which my heart doth not agree to? This lets us know, that truth and steadiness are things which do highly commend either a minister or a Christian, but especially him who is a minister of the gospel. <\/P> <\/p>\n 17. use lightness<\/B>Was I guiltyof levity? namely, by promising more than I performed. <\/P> or . . . according to theflesh, that with me there should be yea, yea . . . nay, nay?<\/B>The”or” expresses a different alternative: Did I act withlevity, or (on the other hand) do I purpose what I purpose likeworldly (fleshly) men, so that my “yea” must at all costsbe yea, and my “nay” nay [BENGEL,WINER, CALVIN],(Mat 14:7<\/span>; Mat 14:9<\/span>)?The repetition of the “yea” and “nay” hardlyagrees with ALFORD’S view,”What I purpose do I purpose according to the changeablepurposes of the fleshly (worldly) man, that there may be with me theyea yea, and the nay nay (that is, both affirmation and negationconcerning the same thing)?” The repetition will thus stand forthe single yea and nay, as in Mat 5:37<\/span>;Jas 5:12<\/span>. But the latter passageimplies that the double “yea” here is not equivalent to thesingle “yea”: BENGEL’Sview, therefore, seems preferable.<\/P><\/p>\n When I was therefore thus minded, did I use lightness<\/strong>?…. When I had thus determined to come to you, and had signified the same by writing, or messengers, did I use lightness in my resolutions and promises? did I act rashly, unadvisedly, and without consideration? did I promise certainly that I would come, without annexing any condition to it? did I not say, I would come to you shortly, if the Lord will? see 1Co 4:19<\/span>.<\/p>\n Or the things that I purpose, do l purpose according to the flesh?<\/strong> do I consult myself? my own interest and advantage? do I seek the gratification of any carnal affection, as covetousness, ambition, or vain glory? c. what sinister end could have been obtained, if I had come as I purposed, or is answered by my not coming? or when I have purposed anything, have I resolved upon it in my own strength? have I thought it lay in my own power to effect it?<\/p>\n that with me there should be yea, yea, and nay, nay?<\/strong> as if I could make my “yea” continue “yea”, and my “nay, nay?” when all actions are weighed by God, and all events are at his dispose man appoints, and God disappoints; and who can help these things? or thus, has there appeared such contradictions in my words, and such inconstancy in my conduct, that my “yeas” are “nays”, and my “nays yeas?” that I say one thing at one time, and another at another time, or both in the same breath? that I should say one thing, and mean another, on purpose to deceive, and change my mind and conduct without any reason?<\/p>\n Did I shew fickleness? <\/B> ( ?<\/SPAN><\/span>). An indignant negative answer is called for by <\/SPAN><\/span>. The instrumental case of <\/SPAN><\/span> is regular after <\/SPAN><\/span> from <\/SPAN><\/span>, to use. <\/SPAN><\/span> is a late word for levity from the old adjective, <\/SPAN><\/span>, light, agile (2Cor 10:17<\/span>; Matt 11:30<\/span>). Here only in N.T.<\/P> Purpose <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Paul raises the question of fickleness about any of his plans.<\/P> Yea yea <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>)<\/P> –nay nay <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). See a similar repetition in Mt 5:37<\/span>. It is plain in Jas 5:12<\/span> where “the yea” is “yea” and “the nay” is “nay.” That seems to be Paul’s meaning here, “that the Yea may be yea and the Nay may be nay.” <\/P> <\/p>\n Did I use lightness [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Rev., shew fickleness. Elafria, lightness, only here in the New Testament. <\/P> Compare ejlafrov light, Mt 11:30<\/span>; 2Co 4:17<\/span>. His change of plan had given rise to the charge of fickleness. <\/P> The yea, yea, and the nay, nay. That I should say “yes” at one time and “no” at another; promising to come and breaking my promise.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “When I therefore was thus minded,”<\/strong> (touto oun boulamenos) “This therefore intended or determined;” disposed, inclined, or purposed, with honest intent.<\/p>\n 2) “Did I use lightness?”<\/strong> (meti ara te elaphria echresamen;) “Fickleness I did not resort to, did I?” indicating that he was not fickle or unstable in his plans and purposes; Rhetorically he asks “are my plans like a worldly man’s, fickle, unthought, a mere wish of the flesh?”<\/p>\n 3) “Or the things that I purpose,”<\/strong> (e ha bouleuomai)<\/p>\n or the things which I personally intended, planned, purposed,” of his own voluntary committed choice.<\/p>\n 4) “Do I purpose according to the flesh,”<\/strong> (kata sarka bouleuomai), “Do I make such according to (the will of) the flesh;” Simply because circumstances, details, and conditions altered or changed, Paul’s original intent and desire to visit and help the brethren did not. Because he changed his time schedule did not mean he was fickle or unstable, 2Co 5:16<\/span>.<\/p>\n 5) “That with me there should be yea, yea and nay, nay?”<\/strong> (hina e par’ hemoi to nai nai kai to ou ou); “in order that alongside me (to please me) may be the yes, yes and the no, no;” Paul had promised to go to Corinth and he would go. His principles and actions to help the Corinthian brethren by a later visit was as unalterable as the gospel he preached, but natural and physical circumstances did become occasions for his altering mission service schedules. Such only reflected Divine Wisdom in conflict with frequent worldly circumstances. A wise man changes or alters his plans, a fool never.<\/p>\n 17. Did I use fickleness? There are two things, more especially, that prevent the purposes of men from being carried into effect, or their promises from being faithfully performed. The one is that they make changes upon them almost every hour, and the other is that they are too rash in forming their plans. It is a sign of changeableness to purpose or promise what you almost immediately afterwards regret. With that fault Paul declares he had not been chargeable. “I have not,” says he, “through fickleness drawn back from the promise that I made.” He declares also that he had been on his guard against rashness and misdirected confidence; for such is the way in which I explain the expression — purpose according to the flesh For it is, as I have stated, the common practice of men, as though they were not dependent on God’s providence, and were not subject to his will, to determine rashly and presumptuously what they will do. Now God, with the view of punishing this presumption, defeats their plans, so as to prevent them from having a prosperous issue, and in many instances holds up themselves to ridicule. <\/p>\n The expression, it is true, according to the flesh, might be extended farther, so as to include all wicked schemes, and such as are not directed to a right end, as for example such as are dictated by ambition, avarice, or any other depraved affection. Paul, however, in my opinion, did not intend here to refer to any thing of that nature, but merely to reprove that rashness which is but too customary on the part of man, and in daily use in the forming of plans. To purpose, therefore, according to the flesh, is not owning God as our ruler, but, instead of this, being impelled by a rash presumption, which is afterwards justly derided by God, and punished. The apostle, with the view of clearing himself from these faults, proposes a question, as if in the person of his opponents. Hence it is probable, as I have already said, that some unfavorable report had been put in circulation by wicked persons. <\/p>\n That with me there should be yea, yea Some connect this statement with what goes before, and explain it thus: “As if it were in my power to perform whatever I purpose, as men determine that they will do whatever comes into their mind, and order their ways, as Solomon speaks, (Pro 16:1<\/span>,) while they cannot so much as govern their tongue.” And, undoubtedly, the words seem to imply this much — that what has been once affirmed must remain fixed, and what has been once denied must never be done. So James in his Epistle (Jas 5:12<\/span>) says, <\/p>\n Let your yea be yea, and your nay nay, lest ye fall into dissimulation. <\/p>\n Farther, the context would in this way suit exceedingly well as to what goes before. For to purpose according to the flesh is this — when we wish that, without any exception, our determinations shall be like oracles. (276) This interpretation, However, does not accord with what immediately follows — God is faithful, etc., where Paul makes use of the same form of expression, when he has it in view to intimate, that he had not been unfaithful in his preaching. Now it were absurd, if almost in the same verse he reckoned it as a fault that his yea should be yea, and his nay nay, and yet at the same time laid claim to it as his highest praise. I am aware of what could be said in reply, if any one were disposed to sport himself with subtleties, but I have no relish for anything that is not solid. <\/p>\n I have, therefore, no doubt, that in these words Paul designed to reprove fickleness, although they may seem to be susceptible of another meaning, for the purpose of clearing himself from that calumny — that he was accustomed to promise in words what he failed to perform in deeds. (277) Thus the reiterating of the affirmation and negation will not have the same meaning as in Mat 5:37<\/span> and in James, but will bear this meaning — “that yea should with me be in this instance yea, and on the other hand, when it pleases me, nay, nay ” At the same time it is possible that it may have crept in through the ignorance of transcribers, as the old translation does not redouble the words, (278) However this may be, we ought not to be very solicitous as to the words, provided we are in possession of the apostle’s intention, which, as I have said, clearly appears from what follows. (279) <\/p>\n (276) “ Que nos deliberations et conseils soyent comme oracles et reuelations Diuines;” — “That our purposes and plans shall be like oracles and Divine revelations.” <\/p>\n (277) “He (the apostle) anticipates and repels a reproach of ἰλαφρία, or ‘ lightness of purpose, ’ in that change of mind, as if he was ‘ a yea and nay man, ’ (Shaksp.), on whose word no secure reliance could be placed. In the next verse he calls God to witness that his word to them was not, ‘ both yea and nay; ’ and in the beginning of the following chapter, he explains to them, that it was for their sakes that he abstained from executing his first intention.” — Penn. — Ed. <\/p>\n (278) The rendering of the Vulgate is as follows: “ Ut sit apud me est et non;” — “That with me there should be yea and nay. ” This reading — τὸ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὔ, (yea and nay), is found in one Greek MS., as stated by Semler. Wiclif, (1380,) following the Vulgate, reads — “that at me, be it is and it is not. ” — Ed. <\/p>\n (279) “It was a proverbial manner among the Jews (see Wet.) of characterizing a man of strict probity and good faith, by saying, ‘his yes is yes, and his no is no’ — that is, you may depend upon his word; as he declares, so it is; and as he promises, so he will do. Our Lord is therefore to be considered here (Mat 5:37<\/span>) not as prescribing the precise terms wherein we are to affirm or deny; in which case it would have suited better the simplicity of his style to say barely ναὶ καὶ οὔ ( yea and nay,) without doubling the words; but as enjoining such an habitual and inflexible regard to truth, as would render swearing unnecessary. That this manner of converting these adverbs into nouns, is in the idiom of the sacred penmen, we have another instance, (2Co 1:20<\/span>,) ‘For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen. ’ ( ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ναὶ καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ἀμὴν) — that is, certain and infallible truths. It is indeed a common idiom of the Greek tongue, to turn by means of the article any of the parts of speech ‘into a noun.” — Campbell on the Gospels, volume 2. — Ed. <\/p>\n (17) Did I use lightness?<\/strong>This, then, was the charge which he is anxious to refute. The question meets us, however, When had the Corinthians heard of the plan thus detailed? It had been already abandoned, as we have seen, before the first Epistle was despatched. Had it been communicated in a lost letter (see Note on 1Co. 5:9<\/span>)? or was this what Timotheus, who started before the first letter was written (1Co. 4:17<\/span>), had been authorised to announce? Either alternative is possible, and there is no evidence to enable us to decide which is most probable.<\/p>\n Do I purpose according to the flesh . . .?<\/strong>The construction is somewhat involved. He may mean: (1) Do I form my purposes after the flesh (i.e.,<\/em> from worldly motives), so as to catch the praise of consistency from those who harp on the rule that Yes should be yes, and No, no? or (2) Am I weak and worldly in my purpose, changing my plans, and saying <\/em>Yes and No in almost the same breath? On the whole, (2) seems to give the better sense. It is obvious that the words on which he dwells had been used of him by others. Some teacher of the party of the circumcision had, apparently, quoted the rule of the Sermon on the Mount (Mat. 5:37<\/span>) and of St. James (Jas. 5:12<\/span>), and had asked, with a sneer, when the First Epistle came and showed that the original plan had been abandoned, whether this was the way in which St. Paul acted on it? The passage has accordingly the interest of being indirectly a reference to our Lords teaching, showing, like Act. 20:35<\/span>, that the words of the Lord Jesus were habitually cited as rules of life.<\/p>\n 17<\/strong>. <\/strong> Lightness<\/strong> Volatility, fickleness. <\/p>\n According to the flesh<\/strong> From self-seeking and desire to be idolized. <\/p>\n With me<\/strong> Instead of with God, my divine director. <\/p>\n Yea nay<\/strong> An independent, selfish claim, to decide affirmatively or negatively, as he should see fit, from worldly motives.<\/p>\n ‘When I therefore was so minded, did I show fickleness? Or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be the yes, yes, and the no, no?’<\/p>\n Was then his failure to visit them in the way that he had promised due to ‘the fickleness’ (i.e. ‘the fickleness of which I am accused’)? Or was it because he made his decisions from his own selfish point of view (according to the flesh)? Is he the kind of person who keeps changing his mind saying ‘yes, yes’ and then ‘no, no’? The answer will now be a resounding ‘no’.<\/p>\n 2Co 1:17-20<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Yea, yea, and nay, nay?<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> The sense of these verses is, “I did not change my design through levity, nor did I purpose first one thing and then the contrary, as selfish views might determine me, 2Co 1:18<\/span>. As God is true, we have never prevaricated with you, 2Co 1:19<\/span>. For what I, Sylvanus, and Timothy have preached concerning Jesus Christ the Son of God, is not inconsistent, but invariably the same, 2Co 1:20<\/span>. For all the promises of God are ratified in and verified by him to the glory of God by our preaching.” And besides, in Christ there is such a real evidence of God’s conversing with men; and such wonders actually wrought, in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of his Son, (facts in themselves much more wonderful than any of the glorious consequences to follow,) as tend greatly to confirm our faith, and make it easier for us to believe such illustrious promises as those which are given us, the very greatness of which might otherwise have been an impediment to our faith, and have created a suspicion, not whether God would have performed what he had promised, but whether such promises were really given us: and we may add, that God could not have given such promises, except in and through Christ, unless he were unjust, which is impossible. <\/p>\n 2Co 1:17<\/span> . Wishing this therefore<\/em> (according to what has just been said), did I then behave thoughtlessly?<\/em> Was this proposal of mine made without duly taking thought for its execution? supposes a negative<\/em> answer, as always, in which case (meaning: as the matter stands<\/em> ) makes no alteration, such as the suggesting, perhaps, a thought of possible affirmation. Such a sense, as it were, of a mere tentative nature feeling its way, which is foreign here, could only be suggested by the context, and would have nothing to do with (in opposition to Hartung, whom Hofmann follows). See Klotz, ad Devar.<\/em> p. 176 f.<\/p>\n ] The article<\/em> marks the thoughtlessness not as that with which the apostle was reproached by the Corinthians (Billroth, Olshausen, Rckert, de Wette), which he must have indicated more precisely, in order that it might be so understood, but thoughtlessness as such in general, in abstracto:<\/em> have I then made myself guilty of thoughtlessness?<\/em> belongs to the substantives in – formed late from adjectives in – . See Lobeck, ad Phryn.<\/em> p. 343. For the ethical<\/em> sense (wantonness), comp. Schol. Aristoph. Av<\/em> . 195, and in Polyb. vi. 56. 11; , Phocylides in Stob. Flor<\/em> . app. iii. 7.<\/p>\n , ] is not aut<\/em> (Billroth, Rckert, Osiander, Hofmann, after the Vulgate and most expositors), but an<\/em> ; for without<\/em> any interrogation the relation of the two sentences is: My proposal was not thoughtless, unless it should be the case that I form my resolves<\/em> . See Hartung, II. p. 61.<\/p>\n Mark the difference between as aorist<\/em> (historical event) and as present<\/em> (behaviour generally).<\/p>\n ] according to the flesh<\/em> , after the standard of the , i.e.<\/em> so that I let myself be guided by the impulses of human nature sinfully determined, Gal 5:16<\/span> ff.<\/p>\n ] By is expressed simply the immoral purpose<\/em> , which would be connected with the ; in order that with me there may be the Yea, yea, and Nay, nay, i.e.<\/em> in order that with me affirmation and denial may exist together; that I, according as the case stands, may assent to the fleshly impulse, and in turn renounce it; to-day yea, and to-morrow nay, or yea and nay as it were in one breath. Billroth errs in thinking that in this explanation must be taken as also<\/em> . That it means and<\/em> , is proved by 2Co 1:18-19<\/span> . The duplication<\/em> of the and strengthens the picture of the untrustworthy man who affirms just as fervently as he afterwards denies. Failing to discern this, Grotius and Estius wished to prefer the reading of the Vulgate, , which has very weak attestation. The article marks the and the as well-known and solemn formulae of affirmative and negative asseveration (as they were also in Jewish<\/em> usage; see Wetstein, ad<\/em> Mat 5:37<\/span> ). Comp. on , Soph. O. C.<\/em> 1743. As to the main point, namely, that the and the are taken as the subject of , this explanation has the support of Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius (though conjecturing instead of ), Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Mill, Wolf, and others; also of Rosenmller, Emmerling, Flatt, Schrader, Rckert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Maier, and others; even Olshausen, who, however, sets up for and the “peculiar” signification (assumed without any instance of its being so used) of “truth” and “falsehood.” The diplasiasmus<\/em> and is not without reason (as Billroth and Hofmann object), but quite accords with the passionate excitement of the moral consciousness; whereas afterwards, in 2Co 1:18<\/span> , where his words go on quietly with a glance towards the faithful God, the bare is quite in its place. Note, further, that the simple expression of the coexistence of the yea and nay<\/em> (to which Hofmann objects) is more striking<\/em> , than if Paul had given a more precise explanation of the maxims of yea and nay. The readers knew him, and even his evil-wishers could not but know that he was no yea-and-nay man. Others consider the second and the second as predicates, so that a wholly opposite sense is made out of the words: in order that with me the Yea may be yea, and the Nay be nay, i.e.<\/em> in order that I may stubbornly carry through what I have proposed to myself. Comp. Jas 5:12<\/span> . So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Castalio, Bengel, and others, and recently Billroth; Winer, p. 429 [E. T. 481], gives no decision. The context, however, before (“levitatis et inconstantiae, non autem pertinaciae crimen hic a se depellere studet,” Estius) and after (2Co 1:18-19<\/span> ), is decisive against this view. Hofmann imports into a contrast to , so that the idea would be: to assent to or refuse anything on grounds taken from one’s own self<\/em> , without reservation, because purely as an expression of self-will<\/em> , with which Jas 4:13<\/span> is compared. [132] Such a contrast could not but be based upon what went before, in itself as well as in the sense assumed. Besides, to this pretended emphasis on the order would have been suitable; and the idea of speaking no absolute yea or nay, would have demanded not but between the and the . And was Paul, then, the man in whose resolves “the yea is always meant with the reservation of a nay”? Luther’s translation (comp. Ambrosiaster and Erasmus) comes back to the result, that the mark of interrogation is placed after . ., and in that case there is supplied nequaquam<\/em> , of which negation . . . specifies the purpose. This is intolerably arbitrary. Regarding the erroneous translation of the Peshito (Grotius agrees with it), which distorts the meaning from misconception, see Fritzsche, Diss.<\/em> II. p. 2.<\/p>\n [132] Similarly Ewald, but he takes (with Camerarius) as penes me<\/em> (“merely after my own pleasure to say and to do the one or the other”), as if, therefore, it were . Ewald compares Psa 12:5<\/span> .<\/p>\n 17 When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 17. Did I use lightness<\/strong> ] So the false apostles suggested against him. Ministers must carefully clear themselves of suspicions and aspersions cast upon them, either by a verbal or real apology. <\/p>\n 17.<\/strong> ] <\/strong> <\/strong> Did I at all use levity<\/strong> ( of purpose<\/strong> )? <\/strong> ., as , , the art. being generic. Olsh., De Wette, Billroth, take it to mean ‘ the levity of purpose which has been laid to my charge<\/em> :’ Winer, ‘ the levity of purpose inherent in human nature.<\/em> ’<\/p>\n Or those things which I plan, do I plan according to the flesh<\/strong> (i.e. according to the changeable, self-contradictory, and insincere purposes of the mere worldly and ungodly man), that there may be with me<\/strong> (not, so that there is<\/em> with me: he is speaking not merely of the result, but of the design: ‘ do I plan like the worldly, that I may shift and waver as suits me<\/em> ?’) the Yea, yea, and the Nay, nay<\/strong> (i.e. both affirmation and negation concerning the same thing)? Chrys, Theodoret, Theophyl., c [2] , Calv., Bengel, Billroth, Winer, al., take it thus: ‘ Or those things which I plan, do I plan after the flesh<\/em> (as fleshly men do), so that my yea must<\/em> (at all events) be yea, and my nay, nay<\/em> ?’ i.e. as worldly men who perform their promise at all hazards, and whatever the consequences, whereas I am under the guidance of the Spirit, and can only journey whither He permits. But this explanation is directly against the next verse, where is clearly parallel to here, the words being repeated, as in ref. Matt., without altering the sense: and inconsistent with 2Co 1:23 and ch. 2Co 2:1<\/span> , where he says that his alteration of plan arose from a desire to spare them<\/em> . See the whole discussed in Stanley’s note.<\/p>\n [2] cumenius of Tricca in Thrace, Cent y . XI.?<\/p>\n 2Co 1:17<\/span> . . . .: when therefore I was thus minded, did I shew fickleness?<\/em> The article before can hardly be pressed so as to convey the meaning “ that<\/em> fickleness which you lay to my charge”; it is merely generic. . . .: or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that there should be with me the Yea, yea, and the Nay, nay?<\/em> That is, “Are my plans made like those of a worldly man, that they may be changed according to my own caprice, Yes<\/em> to-day, No<\/em> to-morrow?” His argument is that, although the details of his original plan had been altered, yet in spirit and purpose it was unchanged; there is no room for any charge of inconsistency or fickleness. His principles of action are unchangeable, as is the Gospel which he preaches. He had promised to go to Corinth, and he would go. For a similar use of the phrase see reff., and cf.<\/em> chap. 2Co 5:16<\/span> . The reduplication is not altogether easy to explain; but we have repeated similarly in Mat 5:37<\/span> , and perhaps we may also compare the , of St. John’s Gospel ( e.g.<\/em> , 2Co 10:1<\/span> ). Some critics ( e.g.<\/em> , Steck) have regarded here as an actual quotation from Mat 5:37<\/span> . But apart from the fact that this opinion rests on a quite untenable theory as to the date of this Epistle (see Introd.<\/em> , p. 12), the context of the words will not lend itself to any such interpretation (see above).<\/p>\n did I, &c. The question is introduced by meti, expecting a negative answer, <\/p>\n lightness = fickleness. Gn elaphria, Only here. <\/p>\n purpose = plan. Greek. bouleuoThe “Received Text” reads bouleuomai at the beginning of the verse also. <\/p>\n according to. Greek. kata. App-104. <\/p>\n with. Greek. para. App-104. <\/p>\n yea yea = the yea yea. <\/p>\n nay nay = the nay nay. Greek. on. App-105. That is, one thing to-day and another to-morrow. <\/p>\n 17.] Did I at all use levity (of purpose)? ., as , ,-the art. being generic. Olsh., De Wette, Billroth, take it to mean the levity of purpose which has been laid to my charge: Winer, the levity of purpose inherent in human nature.<\/p>\n Or those things which I plan, do I plan according to the flesh (i.e. according to the changeable, self-contradictory, and insincere purposes of the mere worldly and ungodly man), that there may be with me (not, so that there is with me: he is speaking not merely of the result, but of the design: do I plan like the worldly, that I may shift and waver as suits me?) the Yea, yea, and the Nay, nay (i.e. both affirmation and negation concerning the same thing)? Chrys, Theodoret, Theophyl., c[2], Calv., Bengel, Billroth, Winer, al., take it thus: Or those things which I plan, do I plan after the flesh (as fleshly men do), so that my yea must (at all events) be yea, and my nay, nay? i.e. as worldly men who perform their promise at all hazards, and whatever the consequences, whereas I am under the guidance of the Spirit, and can only journey whither He permits. But this explanation is directly against the next verse, where is clearly parallel to here, the words being repeated, as in ref. Matt., without altering the sense: and inconsistent with 2Co 1:23 and ch. 2Co 2:1, where he says that his alteration of plan arose from a desire to spare them. See the whole discussed in Stanleys note.<\/p>\n [2] cumenius of Tricca in Thrace, Centy. XI.?<\/p>\n 2Co 1:17. , lightness) by promising more than I performed.-) or? [an? the second part of a disjunctive interrogation].- , according to the flesh) Paul gives them to understand that, if he were to consult according to [to listen to the suggestions of] the flesh, he must rather have come, than not; for they who consult according to the flesh, endeavour by all means to make the yea of the promise, whatever may occur, to appear in the fulfilment, for the purpose of maintaining their consistency [whether good or evil may result from it.-V. g.] But the Apostle was neither inconsistent, nor carnally consistent: either of which might have been suspected by persons under the influence of prejudice against him. He had made a conditional promise, and afterwards he delayed his visit for an important reason, which had occurred to prevent it.- ) See Appendix. Crit. Ed. ii. on this passage. Simple yea and nay[6] is quite approved of by Paul in the following verse, in which he denies the yea and nay, concerning the same things; but he affirms it, 2Co 1:17, concerning different things. The word , should be, is emphatic; as it may be said, for example, of an unsteady [inconsistent] person. You can never be sure of finding either his It is, or his it is not, to be as he says-that is, no one can trust his word; or as if it were to be said of a consistent man, His It is, and his It is not, always hold good.<\/p>\n [6] Although this reading is declared to be not quite so good in the margin of 2d Ed., yet, with the previous concurrence of the Gnomon, it is introduced into the Germ. Ver.-E. B.<\/p>\n All the old authorities, excepting the Vulgate, support the double and ; even the Fuld. MS. of the Vulg. as corrected by Victor of Capua, has Est, est, non, non, and so agrees with the weightiest authorities (est, est= , ; non, non=, .)-ED.<\/p>\n 2Co 1:17<\/p>\n 2Co 1:17 <\/p>\n When I therefore was thus minded, did I show fickleness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh,-Paul had let them know his purpose; had failed to carry it out, and some of them had charged him with fickleness, and some of them claimed that he showed he was afraid to come as he had promised, and this failure to fulfil his promise proved that he was not an apostle.<\/p>\n that with me there should be the yea yea and the nay nay?-Their contention was that he would affirm and deny the same thing; that, like an unprincipled politician, there was no dependence to be placed in his word; that he was so headstrong that when he said he would, he would do it whether best or not, that he was so uncertain that he would break a promise from a mere whim; that he had no fixed principle; and that he was variable and whimsical. <\/p>\n lightness: Jdg 9:4, Jer 23:32, Zep 3:4 <\/p>\n according: 2Co 1:12, 2Co 10:2, 2Co 10:3, Joh 8:15, Gal 1:16, Gal 2:2, 1Th 2:18 <\/p>\n yea: 2Co 1:18-20, Mat 5:37, Jam 5:12 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Pro 21:28 – the man Mat 11:7 – A reed Luk 7:24 – A reed Act 11:23 – purpose 1Co 4:19 – I 2Co 7:5 – when 2Co 11:12 – what Gal 1:9 – so 2Ti 3:10 – purpose<\/p>\n 2Co 1:17. Did I use lightness? The last word means “fickleness,” and Paul wonders if the Corinthians would accuse him of that when he changed his plans; the form of his question implies a negative answer. Neither does he admit that he was moved by any fleshly interest in what he was doing. Yea yea, nay nay describes a person who is not certain what he wants to do, and the apostle denies being such a person.<\/p>\n 2Co 1:17. When I therefore was thus minded, did I shew fickleness? This shews that his original plan had somehow become known at Corintheither through Timothy (1Co 4:17), or in the letter referred to in 1Co 5:9and that advantage had been taken of the change to his prejudice,that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay?saying yes and no to the same thing as suits the whim of the moment. That this is the meaning is clear from what follows.<\/p>\n Here our apostle begins to make his apology and defence for himself, for changing his purpose in coming to Corinth according to promise, and to free himself from the imputation of levity, inconstancy, and falsehood, cast upon him by his back friends, the false apostles, for promising to come to Corinth, and not performing it; for they aggravated the matter so far, as if he were one that said and unsaid, one that took no care about keeping his word; and thence inferred, that no regard was to be had to anything that he delivered. “He that is not to be relied upon, say the false apostles, in his ordinary promises, how can you depend upon what he says to you in his preaching?” <\/p>\n Hence learn, That lightness and inconstancy is a great sin and reproach in any, but especially in the ministers of the gospel, who yet are often charged with it, when they are in no degree guilty of it.<\/p>\n Observe, 2. As our apostle frees himself from the charge of inconstancy, so from the suspicion of acting for worldly advantage: The things which I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh? that is, for carnal ends or secular interest, that with me there should be now. Yea, Yea, and anon, Nay, Nay?<\/p>\n Behold here what truth and steadiness was found in and with our holy apostle; how his words and intentions, his tongue and his heart, his pen and his purpose, were one, namely, in reality to come unto them, though he was providentially hindered and obstructed.<\/p>\n Here let us remark and note, what little things the men of the world will rake advantage from, to vilify and lessen the reputation of God’s faithful servants, especially his ministers. How many persons might have promised to be in such a place at such a time, and have failed without being reproached for breach of promise!<\/p>\n The world would have been so charitable to another person, as to have excused it, by saying, “The man spake according to his present intention and resolution, but was hindered by the providence of God;” but if Paul fails in a tittle, he must be loaded presently, upbraided for his inconstancy, or which is worse, charged with playing fast and loose for sinister ends, and worldly advantages.<\/p>\n Lord! give thy servants, especially thy ministers, wisdom to walk with exactness and circumspection before the men of the world, who are their watchful observers, and bold censurers, that they may cut off all occasion from them that seek occasion against them.<\/p>\n 2Co 1:17-20. When I therefore was thus minded Having, therefore, purposed this; did I use lightness Did I lightly change my purpose? or, the things that I purpose in general; do I purpose according to the flesh Are my purposes grounded on carnal or worldly considerations? that with me there should be yea and nay Sometimes one, sometimes the other; that is, variableness and inconstancy in my counsels and actions, that none should know how to depend upon me for what they had to expect from me? But as God is true I solemnly protest, that, as the God whom I serve is faithful; our word to you On this and other occasions, and the doctrine we have preached to you; was not yea and nay Wavering and uncertain; but that my behaviour and testimony have been always uniform, invariable, and consistent with my professions. For the Son of God, who was preached by us That is, our preaching concerning him, was not yea and nay Was not variable and inconsistent with itself; but in him was yea As he is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, the declarations of his Word, and the engagements of his covenant, are inviolably the same. For all the promises of God Many and precious as they are; in him are yea and amen Are made with truth, and fulfilled with fidelity; or are surely established and accomplished in and through him. They are yea with respect to God promising; amen with respect to men believing; yea with respect to the apostles; amen with respect to their hearers. Unto the glory of God by us As is declared by us in our ministry.<\/p>\n When I therefore was thus minded [to come to you first, etc.], did I show fickleness? [in determining to come to you second, etc.] or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be the yea yea and the nay nay? [Do I form and announce my purposes like an unprincipled worldling, who holds his yes and no subservient to his policy or his pleasure; i. e., does as he pleases, without any regard to his pledges or his promises?] <\/p>\n Verse 17 <\/p>\n Did I use lightness? was it through lightness or fickleness of mind that I did not carry this design into effect?–According to the flesh; insincerely and dishonestly, as men often do.–Yea, yea, and nay, nay; one thing in promise and profession, and another in secret design.<\/p>\n 1:17 {9} When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the {p} flesh, that with me there should be {q} yea yea, and nay nay?<\/p>\n (9) He dismisses their slander and false report by denying it, and first of all in that different ones went about to persuade the Corinthians, that in the preaching of the Gospel, Paul agreed not to himself: for this was the matter and the case.<\/p>\n (p) As men do who will rashly promise anything, and change their purpose constantly.<\/p>\n (q) That I should say and not say a thing?<\/p>\n Both rhetorical questions in this verse expect a negative answer, as the Greek text makes clear.<\/p>\n "Paul finds it incredible that any at Corinth could really have thought that a change in plan pointed to a change in character." [Note: Hughes, p. 34.] <\/span><\/p>\n In making his plans Paul claimed not to have vacillated or to have followed his flesh (his sinful human nature) rather than the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n "Ancient literature regularly condemns fickleness and unreliability while praising those who keep their word even under duress." [Note: Craig S. Keener, 1-2 Corinthians, p. 159.] <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n "The charge that he is rebutting is probably that of blowing hot and cold with the same breath, and always having a retraction of what he says in reserve. . . . St. Paul contends that, though his plans changed, yet his principles did not; he was always loyal to the Gospel and to his converts." [Note: Plummer, p. 34.] <\/span><\/p>\n "There is a strong likelihood that Paul was actually quoting some of the phrases used against him. The articles with ’lightness’ ["vacillating" in NASB], ’yes, yes,’ and ’no, no’ can be understood as ’the lightness of which I am accused,’ and ’the contradictory yesses and nos which you fault me for.’" [Note: Kent, p. 41.] <\/span><\/p>\n "Preaching is always ’truth through personality.’ And if a man cannot trust the preacher he is not likely to trust the preacher’s message. Amongst the Jewish regulations regarding the conduct and character of a teacher, it is laid down that a teacher must never promise anything to a class which he cannot or will not do. To do so is to accustom the class to falsehood." [Note: Barclay, p. 197.] <\/span><\/p>\n When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay? 17. did I use lightness?] Literally, the lightness, i.e. either the lightness with which St Paul had been reproached, or perhaps … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Corinthians 1:17”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28765","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28765","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28765"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28765\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28765"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28765"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28765"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"