18. And we have sent with him<\/em> ] Literally, we sent with him<\/strong>, unless the tense be what is known as the epistolary aorist (see above, ch. 2Co 2:9<\/span>), in which case these messengers were also the bearers of this Epistle.<\/p>\n the brother, whose praise is in the gospel<\/em> ] Innumerable guesses have been made as to who this was. We can but briefly glance at them. First of all it is clear that it was no obscure member of any of the various communities who is here mentioned. He was thoroughly well known to the Churches. Secondly, we may remark that it was not Barnabas<\/em>, as many of the early Fathers have supposed, since we never hear of Paul and Barnabas as travelling together after their misunderstanding in Acts 15<\/span>, nor Silas<\/em>, for he does not appear to have been with the Apostle after his departure from Corinth for Jerusalem related in Act 18:18<\/span>. We learn from the next verse that the ‘brother’ here referred to was a delegate of the Churches, and deputed to accompany St Paul on his journey to Jerusalem with the proceeds of the collection. He must either have been a delegate of the Ephesian or the Macedonian Christians. If the latter, it must have been (1) St Luke, for he did<\/em> travel with St Paul on this occasion, as we learn from Act 20:5<\/span>. And though he did not join the Apostle till he reached Philippi from Corinth, and did not accompany him on his visit to Corinth (Act 20:1-5<\/span>), this is no reason against his having accompanied Titus on his visit to Corinth. See note on 2Co 8:16<\/em><\/span>. And St Luke answers in many ways better than any one else to this description. But ch. 2Co 9:4<\/span> seems to imply that the brother was not of Macedonia (though Meyer thinks that the whole context shews him to have been a Macedonian). Nor can the words ‘whose praise is in the Gospel’ be pressed (so St Chrysostom and the Collect for St Luke’s Day) as signifying the Gospel of St Luke. For the word gospel is never used in the Scripture of any of the biographies of Christ, but solely of the good tidings proclaimed by His ministers. The earliest phrase by which the Gospels are designated is ‘memoirs.’ (See Justin Martyr’s First Apology<\/em>, ch. 67.) If the brother were an Ephesian delegate, he must have been either (2) Trophimus or (3) Tychicus. Both<\/em> these left Greece with St Paul. The former was an Ephesian’ and accompanied him to Jerusalem. (Act 21:29<\/span>.) The latter was ‘ of Asia<\/em> ’ (Act 20:4<\/span>), and probably of Ephesus, for he was twice sent thither by St Paul (Eph 6:21<\/span>; 2Ti 4:12<\/span>). And he evidently stood high in the estimation of the Apostle (Eph 6:21-22<\/span>; Col 4:7-8<\/span>) for his qualities as a minister of Christ. Both<\/em> these, however, if the deputies were Ephesians, would most likely have been the messengers. See note on 2Co 8:22<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n And we have sent with him the brother – <\/B>It has been generally supposed that this anonymous brother was Luke. Some have supposed however that it was Mark, others that it was Silas or Barnabas. It is impossible to determine with certainty who it was; nor is it material to know. Whoever it was, it was some one well known, in whom the church at Corinth could have entire confidence. It is remarkable that though Paul mentions him again 2Co 12:18<\/span>, he does it also in the same manner, without specifying his name. The only circumstances that can throw any light on this are:<\/P> (1) That Luke was the companion and intimate friend of Paul, and attended him in his travels. From Act 16:10-11<\/span>, where Luke uses the term we, it appears that he was with Paul when he first went into Macedonia, and from Act 16:15<\/span> it is clear that he went with Paul to Philippi. From Act 17:1<\/span>, where Luke alters his style and uses the term they, it is evident that he did not accompany Paul and Silas when they went to Thessalonica, but either remained at Philippi or departed to some other place. He did not join them again until they went to Troas on the way to Jerusalem; Act 20:5<\/span>. In what manner Luke spent the interval is not known. Macknight supposes that it might have been in multiplying copies of his gospel for the use of the churches. Perhaps also he might have been engaged in preaching, and in services like that in the case before us.<\/P> (2) It seems probable that Luke is the person referred to by the phrase whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches. This would be more likely to be applied to one who had written a gospel, or a life of the Redeemer that had been extensively circulated, than to any other person. Still it is by no means certain that he is the person here referred to, nor is it of material consequence.<\/P> Whose praise – <\/B>Who is well known and highly esteemed.<\/P> Is in the gospel – <\/B>Either for writing the gospel, or for preaching the gospel. The Greek will bear either construction. In some way he was celebrated for making known the truths of the gospel.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 18. The brother, whose praise is in the Gospel<\/B><\/I>] Who this brother<\/I> was we cannot tell; some suppose it was St. Luke, who wrote a gospel, and who was the companion of St. Paul in several of his travels; others think it was Silas<\/I>; others, Barnabas<\/I>; others, Mark<\/I>; and others, Apollos<\/I>. Neither ancients nor moderns agree in either; but Luke, John<\/I>, and Mark<\/I>, seem to have the most probable opinions in their favour. Whoever the person was he was sufficiently known to the Corinthians, as we learn by what the apostle says of him in this place.<\/P><\/p>\n Who this other brother<\/B> was, whether Luke, or Barnabas or Silas, or Apollos, or Mark, is not much material; it is plain, whoever he was, that he was a brother and a minister one who had a good repute for preaching the gospel. <\/P> <\/p>\n 18. the brother, whose praise is inthe gospel<\/B>whose praise is known in connection with the Gospel:Luke<\/I> may be meant; not that “the Gospel” here refersto his written<\/I> Gospel; but the language implies some one wellknown throughout the churches, and at that time with Paul, as Lukethen was (Ac 20:6<\/span>). Not aMacedonian, as appears from 2Co 9:4<\/span>.Of all Paul’s “companions in travel” (2Co 8:19<\/span>;Act 19:29<\/span>), Luke was the mostprominent, having been his companion in preaching the Gospel at hisfirst entrance into Europe (Ac16:10<\/span>). The fact that the person here referred to was “chosenof the churches” as their trustee to travel with Paul inconveying the contribution to Jerusalem, implies that he had residedamong them some time before: this is true of Luke, who after partingfrom Paul at Philippi (as he marks by the change from “we”to “they,” Ac 16:11<\/span>)six years before, is now again found in his company in Macedonia. Inthe interim he had probably become so well known that “hispraise was throughout all the churches.” Compare 2Co 12:18<\/span>;Phm 1:24<\/span>. He who is faithful inthe Gospel will be faithful also in matters of inferior importance[BENGEL].<\/P><\/p>\n And we have sent with him the brother<\/strong>,…. The Syriac and Ethiopic versions read, “our brother”; and one of Stephens’s copies, “your brother”: who this brother was, is not certain; some think it was Luke the evangelist, the companion of the apostle in his travels:<\/p>\n whose praise is in the Gospel, throughout all the churches<\/strong>; being known and highly commended by all the churches, for the Gospel he wrote; but it is not certain that Luke as yet had wrote his Gospel; and much less that it was so much known at present among the churches; and besides, this brother’s praise seems to be on account of his preaching the Gospel, and not writing one: others think Barnabas is intended, who was chosen and sent out by the churches along with the apostle; but these in a short time separated from each other, nor do we read of their coming together again: others are of opinion, that Apollos is designed, who was a very eloquent preacher, and of whom the apostle had given the Corinthians an intimation in his former epistle, that he would come to them at a convenient time; but to him is objected, that he never was chosen of the churches, to travel with the apostle on such an account as here mentioned: others would have it that Silas or Silvanus is meant, who was a very constant companion of the apostle, and of whom he makes mention in most of his epistles; and others have made no doubt of it, but John Mark is here meant, who not only wrote a Gospel, but was an excellent preacher of it, and was chosen by the churches to go along with Paul and Barnabas; and though there was some distaste taken to him by Paul, he was afterwards reconciled to him, and for his profitableness in the ministry was greatly desired by him; but after all, it is difficult to determine who it was, nor is it of any great moment: a “brother” he was; being not only a regenerate person, but a preacher of the Gospel; a brother in the ministry, and “one whose praise was in the Gospel”; greatly admired, and much commended, for his excellent talent in preaching the Gospel; and for this he was famous “throughout all the churches”; a very great commendation indeed; but this is not all, it follows,<\/p>\n We have sent with him <\/B> ( ‘ <\/SPAN><\/span>). Epistolary aorist.<\/P> The brother <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). This may be, probably is, Luke who may also be the brother of Titus (see also 12:18<\/span>) according to a common Greek idiom where the article is used as “his.” But this idiom is not necessary. As a matter of fact, we do not know who this brother is.<\/P> Is spread through all the churches <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). No verb in the Greek (ellipsis). <\/P> <\/p>\n The brother whose praise is in the Gospel. Is should be joined with throughout all the churches; as Rev., whose praise in the Gospel is spread throughout, etc. The person referred to has been variously identified with Titus’ brother, Barnabas, Mark, Luke, and Epaenetus, mentioned in Rom 16:5<\/span>. The reference to Epaenetus has been urged on the ground of a supposed play upon the word praise, epainos; Epaenetus meaning praiseworthy; and the parallel is cited in the case of Onesimus profitable, of whom Paul says that he will henceforth be useful, Phl 1:11<\/span>. 149<\/span><\/P> <\/p>\n 1) “And we sent with him,”<\/strong> (sunepempsamen de met’ autou) “and we sent with (along with) him, as he was willing to go; 2Co 10:14<\/span>; 2Co 12:18<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “The brother, whose praise is in the gospel,”<\/strong> (ton adelphon hou ho epainos en to evangellie) “The brother, one whose praise (is) in the gospel,” a true brother, of good repute as a laborer in the cause of the gospel, Php_4:3; Rom 1:9<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “Throughout all the churches,”<\/strong> (dia pason ton ekklesion) “Throughout all the churches,” a well known person in all the churches where Paul had visited and had been chosen or elected by those churches to help Titus and Paul in the goal of fund-raising for the poor saints of Judea. It was perhaps Luke, Paul’s personal physician, though he is not specifically named, 2Co 8:23<\/span>.<\/p>\n 18. We have sent with him the brother. The circumstance that three persons are sent, is an evidence, that great expectations were entertained respecting the Corinthians, and it became them to be so much the more attentive to duty, that they might not disappoint the hopes of the Churches. It is uncertain, however, who this second person was; only that some conjecture that it was Luke, others that it was Barnabas. Chrysostom prefers to consider it to have been Barnabas. I agree with him, because it appears that, by the suffrages of the Churches, (690) he was associated with Paul as a companion. As, however, it is almost universally agreed, that Luke was one of those who were the bearers of this Epistle, I have no objection that he be reckoned to be the third that is made mention of. <\/p>\n Now the second person, whoever he may be, he honors with a signal commendation, that he had conducted himself as to the gospel in a praiseworthy manner, that is, he had earned applause by promoting the gospel. For, although Barnabas gave place to Paul in the department of speaking, yet in acting they both concurred. He adds farther, that he had received praise, not from one individual, or even from one Church merely, but from all the Churches. To this general testimony he subjoins a particular one, that is suitable to the subject in hand — that he had been chosen for this department by the concurrence of the Churches. Now it was likely, that this honor would not have been conferred upon him, had he not been long before known to be qualified for it. We must observe, however, the mode of election — that which was customary among the Greeks — χειροτονία, ( a show of hands,) (691) in which the leaders (692) took the precedence by authority and counsel, and regulated the whole proceeding, while the common people intimated their approval. (693) <\/p>\n (690) “ Par le commun accord des Eglises;” — “By the common agreement of the Churches.” <\/p>\n (691) “ Laquelle les Grecs appellent d’vn nom qui signifie Eleuation des mains;” — “Which the Greeks express by a term that signifies a show of hands.” <\/p>\n (692) “ Les principaux ou gouerneurs;” — “The leaders or governors.” <\/p>\n (693) Beza, in his Annotations on Act 14:23<\/span>, when commenting on the word χειροτονήσαντες made use of in that passage in connection with the ordaining of elders in every Church, remarks, that the word in this application took its rise from the practice of the Greeks — “ qui porrectis manibus suffragia ferebant: unde illud Ciceronis pro L. Flacco, Porrexerunt mantus: psephisma nature est ;” — “Who gave their votes by holding up their hands: hence that statement made by Cicero in his Oration in behalf of L. Flaccus — They held up their hands — a decree was passed. ” Allusion is made to the same custom among the Greeks in the writings of Xenophon, Καὶ ὅτῳ δοκεῖ ἔφη ταῦτα αἰρέτω τὴν χεῖρα ἀνέτειναν πάντες — “Whoever is of this mind,” says he, “let him lift up his hand — they all lifted up their hands.” (Xen. deExped. Cyri. lib. v. p. 283.)” Ενδοξε δ ἀναβαλέσθαι ἐς ἑτέραν ἐκκλησίαν τότε γὰρ ὀψὲ ἦν καὶ τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἄν καθεώρων — “But it seemed good to postpone the matter till another assembly, for it was then late, and they could not see the hands.” — (Xen. Hist. Grace. lib. 1, p. 350.) — Ed. <\/p>\n (18) The brother, whose praise is in the gospel.<\/strong>We cannot get beyond probable conjecture in determining who this was. The general current of patristic interpretation (represented, we may add, in the Collect for St. Lukes Day in the Prayer Book of the Church of England, though not in that of the Breviary of the Church of Rome) ran in favour of St. Luke; but this rested on the assumption, for which there is no evidence, and against which there is a strong balance of probabilities, that he was already well known as the writer of a Gospel. (See Introduction to St. Luke, <\/em>Vol. I., p. 239.) Apart from this, however, it may be urged that there is more evidence in favour of this hypothesis than of any other. If the words be interpreted, as they must, as pointing to a preacher of the gospel, we have indications of St. Luke having done this at Antioch, at Troas, and at Philippi. None of the other companions of St. Paul who have been suggested, such as Tychicus or Trophimus, was likely to have so wide-spread a reputation. None was so likely to be with him at the time at Philippi. And it may be noted furtherand this, so far as I know, is a point which has not hitherto been dwelt onthat there was no man so fitted to stir up the Corinthians, by his personal character, to a worthy completion of the good work they had begun. We have seen that in his Gospel he dwells emphatically on all parts of our Lords teaching that point out the danger of riches and the blessedness of a generous almsgiving (see Introduction to St. Luke,<\/em> Vol. I., p. 242); how at Philippi his influence was traceable in the liberal supplies sent to St. Paul at Thessalonica (see Note on Act. 16:40<\/span>, and Php. 4:15<\/span>) and at Corinth (see Note on 2Co. 11:9<\/span>). Was not such a man, we may ask, eminently adapted for the mission on which the brother, whose praise is in the gospel, was now sent? and was not the Apostle likely to choose him above all others for it? For Mark and Gaius, who have also been suggested, there is not a shadow of evidence; and as the latter was of Corinth (Rom. 16:23<\/span>), he was not likely to have been sent thither from Philippi. The tense, we have sent, is, as before, the epistolary aorist, used of the time at which the letter was being written.<\/p>\n 18<\/strong>. <\/strong> We have sent<\/strong> With this epistle and in regard to the collections. <\/p>\n The brother<\/strong> The long debated question who this brother <\/strong> was, has, we think, been completely set at rest by Baynes in his “Horae Lucanae.” See notes on Luk 24:13<\/span>; Act 6:9<\/span> and Act 13:1<\/span>. The proofs, both negative and affirmative, all centre upon Luke. First we may exclude Barnabas, Silas, and Mark, for all the probabilities are, that none of these three were in present association with him, but that they were at a distance from Macedonia, and so could not have been sent from there. We may also exclude Trophimus, named by Alford, for, <\/p>\n 1. Paul’s acquaintance with him commenced after this time, Act 20:4<\/span>; Act 20:2<\/span>. Trophimus does not appear at this time to have had any notoriety in the gospel throughout all the Churches<\/strong>. Positively in favour of Luke: 1. He was in all probability, as appears from our notes above quoted, here at Philippi. <\/p>\n 2. A few months after writing this, Paul, in his epistle to Rome from Corinth, sends Lucius’ greetings; from which it is clear that Luke did go to Corinth at or shortly after the sending of this epistle. Note, Act 13:1<\/span>. <\/p>\n 3. How intimate Luke was with Paul, now and later, appears from the fact that when Paul and company departed from Corinth with the contributions in route through Macedonia to Jerusalem, Paul, even in separating from the rest of his retinue, took Luke with him. Act 20:5-6<\/span><\/em>. Trophimus was in the company left. <\/p>\n 4. The phrase in the gospel <\/strong> has its weight. For even if we do not insist, with Mr. Baynes, that Luke had already written his Gospel <\/strong> at Antioch, and if we admit that Luke’s written Gospel <\/strong> is not here designated, we can assuredly claim that the word gospel <\/strong> always has a tinge of reference to the Christ-history as the basis and true embodiment of the Christian scheme and doctrine. It is undoubtedly true that Luke’s genius was decidedly historical, and as a teacher <\/strong> at Antioch, (Act 13:1<\/span>,) the gospel and pentecostal history were doubtless peculiarly the base of his teachings. That in this department he was famous among the Churches is probable; and certainly, taken in connexion with the fact of the subsequent actual publication of his gospel<\/strong>, we think the great force of this phrase must be confessed. <\/p>\n 5. The superscription at the end of the epistle, though by no means decisive, has its weight in favour of Luke 6<\/span>. In favour of Luke are Origen, Primasius, Jerome, Whitby, Wordsworth, and others.<\/p>\n ‘And we have sent together with him the brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the churches, and not only so, but who was also appointed by the churches to travel with us in the matter of this grace, which is ministered by us to the glory of the Lord, and to show our readiness.’<\/p>\n And with Titus is coming a man who is highly respected in financial and indeed all matters, among all the churches. His praise with regard to Gospel matters is known throughout the churches. In spiritual terms he is not a nobody. He is the very man selected by the churches to travel with Paul and administer, along with him, the funds being collected, which is an act of service being ministered to the glory of God. The fact that his name is not mentioned may indicate that he was not actually known to the Corinthians. It certainly suggests that he was not one of Paul’s companions. (He may temporarily even have forgotten the man’s name).<\/p>\n Note the reference to the funds as ‘this grace’, this opportunity of showing and demonstrating the work of the grace of God within the givers. This expression of the goodness and love of God, and of His people, is considered as being as important as other ways of making known the Gospel.<\/p>\n ‘And to show our readiness.’ This man’s presence with them as Paul’s partner in the enterprise demonstrates Paul’s own readiness in the matter.<\/p>\n 2Co 8:18<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>The brother, whose praise is in the Gospel<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> This is generally supposed to have been St. Luke, <\/em>who now was, and had been a long while, St. Paul’s companion in his travels. Many ancient Christians understood the expression, whose praise in the Gospel is in all the churches, <\/em>as referring to the universal approbation with which St. Luke’s gospel was every where received. This may be included; but the Apostle’s meaning seems more extensive: “Whose praise is in the Gospel, on account of the various and eminent services which he has done for the interests of Christianity, wherever his influence has extended, both by his writings and exhortations.” <\/p>\n 2Co 8:18<\/span> . Recommendation of the first companion of Titu.<\/p>\n . ] The refers, like , to Titus: we have sent along with him<\/em> . Comp. 2Co 8:22<\/span> . See Lobeck, ad Phryn.<\/em> p. 354. Comp. Gal 2:12<\/span> ; Act 1:26<\/span> ; Act 25:12<\/span> ; Mat 17:3<\/span> . Bengel takes it incorrectly: “una misimus ego et Timotheus<\/em> ,” which is contained in the plural<\/em> , but not in the compoun.<\/p>\n . . .] is understood by Heumann and Rckert of an actual<\/em> brother, viz. a brother of Titus<\/em> . But in 2Co 8:23<\/span> shows that Paul has here and in 2Co 8:22<\/span> f. taken in the sense of Christian<\/em> brotherhood. It would not have been in keeping with the prudence<\/em> of the apostle to send with Titus the very brother of the latter and even his own brother (according to Rckert’s view of . . ., 2Co 8:22<\/span> ). Who<\/em> is meant, remains quite an open question. Some have conjectured Barnabas<\/em> ( in Chrysostom, and Chrysostom himself, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, and others) or Silas<\/em> (Baronius, Estius); but the rank<\/em> of these was not consistent with the position of a companion subordinate to Titus<\/em> ; nor is there anywhere a trace of Barnabas and Paul having ever united again for common work after their separation (Act 15:39<\/span> ). Others (comp. also the usual subscription of the Epistle) think that it was Luke<\/em> . So Origen, in Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Primasius, Anselm, Cajetanus, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, including Grotius, Emmerling, Schrader, Olshausen, Khler ( Abfassungszeit<\/em> , p. 85), of whom those named before Grotius<\/em> referred . to the Gospel of Luke (at that time not yet even in existence). But from the very brief statement of Act 20:1<\/span> ff. there is no proof to be drawn either for<\/em> (Olshausen) or against<\/em> (Rckert); and Ignatius, ad Ephes<\/em> . (interpol.) 15, to which Emmerling, after Salmeron and others, has again appealed, proves nothing further than that this unknown author either referred or merely applied our passage to Luke. The conjecture which points to Erastus<\/em> (Ewald, following Act 19:22<\/span> ; 2Ti 4:20<\/span> ) cannot be made good. With just as little proof some have thought of Mark<\/em> (Lightfoot, Chron<\/em> . p. 118; Storr, Opusc<\/em> . II. p. 339; Tobler, Evangelienfr<\/em> . p. 12). The result<\/em> remains: we do not know who it was<\/em> . So much only in reference to the two persons indicated here and in 2Co 8:22<\/span> , and in opposition to the conjectures adduced, is clear from 2Co 8:23<\/span> , that they were not fellow-labourers in the apostolic work, like Titus, but other Christians of distinction. [279] See on 2Co 8:23<\/span> . Against this non liquet<\/em> Rckert indeed objects, that in that case the Corinthians would not have known which of the two was meant to be here designated, since in 2Co 8:23<\/span> both are called , by which all distinction is precluded. But this first companion is in 2Co 8:19<\/span> so distinctively indicated as appointed by a special elective act of the churches concerned<\/em> , and appointed just for this particular work, that he could not be unknown by name to the Corinthians, after Titus had already begun there the work of collection (2Co 8:6<\/span> ). Besides, Paul might leave all further information to Titu.<\/p>\n . . .] i.e. who possesses his praise<\/em> (that duly belonging to him) in the gospel<\/em> (in the cause of the gospel, in confessing, furthering, preaching, defending it, and the like), spread through all the churches<\/em> , throughout the whole Christian body. He was a Christian worthy of trust and praised by all.<\/p>\n [279] Hence also we can hardly think of Trophimus<\/em> (de Wette, Wieseler), Act 20:4<\/span> ; Act 21:29<\/span> : nor, with Hofmann, of Aristarchus<\/em> , Act 19:29<\/span> ; Act 20:4<\/span> .<\/p>\n 18 And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is<\/em> in the gospel throughout all the churches; <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 18. Whose praise is in the Gospel<\/strong> ] St Luke, likely, who first wrote the Gospel, as some gather out of Luk 1:1<\/span> , and whom Ambrose highly commendeth for the most clear and distinct gospel writer. <\/p>\n 18 21.<\/strong> ] Commendation of a brother sent with Titus<\/em> .<\/p>\n 18.<\/strong> ] <\/strong> cannot surely be, as some Commentators (Heumann, Rckert) have understood, ‘ the brother of Titus<\/em> :’ the delicate nature of the mission would require that there should be at least no family connexion between those sent to fulfil it. This and the other are called in 2Co 8:23<\/span> , , and were unquestionably Christian brethren<\/em> in the usual sense. Who this was<\/em> , we know not. Chrys., Theodoret, cum., Luther, Calvin, suppose Barnabas<\/em> to be meant; but there is no historical ground for this, and we can hardly suppose him put under Titus. Baronius and Estius suppose, Silas<\/em> ; to whom this last objection would also apply; besides that he was well known to the Corinthians, and therefore would not need this recommendation. Orig [12] , Jerome, in Chrys., Ambrose, Pelagius, Primasius, Anselm, Cajetan, Grot., Olsh., al., suppose Luke<\/em> : and of these all before Grot. (who pointed out the mistake; which however I see reproduced in Mr. Birks’s Hor Apostolic, p. 242 f.) suppose to refer to his gospel, , Chrys. Hom. xviii. p. 564; but this is altogether without proof, as is the assumption that it was Mark<\/em> (Lightfoot, Storr). It may have been Trophimus<\/em> , who ( Act 20:4 ) accompanied Paul into Asia, and ( Act 21:29 ) to Jerusalem: so De Wette, Wieseler. If the expression whose praise in<\/strong> (the matter of) the Gospel is throughout all the Churches<\/strong> , is to be compared with any similar eulogium, that of Gaius in Rom 16:23 seems to correspond most nearly: <\/strong> : but he was resident at Corinth<\/em> , see 1Co 1:14<\/span> . A Gaius, a Macedonian, is mentioned Act 19:29<\/span> , as one of the of Paul, as here, together with Aristarchus, which latter we know accompanied him to Jerusalem (but see below on ch. 2Co 9:4 ).<\/p>\n [12] Origen, b. 185, d. 254<\/p>\n It must then rest in uncertainty.<\/p>\n 2Co 8:18<\/span> . . . .: and we have sent<\/em> (the epistolary aorist; cf.<\/em> Act 23:30<\/span> , chap. 2Co 9:3<\/span> , Phi 2:28<\/span> , Phm 1:12<\/span> ) together with him the brother, sc.<\/em> , the brother whom you know ( cf.<\/em> chap. 2Co 12:18<\/span> ), whose praise in the Gospel, i.e.<\/em> , whose good repute as a labourer in the cause of the Gospel ( cf.<\/em> chap. 2Co 10:14<\/span> , Phi 4:3<\/span> , Rom 1:9<\/span> ), is throughout all the Churches, i.e.<\/em> , is spread abroad in all the Churches through which I have passed ( cf.<\/em> 1Co 7:17<\/span> ; 1Co 14:33<\/span> ; see 2Co 11:28<\/span> ). The Patristic reference (Origen, Jerome, etc.) of these words to St. Luke is stereotyped in the Collect for St. Luke’s Day, but there is hardly room for doubt that this is due to a mistaken interpretation of as signifying a written<\/em> Gospel, rather than the “good news” of God delivered orally by the first Christian preachers. We have no positive data by which to determine which of St. Paul’s contemporaries is here alluded to. It has been argued that as this unnamed “brother” is seemingly subordinate to Titus, he must not be identified with persons so important as ( e.g.<\/em> ) Apollos or Silas; and, again, that, as he was apparently not a Macedonian (2Co 9:4<\/span> ), he cannot be any of the prominent members of the Macedonian Church (see on 2Co 8:5<\/span> above). Trophimus the Ephesian is not impossible (see Act 20:4<\/span> ; Act 21:29<\/span> ), but it is idle to speculate where the evidence is so scanty. The important point about this unnamed brother is that he was selected not by St. Paul, but by the Churches who took part in the work of collecting money as their representative as is now explained.<\/p>\n sent. Greek. sumpempo. App-174. Only here and 2Co 8:22. gospel. App-140. <\/p>\n throughout. Greek. dia. App-104. 2Co 8:1. The brother was probably Luke. <\/p>\n 18-21.] Commendation of a brother sent with Titus.<\/p>\n 2Co 8:18. , we have sent along with him) Timotheus and I. So 2Co 8:1, etc. This word is repeated at 2Co 8:22 by anaphora;[48] and in this passage, where it first occurs, is emphatic with .- , the brother) It was unnecessary to name this companion of Titus, and that brother, who is spoken of at 2Co 8:22. See ch. 2Co 12:18. The ancients were of opinion, that Luke was intended; see the close of the epistle; comp. Phm 1:24.-, of whom) He, who is faithful in the Gospel, will be faithful also in matters of inferior importance.<\/p>\n [48] See Append. The repetition of the same word marking the beginnings of sections.<\/p>\n 2Co 8:18<\/p>\n 2Co 8:18 <\/p>\n And we have sent together with him the brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the churches;-He sent with Titus one whom he does not name, but describes him as one whose praise in the service of the gospel was spread abroad throughout all the churches. Some think this was Luke, and the gospel was his written gospel, then distributed throughout all the Gentile churches; that Luke wrote for the Gentiles under the preaching of Paul. This epistle was written from some point in Macedonia, when Luke was not with him. Luke had gone with him and Silas over this country on his first visit to Macedonia. In his account of the journey, as given in Acts, in referring to the company he uses we until they reach Philippi. (Act 16:12). Then he changes to they, showing that he remained in Philippi. When Paul and his fellow messengers, six years later, came to Philippi on the way to Jerusalem with the alms, Luke joined them, and the they is changed to we. (Act 20:6). During this time it is thought that the gospel was written by Luke and largely distributed through these Gentile churches, and so his praise in the gospel was spread abroad. But this is conjecture without much ground on which to base it. But the next verse says that this brother was appointed to travel with Paul to distribute this grace, and Luke in company with others did travel with him. <\/p>\n the brother: This is generally supposed to have been Said. Luke, “whose praise was in all the churches,” on account of the gospel which he had written, and for many zealous services in its cause. 2Co 8:19, 2Co 8:22, 2Co 8:23, 2Co 12:18 <\/p>\n throughout: Rom 16:4 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 2Co 8:4 – that Phi 4:8 – praise<\/p>\n 2Co 8:18. The original for praise is defined by Thayer, “approbation, commendation, praise.” This brother had a good reputation among the churches for being true to the Gospel. He was sent with Titus as a moral protection aaginst any suspicion of misuse of the funds he was carrying.<\/p>\n 2Co 8:18. And we have sent together with him the brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the churches;<\/p>\n Verse 18<\/strong> <\/strong> Another brother, who was widely praised for his work in behalf of the gospel, went with Titus. <\/p>\n And we have sent together with him the brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the churches [Baynes, in his “Hor Lucan,” argues very conclusively that this was Luke. He was at Philippi about this time, and was among those who accompanied Paul from Macedonia (or perhaps Corinth) to Jerusalem (Act 20:2-6). The phrase “In the gospel” can hardly be taken as indicating that at this time Luke had written his Gospel, but the Gospel which he wrote is evidently not the work of a day. No doubt at this time Luke was so versed in the gospel history as to be fittingly described by the words here used by Paul]; <\/p>\n Verse 18 <\/p>\n The brother, whose praise, &c. It is not known to whom Paul here refers. Some conjecture that it was Luke; others, Mark; others, Silas or Barnabas.<\/p>\n 8:18 And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise [is] {i} in the gospel throughout all the churches;<\/p>\n (i) In the preaching of the Gospel.<\/p>\n The famous brother’s identity is also a mystery. He may have been Luke. [Note: See John Wenham, "The Identification of Luke," Evangelical Quarterly 63:1 (1991):3-44; and Hughes, p. 313.] <\/span> Or he may have been any one of a number of others who assisted Paul. The churches of Macedonia, Asia Minor, and Galatia had chosen this man as a courier. They knew him well, and he had won their respect. Paul personally supervised the project for a double reason. He saw it as an opportunity to promote the glory of the Lord and to lend a hand in helping his needy brethren (cf. Mat 22:37-39).<\/p>\n And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise [is] in the gospel throughout all the churches; 18. And we have sent with him ] Literally, we sent with him, unless the tense be what is known as the epistolary aorist (see above, ch. 2Co 2:9), in which case these messengers were also the … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Corinthians 8:18”<\/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-28896","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28896","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=28896"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28896\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28896"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28896"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28896"}],"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: 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: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books<\/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":"