6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment<\/em> ] See note on 1Co 5:3-5<\/span>. The discipline of the Apostolic Church, which had as its main object the restoration of the offender, was content when this object was attained. As soon as the offender renounced his sin, the end of the discipline was reached, and there was no further need of punishment. It was no desire of the Church in the Apostle’s times, however much that important principle may have been lost sight of afterwards, that the offender should be ‘swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.’ “A plan diligently to be observed, for it teaches with what equity and clemency the discipline of the Church should be tempered, lest its rigour should exceed proper bounds.” Calvin.<\/p>\n punishment<\/em> ] ( Blamynge<\/em>, Wiclif.) The word in the original signifies rebuke as well as punishment. Perhaps here it partakes of both senses. The public rebuke, coupled with separation from the Christian community and formal delivery over to Satan which St Paul prescribed (1Co 5:5<\/span>), was itself a severe punishment.<\/p>\n which was inflicted of many<\/em> ] Literally, by the majority<\/strong>. Some, perhaps, may have declined to take part in it, for there were many, as the latter part of the Epistle plainly shews, who still refused to acknowledge St Paul’s authority.<\/p>\n Sufficient to such a man – <\/B>The incestuous person who had been by Pauls direction removed from the church. The object of Paul here is to have him again restored. For that purpose he says that the punishment which they had inflicted on him was sufficient. It was:<\/P> <\/p>\n It had accomplished all that he had desired. It had humbled him, and brought him to repentance; and doubtless led him to put away his wife; compare note, 1Co 5:1<\/span>. As that had been done, it was proper now that he should be again restored to the privileges of the church. No evil would result from such a restoration, and their duty to their penitent brother demanded it. Mr. Locke has remarked that Paul conducts this subject here with very great tenderness and delicacy. The entire passage from 2Co 2:5<\/span> to 2Co 2:10<\/span> relates solely to this offending brother, yet he never once mentions his name, nor does he mention his crime. He speaks of him only in the soft terms of such a one and any one: nor does he use an epithet which would be calculated to wound his feelings, or to transmit his name to posterity, or to communicate it to other churches. So that though this Epistle should be read, as Paul doubtless intended, by other churches, and be transmitted to future times, yet no one would ever be acquainted with the name of the individual. How different this from the temper of those who would emblazon abroad the names of offenders, or make a permanent record to carry them down with dishonor to posterity?<\/P> Which was inflicted of many – <\/B>By the church in its collective capacity; see the note on 1Co 5:4<\/span>. Paul had required the church to administer this act of discipline, and they had promptly done it. It is evident that the whole church was concerned in the administration of the act of discipline; as the words of many ( <\/SPAN><\/span> apo ton pleionon are not applicable either to a single bishop, or a single minister, or a presbytery, or a bench of elders: nor can they be so regarded, except by a forced and unnatural construction. Paul had directed it to be done by the assembled church 1Co 5:4<\/span>, and this phrase shows that they had followed his instructions. Locke supposes that the phrase means, by the majority; Macknight renders it, by the greater number; Bloomfield supposes that it means that the punishment was carried into effect by all. Doddridge paraphrases it, by the whole body of your society. The expression proves beyond a doubt that the whole body of the society was concerned in the act of the excommunication, and that is a proper way of administering discipline. Whether it proves, however, that that is the mode which is to be observed in all instances, may admit of a doubt, as the example of the early churches, in a particular case, does not prove that that mode has the force of a binding rule on all.<\/P> (It cannot fairly be argued from this verse, that the many or the whole congregation, were judicially concerned in the act of excommunication; yet as their concurrence was essential, in order to carry the sentence into effect, it was inflicted of many in a most emphatic sense. The refusal, on the part of the members of the church, to have any more social contact with the incestuous man, carried into effect what the apostle had judicially pronounced. See the supplementary note on 1Co 5:4<\/span>.)<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 6<\/span>. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment<\/B><\/I>] That is, the man has already suffered sufficiently. Here he gives a proof of his parental tenderness towards this great transgressor. He had been disowned by the Church; he had deeply repented; and now the apostle pleads for him.<\/P><\/p>\n This verse maketh it clear, that by any, <\/I>2Co 2:5<\/I><\/span>, he means the incestuous person, mentioned in 1Co 5:1-13<\/span>, whom he had ordered to be cast out, and delivered to Satan; which (as appeareth from this verse) they had done, which is the punishment<\/I> mentioned in this verse. They who think, that the punishment here mentioned was not excommunication, but another being delivered to Satan, and vexed by him: <\/P> 1. Beg a grave question, viz. Whether delivering to Satan in this place signifieth any more than a casting of the person out of Christs kingdom on earth, (which is his church), and making him one of the world again, of which Satan is the god? <\/P> 2. They seem not to consider, that if this church had delivered him to Satan, they could have done no more: so as the apostle would not have said: <\/P> Sufficient is this punishment, <\/B>when it was the greatest that they could inflict. <\/P> Some object, that it is not probable that the apostle (had he been cast out of the communion of the church, for so notorious a crime) would have given order for his being restored in so short a time, as was that between his writing the First and this his Second Epistle. <\/P> 1. Some think, that he was as yet only under a suspension, and the church had not proceeded to excommunication: this opinion is favoured by the Greek word here used, which is <\/span>, the gentlest of all the words in use in that language to express punishment by. <\/P> 2. Though in the times following the apostles, a longer time was set after excommunication, for testifying the repentance of sinners notoriously scandalous, before the church did again admit them into her fellowship: yet that it was so in the apostles time, is more than appears. Possibly it might be so ordered afterwards, when, as the church multiplied, so sin more abounded; and they might, from many experiences of relapses, be quickened to make such orders. <\/P> 3. The gift of discerning spirits was more usual in the apostles times than afterward; so that though in following times, when the apostles were dead, and the extraordinary gift of discerning spirits was failed or abeted, the church being not able any other way to judge of the truth of sinners repentance, than from their changed life and conversation, which asked time, might set a longer time for suck penitents; yet there might not be the same reason for the apostles doing it. <\/P> 4. Notwithstanding any thing that appears, there might be the distance of a year or two between Pauls writing these two Epistles. <\/P> Which was inflicted of many:<\/B> who these many were, by whom the apostle saith this punishment was inflicted, is a little disputed; whether the presbytery, or the community. Their opinion seemeth (to me) best, who think that the officers of the church of Corinth heard and judged of matters of faith, and reported it to the community; but he was not cast out without the consent and approbation of the community. <\/P> <\/p>\n 6. Sufficient<\/B>withoutincreasing it, which would only drive him to despair (2Co2:7<\/span>), whereas the object of the punishment was, “that (his)spirit might be saved” in the last day. <\/P> to such a man<\/B>a milderdesignation of the offender than if he had been named<\/I> [MEYER].Rather, it expresses estrangement from such a one<\/I> who hadcaused such grief to the Church, and scandal to religion (Act 22:22<\/span>;1Co 5:5<\/span>). <\/P> this punishment<\/B>Hisbeing “delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh”;not only excommunication, but bodily disease (see on 1Co5:4, 5<\/span>). <\/P> inflicted of many<\/B>rather,”by the majority” (the more part of you). Not by anindividual priest, as in the Church of Rome, nor by the bishops andclergy alone, but by the whole body of the Church.<\/P><\/p>\n Sufficient to such a man is this punishment<\/strong>,…. By this punishment is meant, the excommunication of the incestuous person, or the censure that was laid upon him by the church: for this<\/p>\n was inflicted by many<\/strong>; not by the pastor only, or by the elders or more eminent persons in the church, but by the multitude, by the whole congregation, at least , “by the more”; the greater, or major part; and not by one, or a few only: in inflicting this punishment, or laying on this censure in the public manner they did, they were certainly right, and to be commended; but inasmuch as there appeared signs of true repentance, it was sufficient, it had answered the purpose for which it was inflicted, and therefore it was high time to remove it: from whence we learn, that in case of gross enormities, there ought to be a public excommunication; and that this is to be done by the vote, and with the consent of the whole church, or the major part of it; and that in process of time, when the person thus dealt with has given the church satisfaction as to the truth and genuineness of his repentance, the censure ought to be taken off and he be cordially received into the communion of the church again. This “punishment”, or “rebuke”, , “by many”, is the same which the Jews call e , “a reproof by many”; which is given by many, or in the presence of many.<\/p>\n e R. Eliahu in Adderet, c. 3. apud Trigland. de Sect. Karaeorum, p. 166.<\/p>\n Punishment <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Late word for old Greek to <\/SPAN><\/span> (so papyri), from <\/SPAN><\/span>, to show honour to, to award, to adjudge penalty. Only here in N.T.<\/P> By the many <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). By the more, the majority. If Paul refers to the case in 1Co 5<\/span>, they had taken his advice and expelled the offender. <\/P> <\/p>\n Many [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Rev., correctly, the many : the majority of the Church.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “Sufficient to such a man,”<\/strong> (kikanon to toiouto) “Enough for such a one,” person – the known offending fornicator, incestuous young man in their church who had been excluded, based on his prior advice, 1Co 5:1-5<\/span>; 1Co 5:7<\/span>; 1Co 5:9<\/span>; 1Co 5:11<\/span>; 1Co 5:13<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “Is this punishment,”<\/strong> (he epitimia hauta) “(Is) this punishment,” deprivation of membership, or censure, as Paul also instructed the Roman and Thessalonian churches, Rom 16:17<\/span>; 2Th 3:14<\/span>. The suggestion is that the punishment inflicted should now be remitted and the guilty young man forgiven.<\/p>\n 3) “Which was inflicted of many,”<\/strong> (he hupo ton pleionton) “(which was) by the many,” or by the masses, the majority inflicted. The whole church acted in “putting away the wicked one” from among them for a time. The action was not by a secret disciplinary committee, a matter unknown to New Testament churches. Votes were congregational in nature by the “church ye”, not by a “preacher ye”, or “committee yes”, Act 1:23-26<\/span>; Rom 14:1<\/span>; 2Th 3:14<\/span>. Church discipline or excommunication was done by the church for constructive disciplinary, not mere punitive purposes.<\/p>\n 6. Sufficient. He now extends kindness even to the man who had sinned more grievously than the others, and on whose account his anger had been kindled against them all, inasmuch as they had connived at his crime. In his showing indulgence even to one who was deserving of severer punishment, the Corinthians have a striking instance to convince them, how much he disliked excessive harshness. It is true, that he does not act this part merely for the sake of the Corinthians, but because he was naturally of a forgiving temper; but still, in this instance of mildness, the Corinthians could not but perceive his remarkable kindness of disposition. In addition to this, he does not merely show himself to be indulgent, but exhorts others to receive him into favor, in the exercise of the same mildness. <\/p>\n Let us, however, consider these things a little more minutely. He refers to the man who had defiled himself by an incestuous marriage with his mother-in-law. As the iniquity was not to be tolerated, Paul had given orders, that the man should be excommunicated. He had, also, severely reproved the Corinthians, because they had so long given encouragement to that enormity (321) by their dissimulation and patient endurance. It appears from this passage, that he had been brought to repentance, after having been admonished by the Church. Hence Paul gives orders, that he be forgiven, and that he be also supported by consolation. <\/p>\n This passage ought to be carefully observed, as it shows us, with what equity and clemency the discipline of the Church ought to be regulated, in order that there may not be undue severity. There is need of strictness, in order that the wicked may not be rendered more daring by impunity, which is justly pronounced an allurement to vice. But on the other hand, as there is a danger of the person, who is chastised, becoming dispirited, moderation must be used as to this — so that the Church shall be prepared to extend forgiveness, so soon as she is fully satisfied as to his penitence. In this department, I find a lack of wisdom on the part of the ancient bishops; and indeed they ought not to be excused, but on the contrary, we ought rather to mark their error, that we may learn to avoid it. Paul is satisfied with the repentance of the offender, that a reconciliation may take place with the Church. They, on the other hand, by making no account of his repentance, have issued out canons as to repentance during three years, during seven years, and in some cases during life. By these they exclude poor unhappy men from the fellowship of the Church. And, in this way, the offender is either alienated the more from the Church, or (322) is induced to practice hypocrisy. But even if the enactment were more plausible in itself, this consideration would, in my view, be enough to condemn it — that it is at variance with the rule of the Holy Spirit, which the Apostle here prescribes. <\/p>\n (321) “ De ce qu’ils auoyent si longuement nourri ce mal — heureux en son peche;” — “Because they had so long encouraged that unhappy man in his sin.” <\/p>\n (322) “ Ou pour le moins;” — “Or at least.” <\/p>\n (6) Sufficient to such a man is this punishment.<\/strong>Better, perhaps, this censure,<\/em> or rebuke:<\/em> the Greek word epitimia<\/em> being different from those in Mat. 25:46<\/span>, and in Heb. 10:29<\/span>. It is natural to infer that this was somewhat after the pattern of the course marked out in 1Co. 5:3-5<\/span>. A meeting of the Church had been held, and the man delivered to Satan. Possibly this was followed by some suffering of body, supernaturally inflicted, or coming as the natural consequence (not less divine because natural) of remorse and shame. It was almost certainly followed by ex-communication and exclusion from religious and social fellowship. St. Paul had clearly heard what it had been, and thought that it had been enough.<\/p>\n Which was inflicted of many.<\/strong>Actually, by the majority.<\/em> The decision, then, had not been unanimous. The minority may have been either members of the Judaising Cephas party, resenting what they would look upon as St. Pauls dictation, and perhaps falling back on the Jewish casuistry, which taught that all the natural relationships of a proselyte were cancelled by his conversion; or the party of license, against whom the Apostle reasons in 1 Corinthians 6-8, and who boasted of their freedom. The Passover argument and the form of the sentence in 1 Corinthians 5<\/span> alike suggest the idea that the offender and those who defended him were Jews. On the other hand, see Note on 2Co. 7:12<\/span>.<\/p>\n 6<\/strong>. <\/strong> Such a man<\/strong> The such implies such penitence as to justify forgiveness, and the next verse shows that his sensibilities were liable to become extreme. <\/p>\n Punishment<\/strong> Paul avoids naming the penalty as well as the crime. It was, probably, suspension of fellowship by a vote of many<\/strong>, or, more accurately, of the majority.<\/p>\n ‘Sufficient to such a one is this punishment (‘censure, reproof, reprimand’) which was inflicted by the many, so that, in contrast to that, you should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you to confirm your love towards him.’<\/p>\n It appears that in response to his severe letter the church has repented and meted out quite severe punishment on the offender, possibly in the form of a severe public reprimand and even exclusion from some of the benefits of the church, for example from the love feasts or from taking part in the services. Now therefore he feels that it is time for them to forgive him and reinstate him. The punishment inflicted by the majority of the church has been quite sufficient. It has resulted in his repentance. Now they must show forgiveness and come alongside to help him and comfort him, in case his sorrow and remorse becomes so overwhelming that it devastates him. So, says Paul, I beg you (or ‘urge you’) to ‘confirm’ your love towards him. ‘Confirm’ has legal significance and suggests a specific act of restoration by which the man is assured of their love.<\/p>\n Most old commentaries identify this man with the man in 1 Corinthians 5<\/span> who was to be committed to Satan (cast out of the church). The main reason why this is unlikely is the personal hurt that this one has caused to Paul. While the man in question in 1 Corinthians sinned deeply, even though it distressed Paul it was not particularly against him. There was no reason there why Paul’s forgiveness should especially be sought, whereas the man in view here has acted in such a way as to require precisely that. Nor is it clear how even such a dreadful kind of adultery should cause Paul the distress described in 2Co 2:4<\/span>. The only way in which it could be so is if the same man had obtained sway over the whole church, and had led the attack on Paul. And would such a man have repented at Paul’s letter if previously he had been so obdurate?<\/p>\n It is far more likely that this man was one who had sought to usurp Paul’s place in the hearts of the Corinthians, possibly entering among them as a newcomer with letters of commendation from someone of importance, and had done it in a particularly obnoxious manner, with false insinuation and accusations, and a show of strength, probably assisted by special cronies. He had done it in such a subtle way that he had influenced many of the church sufficiently to cause them to side with him against Paul when Paul paid his unexpected visit. But he must have been to some extent genuine for him to be so repentant. He appears to have been a dupe of Satan rather than an evil man.<\/p>\n 2Co 2:6<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Sufficient to such a man, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> “Sufficient to such a one, who has here been the aggressor, but is now a penitent, is this rebuke and censure, which he has already suffered by many, and, indeed, by the whole body of your society, which has shewn so wise and pious a readiness to pursue the directions that I gave for animadverting upon him; and bringing him, through grace, to repentance.” It is observable, how tenderly St. Paul deals with the Corinthians in this epistle; for though he treats of the fornicator from the 5th to the 10th verse, inclusively, yet he never mentions him under that, or any other painful title, but in the soft terms of any one, <\/em>or such a one. <\/em>Instead of this punishment, <\/em>&c. some read, this rebuke from the majority.<\/em> <\/p>\n 2Co 2:6<\/span> . ] something sufficient<\/em> is, etc. Regarding this substantive use of the neuter of the predicate adjective, see Matthiae, p. 982; Khner, II. p. 45. Comp. Mat 6:34<\/span> .<\/p>\n ] for one of such a nature<\/em> ; how forbearing it is here that no more definite designation is given!<\/p>\n ] this punishment<\/em> . What it was, every reader knew. Comp. on 2Co 2:3<\/span> . (which in classic writers denotes the franchise of a citizen, Demosthenes, 230, 10, al.<\/em> ), in the signification poena<\/em> , like the Greek (Dem. 915, 1; 939, 27, al.<\/em> ), ( Wis 12:26 ), and (Inscript.), occurs only here in the N. T., but elsewhere also in Wis 3:10 , in ecclesiastical writers, and in acts of councils (not in Philo). It is not merely objurgatio<\/em> (Vulgate; comp. Beza, Calvin, and others).<\/p>\n ] which by the majority<\/em> (of the church) has been assigned to him. That the presbyterium<\/em> is not meant (Augustine, Beza, Grotius, Valesius, and others), is shown by the article. There is a further question here, whether the excommunication enjoined by Paul, 5, was carried out or not (Beza, Calvin, Morus, Rckert, Hofmann). Most assume the former, so that they refer to the sufficient duration<\/em> of the excommunication. [141] But an accomplished full excommunication is not to be assumed on account of the very ; but it is probable that the majority of the church members, in consequence of the <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> (1Co 5:13<\/span> ; comp. 2Co 2:2<\/span> ), had considered the sinner as one excommunicated, and had given up all fellowship with him. By this the majority had for the present sufficiently complied with the expressed will of the apostle. To the minority there may have belonged partly the most lax in morals, and partly also opponents of the apostle, the latter resisting him on principle.<\/p>\n Rckert, however, supported by Baur and Rbiger, regards Paul’s judgment <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> .<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> .<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> .<\/em><\/strong> , as a prudent turn given<\/em> to the matter, by which, in order to avoid an open rupture, he represents what would have happened even without his will to be his own wish. But what justifies any one in attributing to him conduct so untruthful? The real and great repentance of the sinner (2Co 2:7<\/span> ) induced the apostle to overlook the incompleteness in carrying out his orders for excommunication, and now from real sincere conviction to pronounce the and desire his pardon. Comp. above on 2Co 2:5-11<\/span> . Had Paul not been really convinced that the repentance of the evil-doer had already begun (as even Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl.<\/em> p. 183, is inclined to suppose), he would here have pursued a policy<\/em> of church-discipline quite at variance with his character. Calvin judges very rightly of this passage: “Locus diligenter observandus; docet enim, qua aequitate et clementia temperanda sit disciplina ecclesiae, ne rigor modum excedat. Severitate opus est, ne impunitate (quae peccandi illecebra merito vocatur) mali reddantur audaciores; sed rursus, quia periculum est, ne is qui castigatur animum despondeat, hic adhibenda est moderatio, nempe ut ecclesia, simulatque resipiscentiam illius certo cognoverit, ad dandam veniam sit parata.”<\/p>\n [141] Most strange is the judgment of Grotius, that the apostle is here speaking not de restituenda communione<\/em> , but de auferendo morbo, quem ei Satanas ad preces piorum Corinthiorum immiserat<\/em> . Paul had, in fact, not really ordained the giving over to Satan at all. See on 1Co 5:5<\/span> .<\/p>\n 6 Sufficient to such a man is<\/em> this punishment, which was inflicted<\/em> of many. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 6. Sufficient to such a man<\/strong> ] The Novatians therefore were out, that refused to receive in those that repented of their former faults and follies. The Papists burnt some that recanted at the stake, saying, that they would send them out of the world while they were in a good mind. <\/p>\n 6<\/strong> .] <\/strong> , sc. either or .<\/p>\n <\/strong> ] Meyer remarks on the expression as being used in mildness, not to designate any particular person: but the same designation is employed in 1Co 5:5<\/span> , .<\/p>\n <\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> ] This punishment<\/strong> (= , see reff.): what it was<\/em> , we are unable with certainty to say; but 1Co 5<\/span> seems to point to excommunication<\/em> as forming at least a part<\/em> of it. But it was not a formal and public, only a voluntary individual abstinence from communion<\/em> with him, as is shewn by <\/strong> : the anti-pauline party probably refusing compliance with the Apostle’s command.<\/p>\n <\/strong> ] enough<\/strong> , not in duration<\/em> , though that would be the case<\/em> , but in magnitude<\/em> : sufficient, as having produced its desired effect, penitence.<\/p>\n 2Co 2:6<\/span> . . . .: sufficient to such an one<\/em> (the word used in 1Co 5:5<\/span> to indicate the offender) is this punishment<\/em> ( which was inflicted<\/em> ) by the majority<\/em> . The directions given by the Apostle for dealing with the offender had probably been carried out with harshness and severity; he now suggests that the punishment might be remitted, and the guilty man forgiven. in the Attic orators is used for “the possession of political rights,” but it came to mean (see reff.) penalty<\/em> or requital<\/em> ; the punishment (see 1Co 5:5<\/span> ) would seem to have been of a disciplinary<\/em> , and not merely punitive<\/em> , character; it was probably like the formal excommunication of a later age ( cf.<\/em> also 1Ti 1:20<\/span> ), and involved the exclusion of the guilty person from the privileges of the Christian Society. That it was inflicted only by “the majority” (for so we must translate ; see reff.) is sufficiently accounted for by remembering the presence of an anti-Pauline party at Corinth, who would not be likely to follow the Apostle’s instructions. The construction ( , rather than , is the verb to be supplied) affords an instance of a neuter adjectival predicate set over against a feminine subject ( cf.<\/em> Mat 6:34<\/span> ); seems to be used here like the Latin satis.<\/p>\n man = one, as 2Co 2:7. <\/p>\n Punishment = censure. Greek. epitimia. Only here. Compare the verb epitimao. First occurance: Mat 8:26. Figure of speech Tapeinosis. App-6. <\/p>\n of = by. Greek. hupo. App-104. <\/p>\n many = the more, i.e. the majority. <\/p>\n 6.] , sc. either or .<\/p>\n ] Meyer remarks on the expression as being used in mildness, not to designate any particular person: but the same designation is employed in 1Co 5:5, .<\/p>\n . ] This punishment (= , see reff.): what it was, we are unable with certainty to say; but 1 Corinthians 5 seems to point to excommunication as forming at least a part of it. But it was not a formal and public, only a voluntary individual abstinence from communion with him, as is shewn by : the anti-pauline party probably refusing compliance with the Apostles command.<\/p>\n ] enough, not in duration, though that would be the case, but in magnitude: sufficient, as having produced its desired effect, penitence.<\/p>\n 2Co 2:6. ) Neuter, in place of a substantive; it is sufficient for such a one, so that no more can be demanded of him: , a forensic term. It is the part of Christian prudence to maintain moderation. A considerably long time intervened between the writing of the two epistles.-, reproof) In antithesis to forgive, as also, to comfort, 2Co 2:7.- , by many) not merely by those, who ruled [the bishops and ministers.] The Church at large bears the keys.<\/p>\n 2Co 2:6<\/p>\n 2Co 2:6 <\/p>\n Sufficient to such a one is this punishment-Paul felt that the guilty person had been sufficiently punished by the many putting him away as he had directed.<\/p>\n which was inflicted by the many;-Some expositors thing that the many means the majority, and that a vote was taken, and a majority voted to put him away while the minority opposed it. But the record does not show this. He did not command them to vote on it, but to deliver such a one unto Satan. (1Co 5:5). It was the question of obeying a plain command of God given through Paul-God himself decided the case. There is not an intimation that there was a single objection, or that an objection was called for. They obeyed; the man was put away. The order of God is that all Christians shall be of one mind and one voice. <\/p>\n punishment: or, censure <\/p>\n which: 2Co 13:10, 1Co 5:4, 1Co 5:5, 1Ti 5:20 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 2Sa 24:16 – It is enough Mat 13:28 – Wilt Mat 18:17 – tell Joh 20:23 – General 2Co 13:3 – which Gal 5:10 – bear 2Th 3:15 – count<\/p>\n 2Co 2:6. The church has no authority to administer physical punishment, but the word refers to the rebuke and disciplinary action that was taken against the fornicator. Inflicted of many. The last word is from an original that literally means a majority. The New Testament church does not decide religious matters by what is generally known as a “majority vote.” In the present case it will be noted that Paul uses the term as a contrast with a man. There was just one man who had committed the act, but the chastisement was administered by many more than one, namely, by the church when it was “gathered together” (1Co 5:4). No final act of discipline can be scripturally performed except in a general assembly of the disciples. In such a meeting each member of the congregation has the right to offer scriptural objections to what is being proposed. If no such objection is stated, then the action must be regarded as that of the entire assembly; the act of many.<\/p>\n 2Co 2:6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment inflicted by the manyeither the majority, in which case the decision was not unanimous, some dissenting, for reasons not hard to seek: or (taking the many to refer to the publicity of the act) in presence of the gathered congregation, as directed expressly in 1Co 5:4.<\/p>\n Observe here, 1. The nature of that punishment which the holy apostle thought and adjudged, to be sufficient for the guilty person’s sin; and that was excision, not destruction; excommunication, not death. The rejection of such a sinner from the communion of the church, by church-censure and discipline, was the punishment pronounced. <\/p>\n Observe, 2. By whom, and before, this punishment of excommunication was executed and inflicted, namely, by the officers and governors of the church, (who had and have the power of the keys,) in the presence and with the consent of the whole church.<\/p>\n In the primitive church, we have reason to believe, when any offender was to be excommunicated, the people were acquainted with the crime: the guilty person pleaded in their presence, they judged as your jurymen do of the matter of fact, they consented to the condemnation; but the sentence was not pronounced by them, but by the governors and officers of the church, before them and in their presence.<\/p>\n And as the church or body of the people consented to the offenders’ rejection, so likewise to his re-admission to the communion of the church; but their actual admission was by the pastor and governor of the church, and not by the people.<\/p>\n Contrary to this primitive practice, is the modern practice of those who have snatched the keys out of the hands of the pastors, (where Christ placed them,) and put them into the hands of the people.<\/p>\n 2Co 2:6-11. Sufficient to such a man With what remarkable tenderness does the apostle treat this offender! He never once mentions his name, nor does he here so much as mention his crime; but speaks of him in the most indefinite manner that was consistent with giving such directions in his case as love required; is this punishment, inflicted by many Not only by the rulers of the church, the whole congregation acquiesced in the sentence. So that contrariwise Instead of proceeding further against him; ye ought rather to forgive him To release him from the censure, and receive him again into the church; and comfort him This penitent sinner; lest he should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow Driven to despair by the excessive grief which the continuance of your sentence might occasion. Wherefore confirm your love toward him Assure him of your love by receiving him into your favour, and by all offices of kindness. For to this end did I write Both in my former epistle that you would censure him, and now that you would release him; that I might know the proof of you That I might have experience of you; whether ye would be obedient in all things To my apostolical instructions and decisions; to whom ye forgive He makes no question of their complying with his direction; any thing So mildly does he speak of that heinous sin after it was repented of; I forgive also I also shall be ready to forgive it; if I forgave If heretofore I alone received any to mercy; for your sakes I forgave it To show you an example of lenity as well as severity; in the person of Christ In his name, and by the authority wherewith he has invested me. St. Pauls conduct in this affair is worthy of the imitation of the ministers of the gospel. They are to do nothing to grieve their people, unless love require it for their good. And when they are obliged to have recourse to the wholesome discipline which Christ hath instituted in his church, they ought to exercise it, not from resentment, but from a tender regard to the spiritual welfare of the offender. And when he is reclaimed by the censures of the church, they ought, with joy, to restore him to the communion of the faithful, remembering that Satan is ever watchful to turn the hopes and fears, the joys and sorrows of Christians, into an occasion of their ruin. Macknight. Lest Satan To whom he had been delivered, and who sought to destroy, not only his flesh, but his soul also; should get an advantage of us If the punishment of him be carried to any excess; and should turn that severity into an occasion of mischief to the offender, to his brethren, and to others, either by driving any to despair by too much rigour, or drawing any to profaneness by too much lenity: for the loss of one soul is a common loss. And we are not ignorant of his devices And of the great variety of stratagems which he is continually making use of to injure us, and turn even discipline itself to the reproach of the church, and the destruction of souls.<\/p>\n Sufficient to such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the many; <\/p>\n Verse 6 <\/p>\n It would seem that Paul had learned, perhaps through Titus, (see 2 Corinthians 7:5-7,) that the church had exercised towards this offending member the discipline which he had recommended in the former Epistle.<\/p>\n Paul commended his readers for disciplining the offender, warned them against over-reacting, and urged them to convince him of their love for him. He "urged" this action, not ordered it, because true Christian love must be spontaneous and unforced or it ceases to be what it professes to be. The "majority" may refer to the whole church (Gr. hoi pleiones<\/span>). The minority apparently held out for more severe discipline of this person. Thus Paul threw the whole weight of his apostolic authority behind forgiving as he had previously thrown it behind disciplining.<\/p>\n By accepting the offender, after he repented, the church would be confirming the Lord’s forgiveness of him (cf. Mat 16:19; Mat 18:18; Luk 17:3; Joh 20:23).<\/p>\n "Discipline which is so inflexible as to leave no place for repentance and reconciliation has ceased to be truly Christian; for it is no less a scandal to cut off the penitent sinner from all hope of re-entry into the comfort and security of the fellowship of the redeemed community than it is to permit flagrant wickedness to continue unpunished in the Body of Christ." [Note: Hughes, pp. 66-67.] <\/span><\/p>\n Sufficient to such a man [is] this punishment, which [was inflicted] of many. 6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment ] See note on 1Co 5:3-5. The discipline of the Apostolic Church, which had as its main object the restoration of the offender, was content when this object was attained. As soon as … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Corinthians 2:6”<\/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-28778","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28778","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=28778"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28778\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28778"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28778"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28778"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
\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: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"