Loading...
This is the third time I am coming to you - These words are nearly the same with those 2 Corinthians 12:14; and probably refer to the purpose which he had twice before formed of seeing them. But the latter clause seems to attach a different meaning to the passage; at least so it has been understood by some learned men.
Schoettgen thus interprets the whole: the first coming of the apostle to Corinth was when he personally visited them, and there founded the Christian Church. By his second coming we are to understand his first epistle to them; and, by his being now ready to come to them the third time, we are to understand this second epistle, which he was then going to send them. These were the two witnesses, and the apostle the third, which he gave to the Corinthians concerning the truth of his own ministry, or the falsity of the ministry of the pretended apostle.
Calmet contends that the apostle had been twice before at Corinth, and that he now purposed to go a third time; and that these visits were the two or three witnesses to which the apostle appeals.
Dr. Lightfoot thinks that the two or three witnesses were Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, sent to assure them of his coming. But this opinion cannot be supported.
With respect to the two or three witnesses establishing the subject, Dr. Whitby says. "Though these words seem to be cited from Deuteronomy 19:15, rather than from Matthew 18:16, it being rare to find this apostle citing any thing from the New Testament, without calling it an ordinance of the Lord, yet it is probable that he here alludes to the practice there prescribed for the reclaiming of offenders. And then his first epistle being written with this introduction: Paul an apostle, and Sosthenes; his second thus: Paul and Timotheus; may pass for two or three witnesses; and his presence the third time in person, to exercise his censures on those offenders, before the body of the Church, may bear a fair resemblance to our Lord's prescription in the above case: If thy brother offend," etc. - So far Whitby. See my notes on Matthew 18:16; (note).
This is the third time … - see the note on 2 Corinthians 12:14. For an interesting view of this passage, see Paley‘s Horae Paulinae on this Epistle, No. 11: It is evident that Paul had been to Corinth but once before this, but he had resolved to go before a second time, but had been disappointed.
In the mouth of two or three witnesses … - This was what the Law of Moses required; Deuteronomy 20:16; see the note on John 8:17; compare Matthew 18:16. But in regard to its application here, commentators are not agreed. Some suppose that Paul refers to his own epistles which he had sent to them as the two or three witnesses by which his promise to them would be made certain; that he had purposed it and promised it two or three times, and that as this was all that was required by the Law, it would certainly be established. This is the opinion of Bloomfield, Rosenmuller, Grotius, Hammond, Locke, and some others. But, with all the respect due to such great names, it seems to me that this would be trifling and childish in the extreme. Lightfoot supposes that he refers to Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, who would be witnesses to them of his purpose; see 1 Corinthians 16:17. But the more probable opinion, it seems to me, is that of Doddridge, Macknight, and others, that he anticipated that there wound be necessity for the administration of discipline there, but that he would feel himself under obligation in administering it to adhere to the reasonable maxim of the Jewish Law. No one should be condemned or punished where there was not at least two or three witnesses to prove the offence. But where there were, discipline would be administered according to the nature of the crime.