CRITICAL NOTES
2 Corinthians 11:1.—Small change of rendering, “a bit of foolishness,” because of small variation of reading. “For, on my own principle (2 Corinthians 10:18), it is foolishness.” To appreciate how “foolish” such talking about himself is, look at the (eight) occurrences of the word (or its cognates) here, and in Romans 2:20; Ephesians 5:17; 1 Corinthians 15:36. “Yet only a little bit will I indulge in, and that because I love you.” Choose between (indic.), “I will not say would that; ye do”; and (imper.), “Would that …; yea, I beg of you, do.” No “to God” in Greek.
2 Corinthians 11:2. Godly.—Lit. as margin; as 2 Corinthians 1:12. [Cf. 2 Corinthians 7:9-11 (but not Hebrews 12:28); also cf. Acts 7:20.] Espoused.—Paul is the Friend of the Bridegroom (like the Baptist, John 3:29. The Rabbis called Moses the “Friend” between Israel and God). The Church is to be the Virgin-wife by-and-by. We are here in the interval between the betrothal, which Paul has effected, and the actual bringing of the Bride to her Husband, when his office shall be perfected. [“Between … betrothal and … marriage … the bride-elect lived with her friends, and all communication between herself and her future husband was carried on through the medium of a friend deputed for the purpose, termed the ‘friend of the bridegroom (John 3:29). She was now virtually regarded as the wife of her future husband.… Faithlessness was punishable with death.” (Smith, B. D., s.v. “Marriage.”] Hence Paul’s “jealousy.” He is responsible for bringing to the “one man” Christ an unspotted, “virgin” Church.
2 Corinthians 11:3. The “corrupters” being the bride’s “friends” (ut supr.) or other “suitors,” viz. the rival teachers of Corinth. Same idea of rival aspirants to a damsel’s hand and heart in Galatians 4:17, “They are hot in their courting,” etc.
1. Observe, he is not concerned lest himself, Paul, should be robbed of their love, but that the Husband, Christ, should be.
2. Observe, also, “the purity” (by a better reading) and “unto Christ” not “in.” The virgin simplicity and purity are to be kept inviolate for the sake of the love of the Husband.
3. Observe, the story of Eve and the serpent is (unquestionably) to Paul a real, historical event. Not quoted merely as a scholar might quote an apposite parallel from classical mythology in (say) Ovid or Virgil. That the Holy Spirit likewise sets His attestation upon it, also follows, to all who accept Paul as in these letters the organ of the “Spirit unto the Churches” (Revelation 2:3); Paul is here used by Him to trace in a sample instance the daily, ordinary workings of evil back to him whose first, and too successful, attempt has been the pattern and germ of all since. [“Serpent” only mentioned in Genesis; Wisdom (Wis. 2:24) first makes the serpent the Devil; cf. Revelation 12:9; Revelation 20:2.]
2 Corinthians 11:4. Observe, “Jesus,” “Spirit” (not “spirit”), “Gospel.” Well.—Ironically (as perhaps Mark 7:9). Conybeare and Howson think, “bear with me.” Observe indicative. Also, no particular person meant.
2 Corinthians 11:5. Very chiefest.—As in 2 Corinthians 12:11. Q.d. “Therefore you should much rather bear with me, for,” etc.
2 Corinthians 11:6.—Very old question, e.g. between Jerome (“Yes”) and Augustine (“No”), whether Paul seriously means this, or is only quoting his enemies. In any case the want of rhetorical grace was a voluntary abnegation [an “emptying of himself”] (1 Corinthians 2:1-5). [Cf. John Wesley: “I could even now write as floridly and rhetorically as the admired Dr. B—; but I dare not; because I seek the honour that cometh of God only.… I dare no more write in a fine style than wear a fine coat” (Works, vi. 186).] Observe the better reading. Knowledge.—The special “gift” (1 Corinthians 1:5; 1 Corinthians 13:2; 1 Corinthians 12:18).
HOMILETIC ANALYSIS.— 2 Corinthians 11:1-6
We have Paul the Paranymph (the Friend of the Bridegroom).
I. His work.—To deliver, in her virgin purity and simplicity, the betrothed Church to her expectant Lord and Husband. [Cf. “bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18).]
1. Marriage, closest of earthly unions, intended by its Great Ordainer to be a permanent, lifelong union, is the suggestive hint in the world of things natural of that closest spiritual union, between Christ and His people, which makes them a Unit, “Christ” (Galatians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 12:12). That revealed, the key is given to the significance and sanctity of marriage. [So, in connection with counsels as to husbands and wives, Ephesians 5:27, Paul says: “To present … to Himself a glorious Church,”—as His “Bride, the Lamb’s Wife” (Revelation 21:9)—“not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, … without blemish.” All the Old Testament figurative language about marriage, adultery, divorce, restoration, as regards God’s people and their relation to Him, is not simply a happy use of a natural fact, but rests on this deep, original, designed fitness in marriage to exhibit the spiritual relations.]
2. What a day of joyous memory to the soul itself, and to the human instrument, is that when he stood by and saw the “love of espousals” (Jeremiah 2:2), when the soul first got to know its Christ, to whom from that hour it was to be united;—the first tender love, so sensitive to anything which would grieve Him; the simplicity of heart, judgment, purpose, desiring nothing but to think what He thought, and desire what He desired, and to please the new, and so dear, Friend in everything; nothing kept back, no after-thoughts, or under thoughts, nothing but a simple, loving, pure opening-up of all the heart and life to the knowledge and guidance of Christ. Then the yet earlier memories of the incidents, the providences, the drawings of the Spirit, the half-understood going-out of the heart, the meeting with Paul or some other,—all leading up to the introduction and espousal. [How Lydia would remember “the first day” (Philippians 1:5).] One of the earthly anniversaries never to fade away into oblivion, but still to be kept most joyously even in eternity!
3. What a day of joyful, holy anticipation that, when for the first time I see, literally and “face to face” (1 Corinthians 13:12), the Christ of Whom I have been hearing, thinking, speaking, so long; “Whom not having seen I have loved” (1 Peter 1:8), and Who has loved me so much better than I have deserved, or could ever have expected. How joyous to Him, “satisfied” at last (Isaiah 53:11), to look into the face of His Bride, “resting in His love, rejoicing over her with joy” (Zephaniah 3:17); repaid at last for Gethsemane and Calvary; reaping at last the fruit of the age-long “purpose” of His Father’s heart and His own (Revelation 13:8; Ephesians 3:11); tasting in full draught the cup of “the joy that was set before Him” (Hebrews 12:2), having now all He desired and died for. And how joyous to the Paranymph, glad to stand aside and see Bride and Bridegroom meet, she brought safely at last to her Husband’s home, himself forgotten by them in their mutual joy. [So John Baptist, “This my joy is fulfilled.”] His responsibility is then over; the “care of the Churches” will no longer press, even as a not ungrateful burden. “I present to Thee, Lord, a chaste, virgin Church.” [In all this, “Church,” “Church,” practically means “Christian,” “Christian.” The Church and its history are only multiples of the Christian and his history. Or, conversely, the individual reproduces, in miniature but complete copy, the history of the whole.]
II. His feelings: “jealousy,” “fear.”—
1. Jealousy often has in us an evil connotation and colouring. It is selfish. Pride is touched when the transferred love, won from us by another, tells that we are not first, or counted best. In God (or Christ) it is not “selfish,” except with the “selfishness” of the king who cannot tolerate a rival king in his realm or on his throne. God may, must (as we may not), claim that all the heart shall, unshared, be His. Paul’s jealousy has no selfish tinge. No great matter whether converts transfer their love for him to rival teachers or not, but a great matter whether these rival teachers come courting the Lord’s betrothed One, and steal her love from Him; a great matter if they tamper with the simple, pure, direct love of her heart for Him.
2. The pain to a minister of Christ to see his converts “leave their first love,” become worldly, return to, and guilefully plead for and defend, forms of sin which the healthier love of their betrothal condemned by instinct, because it grieved the Lord,—it is a great pain, not chiefly because his own work seems ending in failure, but because the Lord will be “so disappointed,” and the unfaithful souls are preparing for themselves such eternal loss.
3. Very well to be tolerant, broad, towards other forms of teaching and other types, or Churches, of Christian workers; but there is no virtue in a toleration which can stand by and with silent equanimity see the beautiful promise of early, tender love to Christ spoiled, the simple conscience being sophisticated and entangled in worldly sophistries, the life being “brought again into bondage” to once forsaken sins.
4. Let the soul itself beware of the “corrupting” process (1 Corinthians 15:33). Lend no ear, Eve-like, to the arguments, suggestions, “more liberal” reasonings and practice of the world, or of a worldly Church; the old Serpent is in them all, at his old work, with his old “craftiness.” It is Eden and the Fall in perpetual repetition. The very (necessary) contact with evil and evil men is corrupting, or at least perilous; even mental contact with evil in books is not without danger. The tender susceptibility of conscience is easily impaired; it “takes a fine edge,” and loses it readily. Let a “jealous” guard be kept over the loyalty of the heart to Christ; let the first sign of a waning sense of His being supremely “dear,” be noted, confessed, forgiven. Intercourse with Him, though He be unseen, must be frequent. Only thus can love to Him breathe or live in the corrupt atmosphere; only a vigorous inner life of consecration to Him can throw off the infection around, and live through it unharmed. The sense of duty to Him must be cultivated—“I am reserved for Him”; every disregard of Duty dulls the perception of Duty. Acts make habits of mind and heart [and body]. Every betrothed soul “that hath its hope set upon Him, purifieth itself,” etc. (1 John 3:3). [Cf. 1 John 2:28; 2 Peter 3:14.]
III. His methods.—
1. He is a “preacher.” [1 Corinthians 1:21 not to be used here.]
2. He preaches a Jesus, through Whom his hearers receive a Spirit. [In this case the personal Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 2:12).]
3. His message is a Gospel. It is good news for an outcast world, that God sends His servants to say, “Come to the wedding,” even as guests. Good news that to alienated man it is proclaimed that a [marriage] fellowship with God is again possible, resting on two great facts, resting upon the work of two Divine Persons. Outside us, and abiding here, whether men avail themselves of it or not, is the work of Christ,—the basis of all. Within us, and depending for its actuality and continuity upon our acceptance of it and co-operation with it, are the gift, the indwelling, the work, of the Spirit. No fellowship without the Spirit; no Spirit without Christ; no Gospel without a “Jesus” and a “Holy Ghost.” A “Gospel” which should ignore either Person, or His office and work, would be no Gospel at all. A “Gospel” which should undervalue or understate (say) the doctrine of the Holy Spirit—though, on the other hand, it should “proclaim” the “blood,” the “cross,” the “atonement” of Christ never so loudly and earnestly—would be an imperfect Gospel. There can be “another Gospel” [not “another,” i.e. a companion, parallel, Gospel; it is a “different” Gospel, Galatians 1:6-7, and here, as R.V.], “another Jesus,” “another Spirit.” [This last in 1 Corinthians 2:12—in accordance with that parallelism of phrases and facts which in Scripture obtains between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness—seems almost to imply an action of the Evil One upon the soul, comparable to that of the Holy One upon it.] A “Gospel” which should minify or suppress an Atonement for guilt by a Sacrifice upon the Cross; which should deal with men as though there were no guilt, and no Sacrifice were needed; a “Gospel” whose appeal to men should assume that they can, if they will, rise out of and above their old and evil self, and by self-originated, self-sustained effort can improve some inherent, natural “goodness,” and that they need no external, Divine help and grace; a “Gospel” which should propose to renovate the world, to regenerate the man, by sanitation, art, music, intellectual culture; such—true or false, as their exponents or opponents may deem them—are at all events “different Gospels” from that preached by, and successful in the hands of, Paul and the “Evangelical” preacher. They are proved such experimentally; for they do not bring about any “betrothal” of the soul to Christ. Not the phrase only, but the thing, is scouted by some of the human “Gospels of the age.” There is some help in some of them; much help in a few; but they miss the deepest need of human hearts. They do not take into sufficient account [e.g. in denying a vicarious atonement] some instincts of human hearts which Paul’s—Christ’s—Gospel has been proved to meet. Only one Gospel, yet men scarcely tolerate it; many deceivers and false Gospels, and men “bear them finely”! There may be “a different Christ.” E.g. one something less than Divine as the Father is Divine; one who is the Head, the Crown, the Flower, the mediating Origin of all creaturely existence, nearest the Creator, and yet all the great gulf between Creator and Creature between him and God. Or one who is only “Jesus,” the very flower of the Race, the choicest exponent and embodiment of all that is most lovely and noble in Manhood, a human teacher, who spake indeed “as never man spake” save himself, but yet with a wisdom and knowledge only different in degree—not in kind—from that which “inspires” the highest type of human teachers. Or, still lower, an amiable, well-intentioned, philanthropic, enthusiastic soul, in full communion with nature, who could, and did, make mistakes in conduct and judgment; who could [and perhaps did] sin, at least in spirit and temper; who was hurried into unadvised, unintended courses by the force of circumstances, and played into the hands of enemies who compassed his death. [The growing prevalence of the use of “Jesus” instead of “Christ” is significant. It means (frequently, happily) a clearer, truer realisation of the historical side of the life and work of the Incarnate Redeemer, with the aid of a wealth of geographical, historical, literary, antiquarian knowledge which never was available until to-day, till we see and hear Jesus of Nazareth and His surroundings of persons and circumstances, almost as if we had lived amongst His contemporaries. A good thing, but needing to be watched, lest we see “Jesus” so clearly that we cannot see the “Christ.” The very apostles needed not only that the Spirit should purify their eyes, and enable them to understand the true dignity of their Divine Friend, but also that the embarrassment and obscuration of close everyday intercourse with the man, should be removed by time and absence, and they be left free to see “their Lord and their God.” The change of name often means also a “naturalism” of estimate and of representation of Christ and His work, whose tendency is so to overstate the “emptying” of Philippians 2:7 that human limitations, and even liabilities, leave too little room for the Divine Son in the teaching and the work.] [The believing heart needs to watch against the “corruption” of the “simplicity” of adoring, worshipping belief in a Jesus, Who is Incarnate God as certainly as He was the (to-day more vividly known) Jesus of Nazareth. The closest intercourse between the soul and her Betrothed must be kept up. The “Spirit” must take that Godhead of her Lord which only He can really reveal (1 Corinthians 12:3), and which is a holy “secret” of love between the Lord and the soul (cf. Psalms 25:14); the soul’s life must so rest upon a Divine Christ, that it can bear to know the historic Jesus better, without any peril of knowing the Divine, Redeeming, Incarnate Son of God less well. Hard to balance, to combine, both. But semi-naturalist “Lives of Christ” must not leave us with “another Jesus.”] Paul in Philippians 1:18 is very “liberal,” “broad,” rejoicing that men who would not otherwise do so, are hearing of Christ, and this though the preachers—many of them his opponents the Judaisers—preach an aspect, exhibit a form, of the Gospel which was by no means his own, or that which he thought truest and best. Yet, with perfect consistency, he is very “narrow” and intolerant of another Gospel or another Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11; Galatians 1:6-9; Galatians 5:11-12; and, in effect, here). The same supreme loyalty to Christ, the same ardent devotion to Him, rules in both cases, but is conditioned differently in its resulting expression.
IV. His qualifications.—
1. “Rude in speech.” Some justification for this, though the phrase is the phrase of detraction and depreciation. The portrait drawn by an enemy must have some measure of resemblance. We know that he had deliberately refused to himself even the liberty to employ the aid of rhetoric to win attention and acceptance for his Master and his Message. Others, even his friend Apollos, might, blamelessly, use any rhetorical power, inborn or acquired, laying it under contribution for the service of Christ. Succeed or fail, he would not. [Too much must not be made of any supposed discouragement over a “failure” at Athens, just before coming to Corinth. The address on Mars’ Hill was not without its converts; nor was it specially ornate in form; it was, moreover, just coming to (very Evangelical) talk about Resurrection and Judgment, when it was suddenly broken off by the hearers’ outburst of laughter. It was not that he had tried the rhetorical method at Athens, and had failed to make converts; it was rather the imperviousness of the intellectual mood to serious appeal, manifest in the majority of his Athenian audience, which made so emphatic his determination that at Corinth nothing should even seem to aim at flattering the “intellect” or tickling the “cultured” ear of the Corinthians.] [See further, under 1 Corinthians 2:13; and in Farrar, St. Paul, Appendix, Excursus I., II., III., are very full discussions and quotations of opinion, as to the style of Paul’s writing (and so, probably, of his speaking also).] Ought we to call this “rudeness” rather a disqualification? No. He wished to make souls hear and love not his voice, but the voice of the Bridegroom. [Sometimes a preacher will preach so “well,” that, like John Alden pleading or Miles Standish, the pleader, all unintentionally, wins the ear and heart for himself, and holds them back from the Lord for Whom He pleads. So the “execution” and voice of the singer will sometimes make the very song to be almost unheeded. Cf. Ezekiel 33:32; the prophet’s message went for nothing.] A successful winner of souls may, should, bring every natural or acquired ability into the service of his Master. But always with a most watchful jealousy over himself lest he himself should thus “corrupt” his hearers “from the simplicity and purity,” and really do the work of the Tempter. Always with a completeness of consecration of all gifts to the supreme, sole, glory Christ; and this for some hearers, and with the personal liability of some preachers, may sometimes mean the disuse of some gifts, or their very sparing employment. The glory of success will then be manifestly due, not to the eloquence of the preacher, but to the power of God. [This all more fully under 1 Cor. ut supr.] The man who is willing to be nothing, that the Lord may be everything, is qualified for the work of bringing souls and Christ together. Provided that he be “not rude in knowledge”; for above all in the things of God, the man who is shallow and crude will only be a workman “to be ashamed.” No knowledge ever comes amiss to a preacher; like Sir Walter Scott, he will learn never to talk to any man without picking up something which he may turn to good account; he cannot know too well men and affairs and the world of nature or the arts, if only all his knowledge be laid before Christ as gifts upon the altar. But with or without this he must know “the things of God.” [The preacher who is well-read, well-informed, about everything except the very subjects which are the materials of his “business,” makes a mistake. The Bible is the text-book of his spiritual Medicine; Theology is the Science of his Art of Healing; men are “cases” of heart-sickness, for his physicianly study and help. So far as study and hard work can do it, he should “qualify,” “with honours” if he can, as a soul-physician. Poor talk to hear a preacher cry down “theology”; poor praise that he be better at everything than at soul-saving preaching.] No premium must be put upon coarseness or vulgarity of thought or expression; this is no qualification for a minister of Christ. But want of polish, or defective utterance, is consistent with real ability, deep knowledge, great success. Many of the least “gifted” are the very “little children” to whom is given entrance into, and foremost place in, the kingdom of God (Matthew 18:1-4). With what persuasive power do some, “little qualified,” speak of the blessedness of fellowship with Christ into which they desire to bring other men. How they “know Christ,” with a knowledge, an intimacy, only given to “disciples whom Jesus loves.” Not only is their motto, “This one thing I do,” but, “This one thing I know.” They are not “rude in” the experienced “knowledge” of Divine things. Paul was not. It is no empty boast in 2 Corinthians 11:5. It is no boast, in any sense of self-assertion or exaltation. It is simple fact that, not only in comparison with the “super-eminent” (but “false,” “sham”) “apostles” at Corinth, but in competition with the true apostles of Christ, he has left his mark most deeply on the form of Christian revelation, or is only approached by John. More than any other, did he seem to “know” the mind and will of Christ. And, as always happens, there was a “native,” prearranged fitness in the “vessel,” to receive and convey the truth.
HOMILETIC SUGGESTIONS
2 Corinthians 11:2. Espoused to Christ.
I. Your privilege;—implies believing union with Christ; special duties and enjoyments; entire consecration as to one husband.
II. Your espousals effected by the grace of God; through the ministry of the Word.
III. Your obligations, to preserve your purity; that we may present you to Christ; for this we are jealous over you.—[J. L.]
[Cautiously, use may be made of the experiences or memories of the days of “engagement,” to make vivid the nature and effects of the love for our absent, but real, Friend. Is there no “engagement ring,” and no “marriage ring,” between Christ and His soul-bride? A first pledge of love and a second given in the beginnings of their closer acquaintance and mutual affection; to be far outdone by another love-token which shall be given when first the Bride steps with Him over the threshold into the heaven which is eternally to be their Home together. How love works:—There is the frequent interchange of messages by letter whilst apart. Each lives in the constant thought of the other; each is prompted to be thinking for, contriving little pleasures for, the other, even in absence. Each is trying to be, and to do, what the other would like. Also ask: “Soul, has thy Lord had to give His Betrothed One a bill of divorcement, for any unfaithfulness to Him?”]
2 Corinthians 11:2. The work of the Ministry needs for its completeness—
I. Winning souls for Christ.—Yet some men, some Churches, do not follow this up by—
II. Keeping and preparing them for Christ.—[As Esther under the care of Hegai, was being got ready for the day of her actual marriage to the King.] By thorough training, educating, in holiness. Watching over them, watching against men, or habits, or books, which would “corrupt.” Never will minister say, or Church, “It is finished,” until—
III. They are presented, none missing, all pure, to Christ. [Concerning some converts, many a minister says: “I am almost thankful to hear they are gone to heaven. I never felt safe about them until now.”]
2 Corinthians 11:3. (Put on the Blackboard for an Address: S[atan]. S[ubtlety]. S[implicity.])
I. An adversary.—Count on him as against you; against all your best interests; against all that is best in your character; against all which makes Christ look with complacency on His Bride that is to be. Practically believe in a devil. A fool’s Paradise for you if you don’t. He comes even into a real Paradise. No place is sacred to him; no state of life, no work, no pleasure. Christian soldier is never doing a “sham fight.” Never can afford to “stand at ease.”
II. Favourite weapon and method.—Not often open attack; but bush-fighting warfare. Secret aim; deadly shots before we know danger near. “Resist the Devil?” Yes, when he gives the chance. But often has done us mischief before we knew of the danger. Hidden behind a plausible suggestion of excuse for doing less for Christ, or behind a plea for breadth; lurking in some natural affection; hidden in the sensuous fiction, which “everybody is reading.” “Having done all” (Ephesians 6:13),—when the open attack has been foiled, the seen danger escaped, the obvious sin refused,—when the battle seems over and the enemy has drawn off, and you, weary, want to rest from the strain of incessant watching,—“stand!” Just then have a care of the subtlety. You have passed safely through the temptation of illness? Take care of the subtle temptations of recovery. Have outlived unpopularity or persecution? Take heed of the subtle temptations of popularity and honour! etc, etc.
III. Your defence, and so his point of attack, will be your simplicity. (See Homiletic Analysis.) “Singleness of purpose, integrity, generosity, impartiality; that openness and sincerity of heart which repudiates duplicity in thought or action. No idea of simplicity in the ordinary use of the word, except … simple concerning evil, simple in respect of any attachment which might seduce them from the singleness of devotion, the undivided homage and affection due to Christ.” (Rev. W. Webster, M. A) A wonderful Ithuriel-spear-like touch has such a simplicity of thought and heart, in detecting sin in practice or proposal, and even such error in doctrine as would affect the glory or work of Christ. The little child has an instinct which unmasks the subtle Tempter. Let there be no touching or looking at the “apple,” lest the heart be drawn aside. In the face of Temptation you are undone if you reason; the swift, simple instinct will guide and save. Subtlety against subtlety,—you will be no match for Satan. Simplicity against subtlety,—you will conquer. Let the oldest Christian, with all the increase of knowledge and experience which years bring, keep the first tenderness of the little child stage; when the new-born love feared to do, or say, anything that would grieve Christ,—in friendships, business, pleasures, books.