13. What is there in which. Here is an aggravation of their ingratitude — that he had been distinguished, that they might receive benefit — that they had derived advantage from the attestation furnished of his Apostleship, and had, notwithstanding, given their concurrence to the slanders (930) of the false Apostles. He subjoins one exception — that he had not been burdensome to them; and this, by way of irony, for in reality this was over and above so many acts of kindness, which he had conferred upon them — that he had served them gratuitously. To busy themselves after this, as they did, in pouring contempt upon him, what was this but to insult his modesty? Nay, what cruelty there was in it! Hence, it is not without good reason, that he sharply reproves pride so frantic. Forgive me this wrong, says he. For they were doubly ungrateful, inasmuch as they not only contemned the man, by whose acts of kindness they had been brought under obligation, but even turned his kind disposition into an occasion of reproach. Chrysostom is of opinion, that there is no irony implied, and that, instead of this, there is an expression of apology; but, if any one examines the entire context more narrowly, he will easily perceive, that this gloss is quite foreign to Paul’s intention.
(930) “ Aux injures et detractions;” — “The insults and slanders.”