Understanding 2 Cor. 13:14 [13]

[Emanuel Cardona]

I was referred to this verse while studying about prayers, in this particular case, directed to the Holy Spirit. Are there commentaries anyone on here owns and able to share that exegete 2 Cor. 13:14 [13]?: "... the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." I looked up the Greek word for "fellowship" in BDAG, but I still would like some more details, if possible. Thank you in advance!

[ukfraser]

This is from WBC 2nd edition

 

VIII. Conclusion (13:11–13)

 

 

Bibliography

 

Barclay, W. New Testament Words. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. HNTC. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Bigaré, C. “La paix de Dieu dans le Christ Jésus: Prière et mettre en pratique, Ph 4, 6–9.” AsSeign 58 (1974) 11–15. Bjerkelund, C. J. Parakalô: Form, Funktion und Sinn der Parakalô-Sätze in der paulinischen Briefen. Bibliotheca theologica Norvegica 1. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1967. Black, M. “The Maranatha Invocation and Jude 14, 15 (1 Enoch 1:9).” In Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. FS C. F. D. Moule, ed. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1973. 189–96. Campbell, J. Y. “koinwni÷a and Its Cognates in the New Testament.” JBL 51 (1932) 352–80. Champion, L. G. Benedictions and Doxologies in the Epistles of Paul. Published privately, Oxford, 1934. Crichton, J. D. “A Theology of Worship.” In The Study of Liturgy. Ed. C. Jones, G. Wainwright, and E. Yarnold. London: SPCK, 1978. 3–31. Cuming, G. J., ed. Hippolytus: A Text for Students. Bramcote, Nottingham: Grove, 1987. De Passe-Livet, J. “L’existence chrétienne: Participation à la vie trinitaire, 2 Cor 13, 11–13.” AsSeign 31 (1973) 10–13. Deichgräber, R. Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit: Untersuchungen zur Form, Sprache und Stil der frühchristlichen Hymnen. SUNT 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. Delling, G. “Die Bezeichnung ‘Gott des Friedens’ und ähnliche Wendungen in den Paulusbriefen.” In Jesus und Paulus. FS W. G. Kümmel, ed. E. E. Ellis and E. Grässer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. 76–84. Dobschütz, E. von. “Zwei- und dreiliedrige Formeln: Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der Trinitätsformel.” JBL 50 (1931) 117–47. Doty, W. Letters in Primitive Christianity. GBS. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973. Ebel, E. Die Attraktivität früher christlicher Gemeinden: Die Gemeinde von Korinth im Spiegel griechisch-römischer Vereine. WUNT 2.178. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2004. Elderen, B. van. “The Verb in the Epistolary Invocation.” CTJ 2 (1967) 46–48. Ellis, E. E. “Paul and His Co-Workers.” In Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. WUNT 2.18. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1978. 3–22. George, A. R. Communion with God in the New Testament. London: Epworth, 1953. Hainz, J. Ekklesia: Strukturen paulinischer Gemeinde-Theologie und Gemeinde-Ordnung. BU 9. Regensburg: Pustet, 1972. ———. Koinonia: “Kirche” als Gemeinschaft bei Paulus. BU 16. Regensburg: Pustet, 1982. Hawthorne, G. F. Philippians. Rev. and expanded by R. P. Martin. WBC 43. Nashville: Nelson, 2004. Hermann, I. Kyrios und Pneuma: Studien zur Christologie der paulinischen Hauptbriefe. SANT 2. Munich: Kösel, 1961. Jeremias, J. Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu: Kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958. Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds. 2nd ed. London: Longmans, 1960. ———. Early Christian Doctrines. London: A & C Black, 1958. Klassen, W. “The Sacred Kiss in the New Testament: An Example of Social Boundary Life.” NTS 39 (1993) 130–33. Lietzmann, H. Mass and Lord’s Supper: A Study in the History of the Liturgy. Trans. D. H. G. Reeve. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Lohmeyer, E. Der Brief an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon. 11th ed. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956. McDermott, M. “The Biblical Doctrine of koinwni÷a.” BZ n.s. 19 (1975) 64–77, 219–33. Metzger, B. M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 1968. Moule, C. F. D. “A Reconsideration of the Context of Maranatha.” NTS 6 (1959–1960) 307–10. ———. Worship in the New Testament. London: Lutterworth, 1961. Müllensiefen, W. “Wie sind 2 Kor. 13, 13 die drei Teile des Segenswunches inhaltlich auseinanderzuhalten und miteinander zu verbinden?” TSK 72 (1899) 254–66. Mullins, T. Y. “Benediction as a New Testament Form.” AUSS 15 (1977) 59–64. ———. “Greeting as a New Testament [vol. 40, p. 689] Form.” JBL 87 (1986) 418–26. Ollrog, W.-H. Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter. Panikulam, G. Koinonia in the New Testament. AnBib 85. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1979. Prümm, K. Diakonia Pneumatos. Reicke, B. Diakonie, Festfreude und Zelos: In Verbingung mit der altchristlichen Agapenfeier. UUÅ 1951, 5. Uppsala: Lundequistska bokhandeln, 1951. Richardson, R. D. “A Further Inquiry into Eucharistic Origins with Special Reference to New Testament Problems.” In H. Lietzmann, Mass and Lord’s Supper: A Study in the History of the Liturgy. Trans. D. H. G. Reeve. Leiden: Brill, 1979. 219–700. Rigaux, B. The Letters of St. Paul. Ed. and trans. S. Yonich. Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1968. Seesemann, H. Der Begriff KOINWNIA im Neuen Testament. BZNW 14. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1933. Srawley, J. H. The Early History of the Liturgy. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1947. Unnik, W. C. van. “Dominus Vobiscum.” In New Testament Essays. FS T. W. Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1959. 270–305. Wainwright, A. W. The Trinity in the New Testament. London: SPCK, 1962. Wainwright, G. Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine, and Life. New York: Oxford UP, 1980. Wiles, G. P. Paul’s Intercessory Prayers.

 

Translation

 

11Finally, brothers [and sisters], rejoice,a aim for restoration,b encourage one another,c be of the same mind,d live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you. 12Greete one another with a holy kiss.f, g All the saints send their greetings. 13The grace of the Lord Jesus Christh and the love of God and the fellowshipi of the Holy Spirit be with you all.j, k

 

 

Notes

a Although cai÷rete literally means “rejoice” (gaudete), there are several authorities who understand Paul’s use in 13:11 as a common greeting: “farewell” (valete; Plummer, 380; Denney, 384; Bultmann, 252; kjv/av; rsv; neb); “goodbye” (Barrett, 342; niv). We, however, keep the meaning of rejoice and in doing so follow the nasb; Furnish, 581; P. E. Hughes, 486; and Moule, Idiom-Book, 161. Phillips has “cheer up,” which is less acceptable as too colloquial and so here meaningless. Filson (422–23) believes that both options, “rejoice” or “farewell,” are equally possible. See BAGD, 873–74. For fuller treatment of this question, see Comment. Much depends on whether vv 11–13 are the close of the four-chapter letter (chaps. 10–13) or the redacted 2 Corinthian letter in toto and inserted by the final editor. See later.

b The second-person plural imperative ending -esqe can be translated either as the middle or passive voice. The verb in question, katarti÷zesqe (katarti÷zw, “restore”), is cognate with the noun kata¿rtisiß, “restoration,” in 13:9, a point overlooked by Bultmann (252), who renders bessert euch, “better yourselves,” having treated Lietzmann’s (162) Besserung, “betterment,” in v 9 as “somewhat weak” (Bultmann, 252). If the verb is translated in the passive voice, we render “be restored,” sc. by God, as in 1 Thess 3:10 (Windisch, 426; Allo, 342; Furnish, 581–82). If we choose the middle voice, our translation would be “aim for restoration” (rsv: “mend your ways”; neb; such a rendering is, however, regarded as too weak [Filson, 423]; “pull yourselves together” [barrett, 342] is too colloquial; also the translations that give us “perfection” instead of “restoration” for katarti÷zw do not help the understanding of this verse [rv; niv; see P. E. Hughes, 486; Harris [1976], 405]). As will be seen in the Comment, the most likely understanding in 13:11 is the middle voice for katarti÷zw.

c A decision is called for in regard to parakalei√sqe as it was in respect to katarti÷zesqe (note parakale÷w is a contracted verb, and we still have the second-person plural imperative ending). Is parakalei√sqe (from the verb that normally means “exhort” or “encourage” but with a wide range of meanings; see BAGD, 617) in the middle or passive voice? To translate it as the passive leaves us with “accept my appeal” (rsv; niv; neb: “take our appeal to heart”; P. E. Hughes, 487; Furnish, 582; Plummer 380). But the middle voice, “encourage one another,” may be Paul’s meaning (Phillips; Barrett, 342; Bultmann, 252, but his appeal to Windisch, 426, leads him to see encouragement as a “warning-call” [Mahnung] comparable with Heb 13:22). See Comment for more discussion.

 

[vol. 40, p. 690]

 

d fronei√te (from frone÷w, “think”) is a contracted verb. The -eite can be taken either as a second-person plural indicative or a second-person plural imperative ending. But since fronei√te comes in a series of imperatives, there is little doubt that it should be taken as a paraenetic imperative as well.

e aÓspa¿sasqe (from aÓspa¿zomai, “greet”) is an imperative, as are many of the verbs in 13:11. But in that verse the imperatives are all in the present tense. Is there any significance in the use of the aorist tense (aÓspa¿sasqe) in 13:12 after a string of present imperatives? Although the aorist tense does break a pattern, there may be no need to place too much emphasis on this change. (See Moule, Idiom-Book, 8, 21; Moulton [Turner], Grammar, 3:75; BDF §§320, 337[4].) See Comment.

f The text e˙n agi÷wˆ filh/mati, “with a holy kiss,” is supported by å B D K, while some mss (F G L) have e˙n filh/mati agi÷wˆ, “with a holy kiss.” The latter reading is probably an attempt to adapt 13:12 to other verses that also speak of the holy kiss (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 1 Thess 5:26). See Plummer, 381.

g Some versions and translations (TR; tev/gnb) divide chap. 13 into only thirteen verses. In many other translations (kjv/av; rv; asv; rsv; neb; niv) chap. 13 had fourteen verses. The first appearance of chap. 13 with fourteen verses may have been the second edition (1572) of the Bishops’ Bible (Furnish, 583). We follow NA26 in verse numbering.

h Cristouv, “Christ,” is omitted in B ¥ 1881.

i There is a question whether to translate koinwni÷a as “fellowship” or as “participation.” The question is whether to take touv agi÷ou pneu/matoß, “of the Holy Spirit,” as a subjective genitive or an objective genitive. The former understanding lends itself to the idea of the “fellowship created and given by the Holy Spirit”; the latter suggests the idea of “participation in” or sharing in (as if koinwni÷a = metoch\ kai« meta¿lhmyiß, “partnership and sharing”) the Holy Spirit (see Hainz, Koinonia, 47–51). In the light of the two genitives preceding the present one, which are subjective (hJ ca¿riß touv kuri÷ou ∆Ihsouv Cristouv, “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,” and hJ aÓga¿ph touv qeouv, “the love of God”), we have opted to translate the present one as subjective also. But in doing so, we do not consider the alternatives as mutually exclusive (possibly both ideas are to be understood, with Hainz, Koinonia, 54, who renders Gemeinschaft durch [gemeinsame] Teilhabe, “fellowship through [mutual] sharing”). Moreover, our position that hJ koinwni÷a touv agi÷ou pneu/matoß, “the fellowship of the Holy Spirit,” is to be understood as a subjective genitive is by no means the only position that can be supported. See Comment for fuller discussion (and R. P. Martin, “Communion,” IBD 1:307–8).

j The TR, following åc D ¥ itd vg syr cop goth, adds aÓmh/n, “Amen.” The text, which does not include aÓmh/n, “Amen,” is supported by ∏46 å° A B F G 33 itg vgmss armmss eth. See TCGNT, 588. On “Amen” = Nma in Judeo-Christian liturgies, see Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus, 25–27.

k All of Paul’s letters have a subscription added to the closing words of the apostle, and 2 Corinthians is no exception. The subscription to our present epistle is pro\ß Korinqi÷ouß b (see TCGNT, 588, for variant readings of the subscription). This simple reading follows the common pattern of other subscriptions to Pauline writings. The subscription functions as a title, an element that was not needed until the letters of Paul were collected into a corpus. (See Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 205–6.) Of note is the subscription appended to our present epistle in the kjv/av: “The second epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, a city of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas.” The kjv/av is noted for such additions to the Pauline writings. The additions usually report the city where the letter was putatively written, as well as the name of the amanuensis or carrier of the epistle.

 

Form/Structure/Setting

The epistolary closing (13:11–13), according to Long,1 frames the rhetoric of the body of the letter. It is equivalent to the conclusion in this commentary.2 In general, there last verses follow the normal pattern of the ending of Paul’s letters. Such endings [vol. 40, p. 691] are devoted to greetings, doxologies, and benedictions (see especially 1 Cor 16:19–24; Phil 4:21–23).3 It appears that Paul constructed and expected his letters to be read as part of the worship service.4

It is thought by some5 that originally 13:11–13 was the closing for 2 Cor 1–9, and when a redactor combined chaps. 1–9 with chaps. 10–13 into one letter (our canonical 2 Corinthians), he simply took the ending of chaps. 1–9 and placed it at the end of chaps. 10–13. In effect, the closing of chaps. 1–9 became the closing of 2 Corinthians. However, it can be argued, and quite logically, that 13:11–13 remains at its original place, namely, at the end of chaps. 10–13.6 It appears that the practice of Paul’s time was for a redactor—when he combined two letters into one—to retain both the opening of the first letter and the closing of the second one. Only in compelling circumstances would a redactor do otherwise.7 Moreover, 13:11–13 is linked to the verses before it. In 13:9 we find the word cai÷rw, meaning “rejoice.” This is also found in 13:11. Also, in 13:9 Paul prayed for the restoration (kata¿rtisiß) of the Corinthians (to God, to Paul, and to one other). In 13:11 katarti÷zw, “restore,” is the verb that is cognate with kata¿rtisiß, “restoration,” in 13:9. Vv 11–13 would seem out of place if they followed 9:15 because Paul closes chap. 9 on such an optimistic note. The last few verses of chap. 9 speak of a church marked by unity; the last few verses of chap. 13 are an appeal to overcome disunity, for Paul exhorts the Corinthians to be of the same mind (fronei√te). In addition, the end of chaps. 10–13 reflects in part the appeal found in the opening verses of these same chapters. In 10:8–9 Paul begins by expressing the fear that he will have to deal harshly with the Corinthians (see also 12:19–13:10). By the end of chap. 13 he has toned down that threat and has expressed the hope that the Corinthians will rectify the situation themselves. The point is that in the opening verses of chap. 10, as well as the closing verse of chap. 13, Paul is concerned to express his apprehension that the church situation needs correction. There is no hint of such trouble in chap. 9. In light of this discussion, it appears Strachan’s position is too precarious to hold.

In these closing verses, Paul makes his final appeal to the Corinthians. This appeal is pointed but friendly.8 A brief outline of 13:11–13 shows us that v 11 consists of succinct admonitions9 to be followed by a greeting (12a–12b) and the benediction (13). The apostle opens v 11 with the adverb loipo/n, “finally,” thus signaling that his composition is coming to a close. He still considers the church at Corinth to be dear to his heart. This is seen in the use of aÓdelfoi÷, “brothers [and sisters],” a term not otherwise used in chaps. 10–13 (but it is in 1:8; 8:1). Paul then proceeds to exhort the Corinthians to Christian living by a series of imperatives. In 13:11a alone there are five imperatives, all in the present tense: cai÷rete, “rejoice” (or maybe [vol. 40, p. 692] cai÷rete is to be taken as a common greeting; see Note a and Comment); katarti÷zesqe, “aim for restoration” (can be taken either as a middle or passive voice; see Note b and Comment); parakalei√sqe, “encourage one another” (parakale÷w can have numerous meanings; it can be taken as passive or middle voice in 13:11; see Note c and Comment); to\ aujto\ fronei√te, “be of the same mind”; and ei˙rhneu/ete, “live in peace.” Although there are other endings to Paul’s letters that contain some paraenesis (see Rom 16:17), we cannot help but notice the striking number of imperatives employed in 13:11a. This suggests that Paul is urgently (and passionately?) encouraging the Corinthians to remedy the situation in the church before he arrives. Such thinking by Paul is consistent with the main thrust of 13:5–10, in which he allows the Corinthians the opportunity to take care of their own problems. This tact of Paul does not eliminate or lessen his threat expressed in 10:6; 13:2; rather, he says, “my threat will not be carried out if (and only if) you heed my warning.” The very fact that Paul plans to send chaps. 10–13 to Corinth before his third visit is proof that he hopes it will not be necessary to punish the church. If the letter takes effect as did the “severe letter,” then Paul’s visit (the third one) will be a joyful one; there will be no need for him to discipline the church. As he concludes chaps. 10–13, he makes one last emotional appeal (13:11a) to the Corinthians. This appeal is brief, but nevertheless it is to the point.

The series of imperatives is connected to the following clause by the simple copulative (kai÷). The clause is marked by the future of ei˙mi÷, “be,” namely, e¶stai, “will be.” The term “God of love” (oJ qeo\ß thvß aÓga¿phß) is not found elsewhere in the NT (or, in fact, anywhere in the OT, whether the lxx or Hebrew Bible), though the idea is found in other places (cf. Rom 5:8). The term “peace of God” occurs often (Rom 15:33; 16:20; 1 Cor 14:33; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 5:23; 2 Thess 3:16; cf. also Heb 13:20). The latter term appears to be a common Pauline concluding formula.10 The inclusion of “God of love” with “God of peace” (1 Thess 3:11) may not be all that significant.11 There is one other variant in Rom 15:5. But what is important is the promise of v 11b, which is more effectively tied to the preceding admonitions by kai÷, “and.” The whole of v 11 parallels Paul’s structure of Phil 4:8–9a (cf. 2 Cor 13:11a) and 4:9b (13:11b). Phil 4:8–9a is a command to think on things that are pure and good, as well as a command to practice what Paul does and says and teaches. In 4:9b (linked to Phil 4:8–9a by a kai÷, “and”) is the promise that the God of peace will be with the Philippians.

A closer look reveals that these two passages have more in common. Both passages begin with loipo/n, “finally” (to\ loipo/n in Phil 4:8), though the use of this adverb in Philippians may not signal the end of the letter.12 Also, the call for the people to have the same mind (to\ aujto\ fronei√n) is given by Paul in both contexts (see Phil 2:2, 5; 4:2; in the Philippian church the call was given specifically to Euodia and Syntyche). The admonitions (see above) in both letters are followed by the promise that “the God of peace will be with you.” More than once (in the Aegean period of his correspondence) Paul has used the phrase “the peace of God be with you” to cement his admonitions (possibly, in Philippians, the peace of God in 4:9b [vol. 40, p. 693] completes an inclusio started in 4:7).13 The connection between the two passages is more than a coincidence. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, the churches of Macedonia were on his mind (chaps. 8 and 9); and in both sets of correspondence his relations with the congregations were a prime factor.

Paul’s promise in 13:11b may be an adaptation of a peace blessing, an example of which is found in Philippians and elsewhere (see also Rom 15:33; 16:20; 1 Thess 5:23; cf. also 1 Cor 14:33).14 The use of the future e¶stai, “will be,” may suggest a conditional statement: “If you follow my appeal, then God will be with you.”15 But more likely Paul is saying, “Do what I urge you to do and in the process God will be with you,” or he is expressing a surrogate for a peace prayer16 rather than making a declaration.17 The latter slant is easier to understand if we take “peace” and “love” to be gifts of God, given by him to the Corinthians. However, if “love” and “peace” are understood as characteristics of God, then we may interpret 13:11b in the conditional sense.18 But Barrett may be correct in concluding that Paul could mean that “love” and “peace” are both characteristics and gifts of God.

After v 11 Paul turns to the subject of greetings. He implores the Corinthians to greet one another with a holy kiss. The aorist imperative aÓspa¿sasqe, “greet,” stands out among the series of present imperatives of 13:11 (see Note e and Comment). The exhortation to give other Christians a holy kiss is common in Paul’s letters (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 1 Thess 5:26; see also 1 Pet 5:14; in every case aÓspa¿sasqe, “greet,” is used). The fraternal kiss was not necessarily unique as a Christian practice, though its use in the synagogue liturgy is not attested.19 Nevertheless, it did signify fellowship and union for the church, based on reconciliation—a Jewish motif. The use of a‚gioß, “holy,” may be an explicit attempt to show this.20 Though there is still uncertainty surrounding the exact meaning of the holy kiss in the church setting (see Comment), it would be possible to imagine that Paul was hoping that the kiss would represent mutual forgiveness and reconciliation among the church members in Corinth. Paul had urged other churches to greet one another with a kiss, but probably at no other time had he been so concerned that a church follow his advice as he was when he composed 13:12.

V 12b continues the greetings section of 13:11–13 with the reference to “all [pa¿nteß] the saints [oi˚ a‚gioi]” who send their greetings. (Just who these persons are remains an uncertainty [see Comment].) Such a greeting can be found in Rom 16:6 and in a reverse way in Phil 4:22. Sometimes Paul sends the greetings of brothers and sisters (aÓdelfoi÷; see 1 Cor 16:20; Phil 4:22; see also Titus 3:15). The important thing to note is Paul’s call for unity as a theme running through the entire letter. He called for it in 13:11, and the exhortation in 13:12 was to offer a sign (holy kiss) that reflected unity. In 13:12b Paul reminds the Corinthians that they must become unified with an even greater number of Christians, namely, the other churches. The use of this part-verse is Paul’s way of saying unity should be a way of life for God’s people.

 

[vol. 40, p. 694]

 

Paul closes with 13:13, the apostolic benediction, “a verse of capital importance.”21 This particular benediction has been called the “most elaborate” in all of the Pauline writings.22 Normally, Paul closes his letters with “May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you” (Rom 16:20b; 1 Cor 16:23; Gal 6:18; Phil 4:16; 1 Thess 5:28; 2 Thess 3:18; Phlm 25; see also Col 4:18b; 1 Tim 6:21b; 2 Tim 4:22b; Titus 3:15b). Such a pattern for Paul may help to explain why grace appears first in 13:13 (but see below). But in our present verse we have the mention of Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit together, and in that order. In other places Paul has included the three persons in his various discussions (see 1 Cor 12:4–6).23 But in no other place does Paul combine the three names in such a singular way, with ca¿riß, “grace”; aÓga¿ph, “love”; and koinwni÷a, “fellowship,” associated in a remarkable fashion. We especially note in the last named where pneuvma, “Spirit,” is linked with koinwni÷a, “fellowship,” in a manner not quite identical with Phil 2:1.24

The work of the three persons of the Trinity is given in separate phrases that may be parallel:

 

  A hJ ca¿riß touv kuri÷ou ∆Ihsouv Cristouv, “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” kai÷, “and”

  B hJ aÓga¿ph touv qeouv “the love of God” kai÷, “and”

  C hJ koinwni÷a touv agi÷ou pneu/matoß, “the fellowship of the Holy Spirit”  

 

The conclusion that these clauses are parallel holds up if we accept all three as subjective genitives. It is generally agreed that the first two clauses are subjective genitives (though Plummer, 384, suggests that the second may be objective). But there is still a question of how to interpret the third clause (see Note i). The exegesis of touv agi÷ou pneu/matoß, “of the Holy Spirit,” as a subjective genitive leads to the understanding that Paul is speaking about the fellowship created and given by the Holy Spirit to be enjoyed among believers. Many hold to this position.25 This genitive could be interpreted as objective, and our third clause in this case would mean the participation in, or fellowship with, the Holy Spirit as a person (see Comment). Moreover, the third clause may not be parallel to the first two, if it is taken to be the only clause in Paul’s mind connected with the statement meta» pa¿ntwn uJmw◊n, “with you all.” But if we understand that Paul is speaking about all three “virtues”—grace, love, and fellowship—as being with all the Corinthians (note Paul is concerned not to leave anyone out of his benediction), then all three clauses are more likely to be parallel. Maybe the answer lies in viewing Paul as meaning in the third clause both the fellowship created by the Holy Spirit and the fellowship with the Holy Spirit.26

 

[vol. 40, p. 695]

 

Setting aside the grammatical analysis, we must address another issue raised by this benediction. That issue has to do with the Trinitarian flavor of 13:13. When Paul put 13:13 together as a formula, he was not consciously echoing a developed doctrine of the Trinity.27 Moreover, it is doubtful that this formula (or any similar to it) circulated among other churches, for we do not find it in later epistles.28 Jeremias thinks it was a baptismal form (cf. Matt 28:19),29 but more likely it was a spontaneous confession of Paul’s faith30 “in the historical and eschatological saving act of God.”31 Even if thrice-repeated baptism in the triune name became standard from the time of Did. 7 onward,32 for Paul the primary focus was a confession of Christ. God had revealed his love through the death of his Son on the cross. The people of Corinth understood the love of God through the grace of Christ (2 Cor 8:9). Mention of Christ comes first in the benediction because the historical revelation of God’s love was in Christ, and this revelation certified God’s love for his people. In addition, these people were brought into the new life in the Spirit.33 This thinking may explain why we see an “economic order” (i.e., the relationships of the persons of the Trinity to the world of humankind). Normally, the creeds have the sequence: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But this is not Paul’s understanding. It would be for the church of later times to hammer out the details of the doctrine of the Trinity.34

But this is not to deny35 that what we have is the “starting-point”36 for the development of the creedal statement of a Trinitarian confession (see 1 Pet 1:2). It was inevitable that the church should seek to develop a doctrine that expressed (as best it could) its understanding of God.37 Paul never confounded the distinction between God and Jesus Christ (see Phil 2:11).38 Maybe this caution is seen in the balanced clauses of 13:13. True, Paul was not writing in an attempt to defend the concepts of tres personae et una substantia, “three persons and one substance”; in this sense Paul was still a long way from the Trinitarian doctrines of the church councils.39 Paul’s purpose is not to stress the individual hypostases of the Godhead; rather, his emphasis is on the grace, love, and fellowship/participation that are available to the Corinthians.40 Paul’s purpose in chaps. 10–13 has been to promote reconciliation within the church. God reconciled the Corinthians to himself [vol. 40, p. 696] through the work of Christ (5:18–21) and has given the Spirit (1:22; 5:5) as a sign of the new age begun but not yet realized. Since the Spirit in the letter has been claimed as both the mark of a “realized eschatology,” which looked to ecstatic experience41 as validating apostolic ministry (3:1–6; 5:1–10; 11:4), and (in Paul’s rejoinder) the evidence of unfulfilled hopes (5:5–7) that await the Parousia and a power that reinforced the not yet, it may be that the closing is also polemical. In particular, attention may be directed to 11:4, where the Corinthian readers have, under alien influences, accepted a “different spirit” (pneuvma eºteron) from the Spirit Paul knew, i.e., the Spirit of the crucified Jesus as seen in his ministry, now attacked (12:18).

The inclusion of the koinwni÷a, “fellowship,” of this holy Spirit in his final wish prayer42 is to reinforce the plea that the Corinthians should return to his side by adhering to the truth (13:8) in their experience of God’s grace in Christ by the Spirit, i.e., the truth that constitutes the church in being.43 Since God has acted (indicative), the Corinthians should live (imperative) as God’s people. The God of love and peace offers himself through his Spirit in order to aid his people to live as they should. Paul’s concern in 13:13 is to function as a pastor, not as a systematic theologian. Yet theology is here called into service to resist a false emphasis on the Spirit as claimed by the emissaries. We can say that at least we have the Trinitarian formula in “embryonic” form in this benediction;44 and the close of the letter finds Paul reiterating his chief concern, to invoke divine resources to match his readers’ needs in the face of threats and fears (11:2–3; 12:21; 13:10).

 

[vol. 40, p. 697]

The Spirit in 2 Corinthians in Light of the “Fellowship of the Holy Spirit” in 2 Corinthians 13:1445  

   

Bibliography

 

Baird, W. “Visions, Revelation, and Ministry: Reflections on 2 Cor 12:1–5 and Gal 1:11–17.” JBL 104 (1985) 651–62. Barth, G. “Die Eignung des Verkündigers in 2 Kor 2, 14–3, 6.” In Kirche. FS G. Bornkamm, ed. D. Lührmann and G. Strecker. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1980. 257–70. Black, D. A. Paul, Apostle of Weakness. Deichgräber, R. Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit: Untersuchungen zur Form, Sprache und Stil der frühchristlichen Hymnen. SUNT 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. Deissmann, A. St. Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. Trans. L. R. M. Strachan. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1912. Doughty, D. J. “The Presence and Future of Salvation in Corinth.” ZNW 66 (1975) 61–90. Dunn, J. D. G. “2 Corinthians III. 17—‘The Lord is the Spirit.’” JTS n.s. 21 (1970) 309–20. Friesen, I. I. The Glory of the Ministry of Jesus Christ: Illustrated by a Study of 2 Cor 2:14–3:18. Theologischer Dissertationen 7. Basel: Reinhardt, 1971. Fung, R. Y.-K. “Justification by Faith in 1 and 2 Corinthians.” In Pauline Studies. FS F. F. Bruce, ed. D. A. Hagner and M. J. Harris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. 251–54. George, A. R. Communion with God in the New Testament. London: Epworth, 1953. Georgi, D. Gegner (rev. ET: Opponents). Hainz, J. Koinonia: Kirche als Gemeinschaft bei Paulus. BU 9. Regensburg: Pustet, 1972. Hawthorne, G. F. Philippians. Rev. and expanded by R. P. Martin. WBC 43. Nashville: Nelson, 2004. Jervell, J. Imago Dei: Gen 1, 26 in Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen. FRLANT 76. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960. Käsemann, E. Legitimität. Kramer, W. Christ, Lord, Son of God. Lohmeyer, E. Der Brief an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon. 11th ed. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956. Martin, R. P. Spirit and the Congregation. McDermott, M. “The Biblical Doctrine of koinwni÷a.” BZ n.s. 19 (1975) 64–77, 219–33. Moule, C. F. D. “II Cor iii.18b: kaqa¿per aÓpo\ kuri÷ou pneu/matoß.” In Essays in New Testament Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1982. 227–34. ———. “St Paul and ‘Dualism’: The Pauline Conception of Resurrection.” In Essays in New Testament Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1982. 200–221. O’Brien, P. T. “The Fellowship Theme in Philippians.” RTR 37 (1978) 9–18. Panikulam, G. Koinonia in the New Testament. AnBib 85. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1979. Schmitz, O. Die Christus-Gemeinschaft des Paulus im Lichte seines Genitivgebrauchs. NTF 1, Paulusstudien 2. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1924. Schütz, J. H. Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority. Seesemann, H. Der Begriff KOINWNIA im Neuen Testament. BZNW 14. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1933. Smith, W. H., Jr. “The Function of 2 Corinthians 3:7–4:6 in Its Epistolary Context.” Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1983. Stuhlmacher, P. “Erwägungen zum ontologischen Charakter der kainh\ kti÷siß bei Paulus.” EvT 27 (1967) 1–35. Thiselton, A. C. “Realized Eschatology at Corinth.” NTS 24 (1977–1978) 510–26. Unnik, W. C., van. “Reisepläne und Amen-Sagen: Zusammenhang [vol. 40, p. 698] und Gedankenfolge in 2. Korinther 1.15–24.” In Studia Paulina. FS J. de Zwaan, ed. J. N. Sevenster and W. C. van Unnik. Haarlem: Bohn, 1953. 215–34. ———. “‘With Unveiled Face’: An Exegesis of 2 Corinthians iii 12–18.” NovT 6 (1963) 153–69. Wiles, G. P. Paul’s Intercessory Prayers.

    Introduction. Not the least among the valuable insights in G. B. Beasley-Murray’s commentary on 2 Corinthians is his brief notice of 2 Cor 13:11–14, and in particular of the “Apostolic Benediction” in v 14. He is one of the few commentators to raise the question of the function of the text in v 14 in the setting of the situation Paul encountered at Corinth. He observes how “this was a church which was torn by factions; whose members had ranged themselves contentiously with different apostles . . . [and] at one point rejected Paul’s authority, and through adherence to the heretical ‘super-apostles’ were in danger of rupturing relations with the rest of the churches of Christ.”46 He concludes: “If ever a church needed to learn afresh the meaning of the fellowship of the Holy Spirit it was this one—and not merely its meaning, but its reality.”47 Further, “Accordingly, one benediction which Paul normally pronounced became expanded into a blessing of extraordinary pertinence to the church to which it was addressed.” The purpose of this short excursus is to explore in somewhat more detail than was permitted to him in a multivolume commentary the “extraordinary pertinence” of 13:14 to Paul’s debate with his opponents at Corinth and his attempt to win back the church to the apostolic cause he represented.

    1. The Form of the Benediction. This “verse of capital importance”48 is marked by several unusual features.49 In no other place does Paul bring together the three names of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit (though his order is different); and the theological terms, “grace,” “love,” and “fellowship” are linked in a way that is without parallel in the Pauline corpus. Since our study is concerned with the last member of the Godhead mentioned in the verse, we may observe that if a strict symmetry is adhered to, the troublesome genitive is explained. Clearly “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” and “the love of God” are examples of a subjective genitive; and it is, at first glance, appropriate that the third phrase should be so interpreted. So many commentators conclude: “The genitives should all be understood in the same way, i.e., as subjective: the prayer is . . . for the fellowship which the Holy Spirit creates to be a reality among them.”50 According to this view, the Holy Spirit is the author of koinwni÷a, “fellowship,” and Paul’s desire is that the Spirit may fashion a genuine unity among the believers by creating peace, harmony, and above all a true reconciliation with one another and with himself as their apostle. The tenor of the preceding verses (11–13) is in keeping with this desire, endorsed by such paraenetic calls as “aim for restoration,” “encourage one another,” “be of the same mind,” “live in peace,” and “greet one another with a holy kiss.” It is eminently fitting that Paul would want to round off this section of hortatory appeals with the prayer that the Holy Spirit may indeed produce the desired result of churchly harmony and amity: koinwni÷a, “fellowship,” which is his gift to be received and applied.

 

[vol. 40, p. 699]  

 

    But this exegesis is open to some objection. First, koinwni÷a, “fellowship,” which has a wide range of meanings in Paul and indeed has several different nuances in 2 Corinthians (see 6:14; 8:4; 9:13), may well be rendered “participation in,” thereby requiring an objective genitive to follow. This is a familiar Pauline usage in such places as 1 Cor 1:9; 10:16; Phil 3:10; and 2 Cor 8:4, where the context rules out any sense of the possessive genitive. Phil 2:1 is problematic, but on balance it is more likely that there the sense must be, in Paul’s list of “grounds of appeal” on which he bases his call to the Philippians, “if there is any common sharing in the [Holy] Spirit” or “fellowship with the Spirit,” as Seesemann renders the phrase tiß koinwni÷a pneu/matoß in his discussion of the term Geistesgemeinschaft, “Spirit-fellowship,”51 as though two ideas were fused into one. Hainz remarks that his rendering is more an illustration than an explanation.52 Seesemann’s main argument runs as follows: the apostle takes for granted the believer’s possession of the Spirit as a fact of Christian experience (e.g., Gal 3:2). Then, there is the parallel with 1 Cor 1:9 just noted. The patristic testimony is next cited in favor of the objective genitive. Finally, Seesemann establishes an argument based on the form of Paul’s wording in Phil 2:1.

    The phrase in that verse, koinwni÷a pneu/matoß, “fellowship of the Spirit,” is held to be joined to spla¿gcna kai« oi˙ktirmoi÷, “affection and sympathy,” and together these parallel phrases denote what is internal to the Christian over against para¿klhsiß, “encouragement,” and paramuqi÷a, “consolation,” which are regarded as outside the Christian’s immediate experience since they are objective standards to which Paul appeals. So the objective genitive is held to be the correct understanding, and Paul is appealing to the common life that the church has “in the Spirit” as an “objective work”53 in which they are called to share. This conclusion may be sustained.54 If it is a sound deduction, it raises at least the possibility that 2 Cor 13:14 is to be taken in the same way. This exegesis of Phil 2:1 overcomes an obstacle to interpreting 2 Cor 13:14 as containing a mixture of syntactical and formal characteristics. Both verses hold together different grammatical usages, and they do so in apparent contravention of what the reader may be led to expect, namely, a strict symmetrical pattern.

    On form-analytical grounds, the breaking of symmetry that arises from taking the first two members of 13:14—Christ’s grace and God’s love—as subjective and the koinwni÷a touv agi÷ou pneu/matoß, “fellowship of the Holy Spirit,” as objective is defended and explained by a good argument offered by Kramer.55 He proposes that the first two parts of the verse are a pre-Pauline formula taken over by the apostle. He has borrowed these phrases and enriched them by his own addition of the reference to the Holy Spirit. Thereby he has destroyed the congruence of a binitarian creed by supplying the idea that the Holy Spirit is not so much the giver of salvation as himself the gift in which all members share. The problem with this proposal and its appeal to a piece of tradition in v 14 is that it is unprovable.

    Barrett has remarked on the difficulty with the view of taking the genitive [vol. 40, p. 700] touv agi÷ou pneu/matoß, “of the Holy Spirit,” as subjective,56 which he renders “fellowship given by” when we seek to link it with what follows. The connection with meta» pa¿ntwn uJmw◊n, “with you all,” he says, is difficult, whereas if the objective genitive is the correct construction, then it is a smoother transition from the earlier parts of the verse; and the climax is found in that Paul is wishing for his readers a “continuing and deepening” of their participation in the Holy Spirit. This line of reasoning, however, is by no means compelling, and it could just as easily be maintained that Paul is invoking the call to unity wrought by the Holy Spirit as a reality he wishes to see taking shape at Corinth.

    So far we have observed that the ambivalent phrase with koinwni÷a, “fellowship,” in relation to the Holy Spirit has a relevance to the letter ending as expressing a wish prayer57 or a “wish for blessing” by an appeal to Christian experience.58 Whether that appeal is grounded on a continued call to unity that the Spirit provides (as in Eph 4:3) or an exhortation to remember a common sharing in the Holy Spirit as the hallmark of being a Christian, is a teasing crux interpretum (“interpretive crux”). Recent study refuses to be compelled to a choice of either/or,59 and perhaps the time is ripe for a reconsideration of Deissmann’s proposal60 that a third category needs to be considered, which he calls “the mystical genitive,” or (better) “the genitive of fellowship,” since it is often unclear whether a Pauline genitive is objective or subjective. Paul may not have been so precise as we would wish him to be, and in any case the two interpretations merge61 once we are reminded that the “fellowship of the church” created by the Spirit (subjective genitive) comes about through “the common share in the Holy Spirit” (the objective sense) in which all believers participate. So the exegetical dilemma is largely an unreal one, and Paul’s thoughts may well encompass both grammatical constructions.62

    2. The Invocation of the Spirit. We have yet to investigate the reason for the inclusion of the Holy Spirit in the closing appeal. Superficially it may be maintained that in a list of practical and paraenetic admonitions to unity in the Corinthian congregation, it is fitting that Paul should close on the note of recall, expressed as a wish prayer. In a verbless ending (13:14) he invokes the three persons of the Christian Godhead to grant the request he deemed vital. The Corinthians should act in obedience to his message, referred to obliquely in 13:8 as “the truth,” and in a return to his side. Here we see one more illustration of Paul’s coupling of statement and injunction. Already God in Christ has acted in salvation history and by the Spirit has brought the church into existence.63 Now the Corinthians are encouraged (in 13:11–14) to live out their calling and to respond to the Spirit’s activity to fashion an authentic koinwni÷a, “fellowship,” in place of a disunity and discord that so marred their congregational life.

 

[vol. 40, p. 701]  

 

    Or so it would seem. Closer inspection of the earlier sections of 2 Corinthians that touch on the role of the Holy Spirit shows that the solution to the Corinthian malaise was not so simple, and the threatened danger to Paul’s gospel and his apostolate at Corinth was much more ominous. We may review the salient passages not in order of appearance in our canonical text, but in a way that seeks to connect the teaching into a pattern.

    2 Corinthians 1:21–22. In a section where Paul is defending his apostolic ministry against a charge of vacillation and consequent unreliability, he finds it needful to set his arguments on a strong theological base upheld by several stanchions. His own fidelity to his calling and work is championed in a context of the divine covenant faithfulness. Against the allegation that he acted as a person dominated by “worldly impulse” (kata» sa¿rka [1:17]), Paul retorts that he has always worked with a true conscience and a sincere motive (1:12). But that subjective appeal is not all, nor is it enough to answer his critics at Corinth. He must also invoke the legitimacy of the apostolic ministry in which he has a share. So he writes in 2 Cor 1:21–22: “Now it is God who confirms both me and you in our relationship to Christ. He has anointed us, set his seal upon us, and imparted the Spirit to us as a pledge [aÓrrabw¿n].”

    The center of this confession of faith, which is also an apologia, “defense,” for the apostolic service he claimed, is the biblical idea of “confirm,” i.e., meaning to validate an agreement or an arrangement into which one has entered by a promise. The Pauline verb bebaio/w, “confirm,” which echoes its OT counterpart, the Hebrew root Nma, }mn, “confirm, fulfill a promise,”64 has this sense, but it is also seen in the wordplay Cristo/ß/cri÷saß, “Christ/anointed,” with associated ideas of setting apart and commissioning as in “sealing” and in the description of the Spirit as an aÓrrabw¿n, “pledge.” The “seal” is introduced presumably to endorse the notion of the claiming of human lives as God’s possession, which is his rightful due, and touv pneu/matoß, “of the Spirit,” may be understood not as a partitive genitive (as though there were two actions of sealing and giving the Spirit) but in the explanatory sense: “the seal, which is the gift of the Spirit.” In other words, we suggest that there are three images here, not four:65 God, Paul avers, has put both apostles and people into a relationship with himself by the actions in which the three divine persons are involved. It is God who has guaranteed our salvation by his promise in the gospel; Christ, “the anointed one,” bids us share in his messianic blessedness; and the Spirit is imparted as a divine seal on our hearts, which is the pledge of final salvation. This snatch of soteriological catechism is introduced in a defensive way to offer a plea for the apostolic ministry; and the piling up of ideas and images, with a notable use of participles in vv 21–22, which is a telltale sign of quoted liturgical/baptismal material, is intended to repel the innuendo that Paul’s ministry is not to be trusted because he has a flawed character and that there is no validity to his apostolic claims. His retort is to establish his claim on the basis of the data of Christian life and experience, which in turn is traced back to the gospel he was commissioned to proclaim (1:19). Not least among the items he lists as part of a common Christian inheritance is the Spirit’s seal. The “seal” of the Spirit is put on [vol. 40, p. 702] God’s people as a token of eschatological salvation that has begun but is not yet fully accomplished—this issue is paramount in Paul’s debate with the Corinthians as reflected in 1 Corinthians.66 The aÓrrabw¿n, “pledge,” of 1:22; 5:5 is a parallel term with aÓparch/, “firstfruits,” in 1 Cor 15:20.67

    2 Corinthians 5:5. Here in a different context the same emphasis on the “eschatological proviso” of “not yet” may be heard. In the middle of an elaborate disquisition on the resurrection hope,68 Paul interjects the prospect, still obviously set in the future, of being “clothed” in a new, heavenly body (5:1–2) so that “what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (5:4). He continues: “The one who prepared us for this very purpose [is] God, who also gave us the Spirit as a pledge [aÓrrabw¿n]” (5:5).

    It is not easy to see the logical flow of this sentence, and part of the meaning turns on how the participle katergasa¿menoß is understood, whether as “prepared” (so rsv), as “fashioned” (niv), “created,” “shaped” (neb), or in the plain sense of “made.”69 More difficult still to identify is the object of God’s intention in Paul’s mind, expressed in the words ei˙ß aujto\ touvto, “for this very purpose.” Moule interprets that design as one of the process of exchange, not addition: “In requiring us to part with our present clothes [our bodily existence in this age], he has, nevertheless, given as a guarantee of something better to reassure us—the presence of the Holy Spirit.”70 But this conclusion has been exposed to some questioning, not least on the ground that it marks a distinct shift and development from Paul’s earlier teaching in 1 Cor 15:51–57, where the new body is added to and superimposed on the old, whereas in 2 Cor 5 Paul’s expectation is that the new bodily existence will be known only as it is exchanged for the old. Paul’s use of the double compound verb e˙pendu/sasqai, “to put on,” in 5:2, 4 may be a problem for this interpretation. But Moule appears to dispose of it by insisting that Paul’s desire to receive the additional body as an extra coat without divesting himself of what is underneath is a hope that is not attainable since this is not God’s plan for us. He has made us not to add on an extra coat but to be rid of the old at death and then to receive the new sw◊ma pneumatiko/n, “spiritual body” (cf. 1 Cor 15:44) in the resurrection. This sounds perilously close to affirming that God has made us for the purpose of dying, which of course is a conclusion Moule does not explicitly draw. What, in our view, is the important contribution to which this discussion has drawn attention is that Paul’s eschatological expectation does seem to have changed in the space of time between his composing the two canonical Corinthian letters, and the prospect, however abhorrent, of an interim, a Zwischenzustand, between the events of death and the Parousia seems to have been introduced to meet a real need that arose in Paul’s debate with the Corinthian opponents subsequent to 1 Corinthians.

    In 1 Corinthians the nub of the argument is found in the different ideas of the timeline between the present and the future.71 The errorists, as Paul judged them (1 Cor 15:12), evidently took a belief in baptismal resurrection in all seriousness. In [vol. 40, p. 703] a manner akin to the teaching in 2 Tim 2:17–18, they affirmed that their “death” in baptism was the important turning point that ushered them into a new existence now, because of which there was no need to entertain any future expectation. The future hope of a resurrection in a new bodily existence was—for them—collapsed into a spiritual ecstasy to be enjoyed in the present. This was their reinterpretation of Paul’s eschatology that he needed to redefine on the principle that “death” is still the “last enemy” (1 Cor 15:26) to be encountered as a prelude to resurrection.

    But this background scarcely does justice to the subtlety of his treatment in 2 Cor 5:5, and we are led to postulate a deviant emphasis of a more nuanced kind. What is at stake are the two forms of Christian existence ascribed to being “in Christ.” The opponents now pressed their earlier (that is, according to the data in 1 Corinthians) contention of a “realized” eschatology to the extreme of stating that the soul may attain to God here and now since it is already liberated from its prison house of the body and set free to soar in mystical freedom to the divine. This teaching is in Paul’s sights in 2 Cor 4:16–18, with its contrast of the “outer” and “inner” person, and the heart of the present debate is seen in 5:7: “for we live by faith, not by sight.” The last term dia» ei¶douß, “by sight,” is the key;72 it has a clear reference point in what is “seen,” i.e., in the evidential tokens of visionary or ecstatic experiences in which sense perception played a significant role. Paul denies this access to reality in 4:18 because of his doctrine of “faith” and will return to the problem under debate in 12:1–2. For him the human person is treated as a unified whole, not to be dichotomized into “soul” (meant to be saved and united with the divine) and “body” (destined to be discarded as immaterial and inimical to the soul’s highest interests).73 In v 6, which continues the theme of 5:1–5, the phrase e˙n tw◊ˆ sw¿mati, “in the body,” is central, and this present bodily existence is for Paul all important since (a) present redemption affects our existence here and now (1 Cor 6:12–20); ( how Christians live “in the body” in this age is the basis on which they must expect to be judged at the final day (2 Cor 5:10); and © by linking 1 Cor 6:12–20 with 2 Cor 5:5 we see the connection between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Christian’s sw◊ma, “body,” and the prospect of a new, future bodily existence at the resurrection. Inasmuch as the Corinthian faction had imbibed the gnosticizing teaching that stressed a spiritual existence as the complete possession of the pneumatic Christian here and now, thereby excluding any future hope or present moral accountability, the role of the Spirit as a pledge of what is to come was being effectively denied. Paul’s allusion to the interim between death and the Parousia may therefore have a polemic cast and be part of his larger concern to establish the element of the “not yet” in his teaching of a bodily existence that is ours now in hope of a new bodily existence then, with the Holy Spirit as the bridge connecting the two. The Spirit conjoins promise and fulfillment.

    2 Corinthians 3:1–18. The part given to the Holy Spirit in Paul’s obviously self-defensive posture throughout this section is noteworthy. Aside from the use of a phrase, “the Spirit of the living God” (3:3), which is unique in biblical literature, the chief focus of attention is on the axiom of 3:6: “the letter kills, but the Spirit imparts life,” and on the idea of 3:17–18, which sums up the climactic effects, as Paul saw [vol. 40, p. 704] them, of “the ministry of the Spirit” over against “the ministry that leads to death, engraved in letters of stone” that belonged to Moses (3:7–8).

    The central theme of 2 Cor 3 is diakoni÷a, “ministry.”74 This term has to be read not only as part of Paul’s midrashic exposition of the two covenants, Moses’ covenant and the new covenant of righteousness that is entrusted to the apostles. It must equally be seen as a response to a more nuanced debate that Paul will have to engage in when the emissaries come on the scene in 11:4 and lay claim to being “Christ’s servants [dia¿konoi]” and “servants of righteousness” (11:15, 23).

    It is a likely suggestion that Paul is driven here to give a more sharply focused view of his Jewish Christian opponents’ teaching since his apostolic ministry is under fire.75 The stark antithesis given in 3:6, “the letter kills, but the Spirit imparts life,” is capable of several esoteric interpretations. Our preference, while not denying the way it may be held to illumine the following verses, is to take Jervell’s simple solution.76 He takes gra¿mma, “letter,” to refer primarily to the “letters of recommendation” (3:1–3) brought on to the scene by Jewish Christian preachers. By contrast, since Paul has no claim to human authorization (see 1:1: “apostle . . . by the will of God”) and in any case has no letters to accredit him save in the sense of 1 Cor 9:1, he appeals to his ministry as authenticated by the power of the Spirit who gives life from the dead (2:16). The issue behind the antithesis is exactly the question of rival ministries. It centers on the matter of who has the “principle of legitimation”77 to support him, as in 13:1–4. In a nutshell, the opponents stressed their continuity with the past (the OT, Moses) and their present status. Against this Traditionsprinzip, “principle of tradition,” Paul emphasized discontinuity with the past, since the new age of the Spirit had come and the Spirit is the aÓrrabw¿n, “pledge,” of the future, which is open.78

    The rhetorical question in 2:16, “who is adequate for this [kind of ministry]?” probably contains more than a hint that Paul is replying to the criticism that he was not competent (i˚kano/ß) to exercise any legitimate ministry at Corinth—a point against him to which he will return in 10:12–18.79 His answer is sought in the claim that it is “the ministry of the Spirit” he is commissioned (as in 1:19–22) to fulfill. Against the backdrop of a rival ministry, represented by the Jewish Christian preachers (2:17) who took their stand on the example of Moses, a larger-than-life figure as interpreted by Hellenistic Judaism, Paul expounds the validity of his apostolic role as a “minister of the new covenant,” presumably being led to this rare phrase from his allusion to Jer 31 in 2 Cor 3:3.

    The Spirit, however, is the link-term connecting Paul’s gospel of divine righteousness to his exercise of diakoni÷a, “ministry.” Moses’ limitations are stated in several facets, based on Exod 34:29–35, namely: (a) The radiance (do/xa) on Moses’ face was too awesome to behold, whereas the age of the Spirit is invested with a glory that gives “eternal” (i.e., belonging to the new eon) life (3:6). The verb “to give [vol. 40, p. 705] life” is rightly regarded by Barth80 as a polemical term and constitutes the criterion and norm for understanding the apostolic preaching office (2:16: “a life-giving fragrance”). ( The glory that did invest the old order had its limitations, chiefly in that it led to “condemnation” (3:9), where the new eon of the Spirit brings with it the gift of divine “righteousness” (v 9). © The aura of splendor that illumined Moses’ face lasted only briefly (v 13), in contrast to the radiance of the Spirit, which is ever increasing aÓpo\ do/xhß ei˙ß do/xan, “from one degree of glory to another” (v 18). This progression is directly attributable to the working of the Spirit, who so reveals Christ that all Christians (v 18: hJmei√ß . . . pa¿nteß) are enabled, with open face, to behold the glory of the Lord and so to be transformed into his likeness (vv 17–18).81 The meaning of the cryptic sentence oJ de« ku/rioß to\ pneuvma e˙stin, “the Lord is the Spirit,” is a deep mystery since it seems to confound Christ and the Spirit, but only superficially so. Much hinges on how we take the verb e˙sti÷n, “is,”82 whether as the exegetical significat (“it indicates”), “Now ‘the Lord’ [in the passage Paul has just cited, Exod 34:34] represents the Spirit,” or in a salvation-historical sense, with the meaning that the Spirit in Christian experience applies the saving acts of Christ and brings Christ within reach of faith, so that his benefits may be received and shared. The same conundrum faces the interpreter in v 18, with the verbless phrase kaqa¿per aÓpo/ kuri÷ou pneu/matoß, “just as from the Lord, the Spirit.” The appositional words obviously go together, and we are pressed to define their relationship.83 How is the Lord to be equated with the Spirit? Probably Paul is saying no more than that the Lord in the Christian’s saving confession (1 Cor 12:3) is the one whom we know as the Spirit in the sense to be nuanced in 5:16: though we have known Christ qua messiah of Israel from a human viewpoint (i.e., kata» sa¿rka, “according to the flesh”), now—in the new age of the Spirit—we have come to appreciate him kata» pneuvma, “according to the Spirit,” as exalted Lord (Rom 1:3–4) by sharing in his Spirit (Rom 8:9). Once more participation in the Holy Spirit is the all-determinative factor that makes Christian experience authentic because it bears the hallmark of the “new age”—the kainh\ kti÷siß, “new creation,” of 2 Cor 5:1784—of which Paul’s ministry speaks and by which it is legitimated.

    Summary. The norma normans, “the rule that rules,” according to which Paul’s apostolate is tested is, we may conclude from the point of view of this study, a sharing in the Spirit of Jesus Christ. That Spirit is the trait Paul invokes in 2 Cor 6:6, as later by extension he praises Titus for being a faithful exponent and representative of all that he stood for (12:18: “did we not walk in the same spirit and follow the same course?”). The Spirit (pneuvma) is that of “faith” (4:13). The easy transition from sharing in the Holy Spirit as a formula of life in the new age, begun but not yet [vol. 40, p. 706] finalized, to what is expected of those who live in that new world (2 Cor 5:17) paves the way for us to consider one remaining verse. In a key verse in the entire epistle (11:4) the emissaries whose preaching and living receive the severest condemnation as the work of Satan and as destined for perdition (11:13–15) are said to have introduced a pneuvma eºteron, “alien spirit”:

 

 

 

  For if the person who has come [to you] proclaims a rival Jesus,

  whom we did not proclaim,

  or if you welcome a different Spirit,

  which you did not welcome [in our message],

  or if [you accept] a different gospel,

  which you did not accept [as our gospel],

  then you put up with this person right well!

 

    There are many exegetical problems clustered in this single verse. The triadic structure with “Jesus,” “Spirit,” and “gospel” has been noted, and it is possible—but not likely—that pneuvma, “Spirit,” here means a counterfeit spirit replacing the Holy Spirit Paul expected his people to have received at conversion and baptism (see Gal 3:2, with the identical verb lamba¿nw, “receive”; cf. Acts 19:2). More probably Paul’s allusion is to the spirit of a lifestyle based on character that, in the case of their missionaries, so sadly belied their profession to be numbered with the “servants of righteousness” (11:15). On the contrary, their lordly bearing, selfish attitudes, and domineering outlook (11:20) leading to an encouragement of immoral ways (12:20–21) are all sufficient evidence of their being “bogus apostles, workers of deceit, masquerading as Christ’s apostles . . . [and falsely claiming a reputation] as servants of righteousness” (11:13, 15). The spirit they both exemplify by their wrongheaded ideas of apostleship and inculcate on the Corinthians is, for Paul, a betrayal of the gospel and apostleship as he understood them. He therefore reserves only a “sentence of holy law” (11:15: “their fate will be what their deeds deserve”) to express his abhorrence.85 Their pretensions to charismatic power and their trust in ecstasy and signs (12:1–13) to validate their ministry were, for him, a complete denial of his “theology of the cross” and of the motif of strength in weakness that he had learned from the humiliated and lowly Lord (8:9; 12:10; 13:1–4; see 1:5–8; 4:7–12 for the relevance of this model for Paul’s ministry).86 They do not share in that understanding of the kerygma that Paul first brought to Corinth (1 Cor 1:18–2:4). The tragedy is that the gullible Corinthians, who ought to have recognized what a share in the Holy Spirit means from the examples of Paul and Titus (see 7:5–16), have turned away to this rival apostolate to embrace an alien gospel and to give hospitality to an antithetical Spirit (pneuvma eºteron, “alien spirit”).87

    3. Conclusion. Each of the foregoing exegetical soundings has yielded a remarkably consentient result regarding the Spirit in 2 Corinthians, even if the precise settings are varied. Whether the topic is Paul’s claim to valid ministry, or his insertion of the “eschatological not-yet” to oppose a false dichotomy of soul and body, [vol. 40, p. 707] or the activity of the Spirit as actualizing the power of the new age in Christ, or the opposition to an alien gospel introduced with the blameworthy character of its proponents, Paul invokes the Holy Spirit with one master concern. He is seeking to establish the Holy Spirit as the authentic sign of the new age, already begun but not yet realized in its fullness, and he is building his case on the readers’ participation in the Spirit as the hallmark of their share in both the new world of God’s righteousness and the Pauline apostolate that represents it.

    If this conclusion is near the mark, our revisit to 2 Cor 13:14 will alert us to the claim that the genitival phrase koinwni÷a touv agi÷ou pneu/matoß, “fellowship of the Holy Spirit,” should be preferably understood as objective. But that is not the really important item. Both our sharing in the Spirit and our preserving the ecclesial unity he creates are equally a Christian privilege and a Christian concern. What Paul is seeking to enforce, in this concluding wish prayer, is the assurance that it is the Holy Spirit who is at work. It is the Spirit of the gracious Lord Jesus Christ, whose power is expressed only in the divine love of his incarnate (2 Cor 5:14) and atoning (5:16–21) ministry, that is available to his readers to bring to fulfillment Paul’s call to reconciliation and renewal that has sounded throughout the different pieces of the letter(s) we know as 2 Corinthians. Hence, it is altogether fitting that the final blessing-wish should run: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”

 

 

[vol. 40, p. 708]

 

Comment

11 loipo/n, aÓdelfoi÷, “finally, brothers [and sisters].” Paul closes this letter with an appeal for unity. This appeal is given by one who is deeply concerned with the welfare of the church (see discussion above of whether 13:11–13 was originally the conclusion of chaps. 1–9 or 10–13). loipo/n, “finally,” alerts the reader that Paul is bringing his correspondence to a close. The use of loipo/n, “finally” (instead of to\ loipo/n, lit., “the remainder”), is more colloquial.88 It is obvious that the adverb means “finally” in our present case. But care must be exercised in interpreting this adverb, for it overlaps with the function of a particle.89 We see another use of to\ loipo/n, “finally,” in Phil 3:1: “Finally, my brothers [and sisters], rejoice [cai÷rete] in the Lord.” This may help our understanding of cai÷rw, “rejoice,” in 13:11 (see below).

aÓdelfoi÷, “brothers [and sisters],” is a term of confidence that suggests that Paul does not yet consider the situation at Corinth irreversible. The title to describe the Corinthians is “warm in tone” and says that Paul still considers the Corinthians as Christian believers.90 He has used this term before with respect to the Corinthians (1:8; 8:1; but not in the four-chapter letter [chaps. 10–13]; in 1 Corinthians alone the term occurs twenty times). aÓdelfoi÷, lit., “brothers,” encompasses the whole congregation.91 The term “brother” was a common one among early Christians (Matt 23:8; cf. 12:50)92 and included the women of the congregation as well.93 The idea of “all” the congregation being included in Paul’s appeal is also seen here (v 12: pa¿nteß, “all”). aÓdelfoi÷, “brothers [and sisters],” is often found with parakale÷w, “encourage” (Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 16:15; 1 Thess 4:10; 5:14), and this is true of our present verse.

cai÷rete, “rejoice.” After affectionately addressing the church as “brothers [and sisters],” Paul launches into a “succession of staccato injunctions.”94 In a series of five imperatives Paul makes a final appeal for unity and harmony in the church at Corinth. If this appeal is effective, Paul will not have to discipline the church (13:10). cai÷rw, “rejoice,” has been understood to mean (in our present verse) “farewell.”95 Verses cited in support of this position are Acts 15:23 (the opening of a letter from Claudius Lysias to Felix); 23:26 (the opening of the letter from the Jerusalem council to the Gentile believers); and Jas 1:1; but all of these uses are at the beginning, not the ending of a letter (as in the case in 13:11). Phil 4:4 is also thought to support the position that cai÷rw, “rejoice,” is meant by Paul to be understood as “farewell,” but it is not clear how this verse in Philippians supports that position. Most likely, cai÷rete should be taken as “rejoice.”96 This is consistent with Paul’s use of cai÷rw, “rejoice,” in 13:9, where he speaks of “rejoicing” at his being weak while [vol. 40, p. 709] the Corinthians are strong. Such an idea comports well with 13:11. Paul’s hope is that the Corinthians will rejoice in spite of the bad report that has come to him and in spite of the threats he has made to the Corinthians (13:2). If the Corinthians obey Paul’s advice (and take advantage of the opportunity to heed his warnings before he arrives at Corinth), then there is reason to hope. They can rejoice in that God loves them and Paul as apostle loves them (even if they questioned this; so 12:15). “Rejoice” is not too strong a translation for cai÷rete in this context, as Denney asserts,97 and neither is it incongruous in light of the threat of Paul to spare no one (ouj fei÷somai), which is the point of 13:5–10. The Corinthians may rejoice in that they can remedy the situation if they choose to do so. There is no need for Paul to include cai÷rete to mean “farewell,” for he has already suggested the idea of good-bye by his use of loipo/n, “finally.”

katarti÷zesqe, “aim for restoration.” The issue of how to interpret this imperative—either middle voice98 or passive voice99—has already been discussed (see Note . The verb katarti÷zw, “restore” (see BAGD), is cognate with the noun kata¿rtisiß, “restoration,” in 13:9. In that verse Paul was praying for the recovery of the Corinthians, presumably from erroneous ways to which they had succumbed (11:2–3). Furnish interprets Paul as seeing the Corinthians as more or less passive with respect to the command to be reconciled.100 But we think that probably Paul is requiring some action on behalf of the Corinthians to rectify the situation, based on the middle voice, which suggests action that is needed. To take the verb in the passive voice conveys the idea that Paul is lessening the burden on the Corinthians to act. This seems unlikely in light of his desire that the Corinthians should act before he arrives.

parakalei√sqe, “encourage one another.” Again we could translate parakale÷w, “encourage,” either as middle voice, “encourage one another,”101 or passive voice, “accept my appeal.”102 Since Paul is hoping that the Corinthians will again live in harmony, we take the verb to be construed as the middle voice. Paul is seeking to encourage the Corinthians, who in turn will engage in a mutual ministry of encouragement.103 The result of this encouragement is that they will be “comforted” (“comfort” is one of the many meanings for parakale÷w; see BAGD, and Comment on 1:3–5). Tasker takes the idea of comfort found in 1:3–7 to be in the present verse as well.104 If the Corinthians are seeking harmony with Paul and his teaching, there is no better way to achieve this than by encouraging and exhorting one another, perhaps also in the sense of mutual “reproof” for the disaffection caused by opposition to Paul (cf. 1 Thess 4:18; 5:11).105

to\ aujto\ fronei√te, “be of the same mind.” Paul continues his admonitions for the [vol. 40, p. 710] church to return to harmonious attitudes and living. The thought of “being of one mind” is also found in Romans (12:16; 15:5) and Philippians (2:2; 4:2). The use of “be of the same mind” in 13:11 signals that division is still a reality at Corinth (see 1 Cor 1:10).106 Paul desires that God will grant the Corinthians (Rom 15:5) something not attainable by human endeavor. He is not asking for each Corinthian to give up his or her individuality.107 Rather, the apostle seeks unity for the Corinthians on a deeper level, one that is based on agreement of the mind that, in turn, leads to agreement in the truth.108 The verb frone÷w, “set one’s mind on,” is an important verb in Paul’s pastoral theology, especially when he faces congregations racked by dissension and disunity.109

ei˙rhneu/ete, “live in peace.” The idea of being of the same mind leads on to Paul’s plea that the Corinthians should live in peace. Peace is the natural result of being of one mind.110 Not to be of one mind is to invite sectionalism111 and strife into the body of Christ (12:20). To live in peace is to experience God (see 13:11b). Paul will return to the idea of peace when he speaks of greeting other Christians with the holy kiss (13:12).112

This appeal of Paul is presented by the use of present imperatives. This form suggests continual or protracted action.113 Paul was saying that Christians must constantly strive for church harmony (cf. Eph 4:3).

kai« oJ qeo\ß thvß aÓga¿phß kai« ei˙rh/nhß e¶stai meq∆ uJmw◊n, “and the God of love and peace will be with you.” The copulative kai÷, “and,” connects the exhortation of Paul (13:11a) to a promise of blessing.114 We discussed earlier (see Form/Structure/Setting) how 13:11 is parallel to Phil 4:8–9, both in thought and structure. In essence, Paul is telling the Corinthians that divine blessing awaits their right and responsive action. Possibly the blessing in 13:11b is an adaptation of a peace blessing, something not uncommon to Paul’s thinking (Rom 15:33; 16:20; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 5:23; cf. 1 Cor 14:33; 2 Thess 3:16).115 Often Paul wrote to those who were experiencing difficulties themselves and prayed for their peace.116 And in wishing people “peace” Paul was wishing for them the highest blessing of God.117 Also, to think of God as the God of peace would likely be an uplifting and revitalizing experience for Paul himself since his life at this juncture was characterized by so much hardship and disruption.118

The thought of God as sending, or himself being, peace was an important one for Paul.119 The last imperative in the series (13:11a) exhorts the Corinthians to [vol. 40, p. 711] live in peace. This was made possible by the action of the Holy Spirit, who offered peace as one of his fruits (Gal 5:22). The idea of “the God of peace” being with the readers became a “prayer of benediction” for Paul.120 It is based on Jewish liturgical and paraenetic ascriptions (e.g., T. Dan 5:2: oJ qeo\ß thvß ei˙rh/nhß, “the God of peace”), but in the majority of NT references ei˙rh/nh, “peace,” is given “its comprehensive meaning of eschatological salvation. God is named by this title as the one through whom eschatological salvation comes.121

Into the Pauline phrase “the God of peace” Paul has inserted the words “the God of love.” This latter phrase is not found anywhere else in the NT, though the idea is there (Rom 5:8; 1 John 4:16). Furnish does not attach much significance to this insertion, but we suggest that Paul’s use of “the God of love” is in anticipation of his benediction, which includes the words “the love of God” (13:13). After all, the Corinthian church was not noted for its love (hence the sad rebuke of 1 Cor 8:1). Instead of love, Paul had found jealousy and strife. Paul’s hope and prayer is that the Corinthians will emulate “the God of love.” The word for love is the well-known term aÓga¿ph, a term described in 1 Cor 13 as meaning the action that seeks the highest good of another.122 Such action was sorely needed at Corinth, and Paul was hoping that the presence of “the God of love and peace” would be an incentive to encourage the Corinthians.

The conclusion to 13:11, e¶stai meq∆ uJmw◊n, “will be with you,” invites us to examine the basis for the promise of 13:11b. The use of the future-tense e¶stai, “will be,” suggests the idea of possible conditionality.123 Is Paul saying, if you follow my directions of 13:11a, then (and only then) the God of love and peace (these are characteristics of God) will be with you? This is the element of condition as implying more a wish than a declaration.124 But that more is intended than a simple wish, i.e., expressing “a strong confidence of fulfillment,” has been argued by van Elderen.125 Or is the apostle saying that in the process of fulfilling his imperatives of 13:11, God will provide the resources (gifts), namely, love and peace, to accomplish this task? Tasker leans toward the idea of condition,126 but we believe Barrett is closer to the truth when he suggests that both ideas (characteristics and gifts) are meant by Paul.127 This reflects Paul’s use of the phrase “the God of peace” elsewhere. In Rom 15:33 there is no hint of condition, while in Phil 4:9 we again see e¶stai, “will be.” Perhaps P. E. Hughes catches the sense of 13:11b when he remarks that it is God alone who supplies the grace to achieve the demands of 13:11c,128 but this “achievement” is not accidental, for each church member must make a conscious daily effort to practice love and peace. This ensures the presence of God, for the “promise [13:11b] cannot prevail where there is jealousy and strife.”

12 aÓspa¿sasqe aÓllh/louß e˙n agi÷wˆ filh/mati, “greet one another with a holy kiss.” [vol. 40, p. 712] Paul now turns to the theme of greeting, but in doing so he does not leave behind the themes of peace and harmony discussed in 13:11. To salute one with a holy kiss continues the themes of 13:11.129 The kiss was a common ancient Near Eastern form of salutation. Apparently there were different forms of this gesture meant for different occasions, such as the kissing of a ruler or the kissing of loved ones.130 The church took over this practice of kissing and invested it with “special and sacred meaning.”131 From NT letters it appears that the practice of giving a kiss in the church was common (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 1 Thess 5:26; 1 Pet 5:14). Moreover, this form of greeting was probably a part of the liturgy.132 It played a role in the bishop’s consecration in Hippolytus’s rite (Trad. ap. §4),133 possibly preceding the celebration of the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 16:20b, 22) or the rite of baptism (Hippolytus, Trad. ap. §21).134 The fact that the kiss was exchanged when the Christians met for worship135 may explain the adjective a‚gioß, “holy,” for this kiss was shared among the saints (a‚gioi).136 It is uncertain whether the holy kiss was shared between men and women.137 It is suggested that Paul implied that the Corinthians were to give one another (aÓllh/louß) the kiss that he would have given if he were present.138

Most likely, the kiss was already practiced in the Corinthian church. But Paul wanted it to be more than a meaningless gesture or worse, as Jerome (Epistulae 82.3) was later to rebuke the person who harbored bitter thoughts at the Eucharist and “when his hand is held out [to receive the communion elements], turn[ed] away his face, and in the midst of the sacred feast proffer[ed] the kiss of Judas.” He wanted it to be an actual sign that represented an inward charity for all.139 The kiss was to symbolize family life and to show that each member of the Corinthian church considered every other member as a part of one family.140 In addition, Paul hoped that the kiss would be a sign of forgiveness and reconciliation. As we will see shortly, the exhortation to give a holy kiss was not unique to the Corinthian church.

The aorist imperative aÓspa¿sasqe, “greet,” is common to all the other occasions when Paul exhorts his readers to greet one another with a holy kiss (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:10; 1 Thess 5:26; see too 1 Pet 5:14). What is of note for our present verse is that the aorist imperative comes after the series of present imperatives in 13:11a. Strictly speaking, the aorist imperative commands something to be done once for all.141 But it is doubtful Paul is simply saying that the Corinthians are to kiss each other only once. His use of the aorist imperative here simply reflects his normal exhortation to greet others with a holy kiss. The Corinthians would naturally [vol. 40, p. 713] assume that each time they came together to worship that they were to exchange the holy kiss. There may be some connection between the giving of the “kiss of peace” and the “liturgical” blessing of 13:13, 142 but Barrett questions if the connection is as strong as it is sometimes made out to be.143

In the history of the liturgy “the kiss of peace” (together with the words of salutation pax vobiscum, “peace be with you”) played a significant, if varied, role. Justin’s order of service (First Apology 65), set in Rome in the mid-second century; the kiss was placed prior to the presentation of the bread and cup to the president of the Eucharist and after the common prayers were said by all. Roman and some other Western usage retained this significance, namely, that the kiss of peace after praying is the “seal of prayer.”144

In the Gallican and Mozarabic rites, as in the Eastern liturgy, the kiss is situated before the Preface and so placed in connection with the Offertory (cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.18.1). Support for this placement drew on Matt 5:23–24 (cf. Did. 14.2), while the link of the kiss of peace with the Communion emphasized the leading idea of the sacrament of unity.145

aÓspa¿zontai uJma◊ß oi˚ a‚gioi pa¿nteß, “all the saints send their greetings.”146 Paul remarks that the Corinthians are part of a larger body, namely, the universal church (cf. 1 Cor 12:28).147 Paul’s habit of having those with him when he was writing his letters send greetings to his readers is well documented (Rom 16:3–23; 1 Cor 16:19–20; Phil 4:21; Col 4:10–15; Titus 3:15; Phlm 23; cf. 2 Tim 4:19–21). The identity of the saints in 13:12–13 remains uncertain. They could be the Philippians or the Thessalonians or the Bereans. More likely, they are the Christians of Macedonia.148 But the most one can say is that the “saints” were those Christians in Paul’s company when he wrote chaps. 10–13. In 1 Cor 16:20 Paul spoke of the “brothers [and sisters]” (instead of “the saints”) greeting the Corinthians. It is doubtful that there is any difference between “brothers [and sisters]” and “saints.”149 The important [vol. 40, p. 714] thing to remember here is that Paul is calling for unity. Just as the holy kiss was an “epistolary greeting”150 that signified unity, so was the greeting from other “saints.” The Pauline Christians throughout the churches were united in Christ and firm in their devotion to Paul, at least by inference (pa¿nteß, “all,” is placed at the end of the sentence). This may be Paul’s way of emphasizing151 that the Corinthians—in spite of their previous behavior—are still considered by him to belong to the body of Christ. Thus, other Christians are one with them and will continue to be so.152 Unity remains in Paul’s mind in vv 12–13 and is suggested by his sending the greetings of others, despite the possibility that those who sent their greetings were personally unknown to the Corinthians.153

13 hJ ca¿riß touv kuri÷ou ∆Ihsouv Cristouv kai« hJ aÓga¿ph touv qeouv kai« hJ koinwni÷a touv agi÷ou pneu/matoß meta» pa¿ntwn uJmw◊n, “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” The question of the Trinitarian flavor of 13:13 was discussed earlier (Form/Structure/Setting). Concerning the benediction of 13:13 Furnish writes: “No other Pauline letter concludes with a benediction so theologically imposing as the one in v. 13.”154 This verse appears as the construction of three parallel clauses.

hJ ca¿riß touv kuri÷ou ∆Ihsouv Cristouv, “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.” This phrase is usually found at the end of Paul’s letters (Rom 16:20b; 1 Cor 16:23; Gal 6:18; Phil 4:23; 1 Thess 5:28; Phlm 25; cf. 2 Cor 1:2).155 This common usage may explain why he placed it first among the three clauses. But since “grace” (ca¿riß, used christologically here and in 8:9; 12:9) is understood as both action and gift,156 Paul may be placing “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” at the opening of the verse because it was through the cross (an observable event) that people came to understand the love of God and were thus led to life in the Spirit.157 Thus it is logical that an early statement describing the work of Christ came first as conveying the knowledge of Christian salvation (only later did the Father’s election take precedence; 1 Pet 1:2; Eph 1:3–14:1; 1 Tim 2:5). Undoubtedly the genitive case (touv kuri÷ou ∆Ihsouv Cristouv) is subjective, for Paul is speaking not about the grace given to Christ by the believer, but rather the grace from Christ to and for his people.

kai« hJ aÓga¿ph touv qeouv, “and the love of God.” The first clause is connected to the second one in 13:13 by the simple copulative “and.” The phrase “love of God” is found also in Romans (5:8; 8:39). The love of God is closely related to the love of Christ (Rom 8:35, 37; cf. 2 Cor 5:14; Gal 2:20; see also Rom 8:39: “the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” [niv]). The love of God is never seen more clearly than in the sending of his Son that God might reconcile the world to himself (5:18–21). Through Christ we receive God’s saving grace (Rom 5:1–2; 2 Cor 8:9; Gal 1:15–16; [vol. 40, p. 715] 2:12; we also receive the love of the Spirit [Rom 15:30]).158 Most likely this second clause of 13:13 is a subjective genitive, for it is not the Christian’s love for God that is being highlighted.159

kai« hJ koinwni÷a touv agi÷ou pneu/matoß meta» pa¿ntwn uJmw◊n, “and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” But while there is little debate as to whether the previous clauses of 13:13 contain a subjective genitive, with regard to our present clause there is much disagreement (see Note i). Both sides (taking the genitive as subjective versus objective [fellowship in or with the Spirit]) can make a strong case. If the genitive is taken as subjective, or genitive of origin160 or author,161 then we understand Paul to be speaking of the fellowship created and given by the Holy Spirit to be enjoyed between members of the church. This follows logically in light of the two preceding clauses, which are indubitably subjective genitives. It is not difficult to see that here Paul is concerned with the fellowship that the Spirit promotes among believers. The thrust of 13:11–13 has been to emphasize peace and harmony within the church at Corinth.162 But it can also be said that Paul meant our present clause to be understood as an objective genitive, thus giving us a paraphrase that speaks of participation in the Holy Spirit, namely, communion with him as a person. This latter position is based on other uses of koinwni÷a in which “participation in” is the understanding (see 1 Cor 10:16; Phil 3:10; also cf. Rom 15:27; Phil 2:1; Phlm 6; see 2 Cor 1:7; 6:14; 8:4, 23; 9:13).163 Also, it is argued that “participation in the Holy Spirit” goes better with the phrase meta» pa¿ntwn uJmw◊n, “be with you all,” than does “the fellowship given by the Holy Spirit.”164 But such a position is not convincing.165

A third possible option is to take the phrase as understood in both ways, namely, as a subjective and objective genitive.166 As Denney explains it,167 there is not much difference between the idea of “the fellowship of the Holy Spirit” and the idea of “fellowship with one another.” We would not expect Paul to overlook the “communion” of believers with the Holy Spirit. Yet we may find it hard to understand why he would create three clauses (possibly parallel in structure), of which the first two clauses are subjective genitive, and then suddenly change to an objective genitive. But such “lack of concinnity”168 is not without parallel—see Phil 2:1, where Lohmeyer’s structural analysis169 seems soundly based.170 In any case Phil 2:1 is not precisely parallel with 2 Cor 13:13. Kramer believes the first two clauses are a pre-Pauline formulaic creation,171 engendered by Paul’s own addition of the koinwni÷a, [vol. 40, p. 716] “fellowship,” of the Spirit. By this addition he has destroyed the congruence of the binitarian credo by supplying the thought that the “Holy Spirit” is not the dispenser but is himself the gift of salvation. Given that Sitz im Leben, “situation within the life [of the community],” of v 13, it is more likely that the third member clause stresses the church’s creation by the Spirit, i.e., the genitive is subjective. More likely than not, the Corinthians understood Paul as speaking of the fellowship created by the Holy Spirit since this idea would be more immediately relevant in context. But no matter what choice of interpretations of the genitive we make, in either case the function of the Spirit is to conjoin the work of Christ and God’s love (see Rom 8:9). To take the genitive as objective is to hold that the grace of Christ and the love of God are present by the participation in the Holy Spirit.172 To take the genitive as subjective is to conclude that the fellowship with the Spirit is not primarily the sharing in the Spirit, but the sharing in the communion he creates among believers (Héring, 103), a sharing characterized by grace and love. But it is clearly possible to combine both syntactical points and think of Paul as remarking on “the fellowship of the church through the common share in the Holy Spirit.”173

The idea of God’s blessings being “with you all” is common to Paul’s letter closings (see Rom 16:20b; 1 Cor 16:23; 1 Thess 5:28). Sometimes he wishes the blessings of God to be with a person’s spirit (Gal 6:18; Phil 4:23; Phlm 25; cf. 1 Cor 12:18). An item of note is that usually Paul closed his letters with a hope of a blessing (Segenswunsch) rather than a promise (Segensverheissung).174 But except for here and in 2 Thess 3:18, he did not include the word pa¿nteß, “all.” Normally, he would say, “the grace of Christ be with you.” But in 13:13 he writes “with you all.” The pa¿ntwn, “all,” is his way of emphasizing that he is speaking to everyone in the church.175 Paul has sought to show that no one is to be excluded from his appeal. He asks that all in the church heed his exhortation, and he hopes that all will reap the benefit of obedience. He opened 13:11 with the term “brothers [and sisters],” which also signifies that he is speaking to all church members. He closes the passage (13:11–13), and the epistle as well, with the word “all,” again including all readers in the scope of his paraenesis.

 

 

 

Footnotes

 

1 Ancient Rhetoric, 145.

2 For more on the form of the NT greetings, see Mullins, JBL 87 (1986) 418–26.

3 See Martin, New Testament Foundations, 2:246–47; Champion, Benedictions, 20, 25–37; Rigaux, Letters of St. Paul, 131–33; Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity, 39–43; Mullins, AUSS 15 (1977) 59–64.

4 Martin, New Testament Foundations, 2:246–47. It has been suggested that 1 Cor 16:20–24 functioned not only as a closing to the letter but also as a transition to the worship service itself. But see Moule, NTS 6 (1959–1960) 307–10; Black, “Maranatha Invocation.”

5 E.g., Strachan, 145.

6 Plummer, 379–80; Windisch, 426.

7 Furnish, 585.

8 Filson, 422; Paul’s appeal here is not as general as Harris (1976), 405, would have us believe.

9 Furnish, 585.

10 Barrett, 343.

11 Furnish, 586.

12 But see Martin, Philippians, NCB, 16–22, 157.

13 See Martin, Philippians, NCB, 160.

14 See Bultmann, 252.

15 See Barrett, 342; also cf. 6:17.

16 See Wiles, Paul’s Intercessory Prayers, 36, 107.

17 Moule, Worship in the New Testament, 78–79; see Comment.

18 Tasker, 191; see Harris (1976), 405.

19 Windisch, 427.

20 Plummer, 382.

21 Allo, 343.

22 Filson, 424.

23 See Martin, Spirit and the Congregation, 10–11; Hainz, Ekklesia, 325–27; also cf. Gal 4:4–6; Rom 8:5–11; Eph 4:4–6.

24 Hainz, Ekklesia, 327; idem, Koinonia, 55–61, against Hermann, Kyrios und Pneuma, 140–43.

25 Plummer, 383; Bruce, 255; Tasker, 191; P. E. Hughes, 488; Harris (1976) 406; Schlatter, 62; Wendland, 234. But not all are convinced of this view: Barrett, 344; F. Hauck, TDNT 3:807; Furnish, 584; Windisch, 428; Lietzmann, 162; Bultmann, 253.

26 Denney, 388; Hainz, Koinonia, 61. This view will be taken up later (see Comment).

27 Barrett, 345.

28 Plummer, 382–83.

29 Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu, 109.

30 P. E. Hughes, 488.

31 Kümmel, in Lietzmann and Kümmel, 214.

32 See the texts in Martin, Worship of God, 93–94; the main references are Justin, First Apology 46; cf. 6.2; 65.3; 67.2, 13; Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 7; Hippolytus, Trad. ap. §21 (Cuming, Hippolytus, 19).

33 Strachan, 145; Denney, 358.

34 A term coined by Tertullian, Modesty 21, as trinitas; see also von Dobschütz, JBL 50 (1931) esp. 141–47; Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 109–37; idem, Early Christian Creeds, chaps. 1–3, for developments.

35 As Kümmel, in Lietzmann and Kümmel, 214, does.

36 Barrett, 345.

37 Filson, 425.

38 Though 2 Cor 3:17 poses a problem of the relationship between the exalted Lord and the Spirit; see Comment there; and Hermann, Kyrios und Pneuma, 69–122; Hainz, Koinonia, 58–61.

39 Héring, 104.

40 Barrett, 345.

41 Which swallowed up the not yet in forceful speech and action (Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 330).

42 Wiles, Paul’s Intercessory Prayers, 115, on the appeal to Christian experience, which now assumes a combative role, given the Tendenz, “purpose,” of the four-chapter letter, chaps. 10–13, in our view.

43 Hainz, Koinonia, 61.

44 Harris (1976), 406; Hainz, Koinonia, 47.

45 Originally published as “The Spirit in 2 Corinthians in Light of the ‘Fellowship of the Holy Spirit,’” in Eschatology and the New Testament, FS G. R. Beasley-Murray, ed. W. H. Gloer (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988) 113–28. Note that this article considers that there 14 verses in 2 Cor 13 rather than 13, used elsewhere in this section.

46 Beasley-Murray, 47.

47 Ibid., 76, italics his.

48 Allo, 343.

49 But see the qualifications of A. R. George, Communion with God, 179.

50 Beasley-Murray, 76.

51 Begriff KOINWNIA, 72–73).

52 Koinonia, 48; see too McDermott, BZ 19 (1975) 64–77, 219–33; O’Brien, RTR 37 (1978) 9–18; Panikulam, Koinonia.

53 To use Lohmeyer’s designation; Brief an die Philipper, 17.

54 It is reflected in the modern translations rsv, neb, and niv, but note the challenge in Hawthorne and Martin, Philippians, 84.

55 Christ, Lord, Son of God, §20b.

56 Barrett, 344.

57 Wiles, Paul’s Intercessory Prayers, 115.

58 Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus, 95.

59 See Hainz, Koinonia, 61.

60 St. Paul, 162–64, indebted to Schmitz, Christus-Gemeinschaft des Paulus.

61 E. Schweizer, TDNT 6:434.

62 Note that Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 119–21, calls this a plenary genitive (he cites 2 Cor 13:14 as a possible example).

63 Hainz, Koinonia, 61.

64 See van Unnik, “Reispläne und Amen-Sagen,” 215–34.

65 Pace Barrett, 80–81.

66 See Doughty, ZNW (1975) 61–90; Thiselton, NTS 24 (1977–1978) 510–26.

67 Cf. Martin, Spirit and the Congregation, 110.

68 See C. N. Toney’s Excursus: Resurrection in 2 Corinthians after Form/Structure/Setting on 2 Cor 5:1–10.

69 So Moule, “St Paul and ‘Dualism,’” 215, n. 30.

70 Moule, 215.

71 Martin, Spirit and the Congregation, chap. 7.

72 Bultmann, ET, 141–42.

73 Cf. Fallon, 47, 105.

74 See Friesen, Glory of the Ministry; Fung, “Justification,” 251–54.

75 Georgi, Gegner, 241–73.

76 Imago Dei, 178–79.

77 Legitimitätsprinzip is Käsemann’s term (see Legitimität, 34).

78 Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 175–76.

79 Käsemann, Legitimität, 43–51.

80 “Eignung des Verkündigers,” 267.

81 So van Unnik, NovT 6 (1963) 153–69; however, some important correctives to this view are supplied by Smith, “Function of 2 Corinthians 3:7–4:6.”

82 Dunn, JTS n.s. 21 (1970) 309–20; Moule, “II Cor iii.18b,” 227–34.

83 Moule, “II Cor iii.18b,” 232–34, has the unusual view that ku/rioß, “Lord,” here refers to YHWH, not the exalted Christ, so that “the Lord [of the Exodus story] is [now, for us, represented by] the Spirit . . . as [is natural when the glory is] from a Lord [who is now experienced as] Spirit.” We have preferred to retain the link of the pneuvma, “Spirit,” with the heavenly Christ in the light of 1 Cor 15:45 and, more particularly, 2 Cor 5:16.

84 Stuhlmacher, EvT 27 (1967) 1–35.

85 Baird, JBL 104 (1985) 661.

86 Also see Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 34, for a full exposition of this theme.

87 See 11:19, 21, which reverts to 11:4 by the hook word aÓne÷cesqe, “you put up with,” these intruders and their teaching.

88 Plummer, 380.

89 Moule, Idiom-Book, 160–61; see also Thrall, Greek Particles, 25–30.

90 Filson, 422.

91 Furnish, 112–13, 581.

92 See Deissmann, Bible Studies, 87–88, 142.

93 Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 31; cf. Gal 3:28; Col 3:2.

94 P. E. Hughes, 486.

95 BAGD, 874; kjv/av; rsv; neb; niv; Plummer, 350; Denney, 384; Barrett, 342: “good-bye”; as though the verb meant the same as e¶rrwso, lit., “be strong,” “farewell”; e¶rrwsqe, “farewell”; or e˙rrw◊sqai÷ se/uJma◊ß eu¡comai, lit., “I pray that you will be strong,” “I pray you farewell.”

96 P. E. Hughes, 486; Furnish, 581; nasb; Moule, Idiom-Book, 161.

97 Denney 384.

98 rsv: “mend your ways”; neb; Barrett; 342: “pull yourselves together”; Héring, 102: “set yourselves right”; niv.

99 “Be restored”; see Windisch, 426; Allo, 342; Furnish, 581–82.

100 Furnish, 581–82.

101 Barrett, 342; Bruce, 254–55.

102 rsv; neb; niv; Plummer, 380; P. E. Hughes, 487; Furnish, 582.

103 Barrett, 342.

104 Tasker, 191.

105 See Bjerkelund, Parakalô, 134, 137.

106 Filson, 423.

107 Paul desires “Christian unity, not artificial uniformity” (P. E. Hughes, 487).

108 P. E. Hughes, 487; Tasker, 191.

109 See Martin, Philippians, NCB, 90, on Phil 2:2, 5; the verb “is both a summons to adopt an attitude and an exhortation to carry that attitude into practice.”

110 Plummer, 380.

111 Tasker, 191.

112 See Rom 12:18 and 1 Thess 5:13 for other paraenetic calls, exhorting the readers to live in peace. Cf. Mark 9:50.

113 Moule, Idiom-Book, 20–21, though, as we shall see in 13:12, this is not a rule without exceptions.

114 See Furnish, 586; 13:11b.

115 See Bultmann, 252.

116 Hawthorne and Martin, Philippians, 253–54.

117 Martin, Philippians, TNTC, 173.

118 Hawthorne and Martin, Philippians, 253–54.

119 See also Bigaré, AsSeign 58 (1974) 11–15.

120 Hawthorne and Martin, Philippians, 253–54.

121 Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus, 94–95; see also Delling, “Bezeichnung ‘Gott des Friedens,’” 76–84.

122 See Barclay, New Testament Words, 21–22

123 Harris (1976), 405.

124 See Wiles, Paul’s Intercessory Prayers, 33–34, drawing on van Unnik, “Dominus Vobiscum.”

125 CTJ 2 (1967) 46–48.

126 Tasker 191.

127 Barrett, 343.

128 P. E. Hughes, 488.

129 Strachan, 145.

130 G. Stählin, TDNT 9:119–24.

131 Harris (1976), 405).

132 Stählin, TDNT 9:142–46; Justin, First Apology 65.2; Windisch, 427.

133 See Cuming, Hippolytus, 10.

134 Ibid., 21.

135 Tasker, 191.

136 See Plummer, 382; Filson, 423.

137 See Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis 32 (PG 6, col. 964), which speaks of someone possibly losing eternal life if one gives the holy kiss with an ulterior (sexual) motive; Héring, 103.

138 Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 396.

139 Tasker, 191.

140 Denney, 384.

141 But see Moule, Idiom-Book, 20–21; see also Moulton (Turner), Grammar, 3:75.

142 Lietzmann, 162; idem, Mass and Lord’s Supper, 186.

143 Barrett, 343. On Paul’s fi÷lhma a‚gion, “sacred kiss,” see further Ebel, Attraktivität früher christlicher Gemeinden, 212, n. 188; see also Klassen, NTS 39 (1993) 130–33, who suggests that the kiss was “a public declaration of the affirmation of faith” within the family of God as in Gal 3:28.

144 This is the signaculum orationis (see Tertullian, Prayer 18, who makes much of the kiss as signifying joyous reconciliation in the spirit of Matt 6:16–18, against those in Carthage who withheld the rite after fasting); no prayer is complete without it, except that on Good Friday the kiss was omitted. See also Innocent’s letter to Decentius (Ep. ad Decent. 1, in a.d. 416), defending the place of the gesture at the close of the canon as marking the assent of the people to all that was done and giving their seal to it.

145 But not all the data are clear cut, as Srawley (Early History of the Liturgy, passim), Richardson (“Further Inquiry into Eucharistic Origins,” 528–46), and G. Wainwright (Doxology, 31–32) make evident.

146 See Note g for the differences in the verse numbering of chap. 13.

147 Martin, Spirit and the Congregation, 31.

148 Bruce, 255.

149 Barrett, 343. On the latter term see Comment on 1:1. And note Ellis’s theory (“Paul and His Co-workers,” 15) that the designation oi˚ aÓdelfoi÷, “the brothers” (with the article), refers to “a relatively limited group of workers, some of whom have the Christian mission and/or ministry as their primary occupation.” But his equating of “brothers” and “fellow workers” is by no means proved. Rather, in v 11 the term means “the church as a whole”; so Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter, 78.

150 Harris (1976), 405.

151 Plummer, 381.

152 P. E. Hughes, 488.

153 Tasker, 191.

154 Furnish, 587.

155 See Héring, 103.

156 Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 398.

157 Cf. Eph 2:18; on this verse see Martin, Worship of God, 92, citing Crichton, “Theology of Worship,” 19: “To the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit, is the underlying pattern of the history of revelation. So is it too of the liturgy.”

158 See Filson, 425.

159 Tasker, 101; Furnish, 583; but see Plummer, 384.

160 Hainz, Koinonia, 50.

161 Prümm, Diakonia Pneumatos, 1:730.

162 Plummer, 383–84; Bruce, 255; Tasker, 191–92; Harris (1976), 406; Schlatter, 682; Wendland, 234; E. Schweizer, TDNT 6:434, who finally thinks the choice is immaterial.

163 See George, Communion with God, 175–77.

164 Barrett, 344.

165 See also Reicke, Diakonie; Campbell, JBL 51 (1932) 378–79.

166 Filson, 425.

167 Denney, 386.

168 Inkonzinnität; Hermann, Kyrios und Pneuma, 136.

169 Brief an die Philipper, 138–39.

170 On this see Martin, Philippians, TNTC, 46–50.

171 Christ, Lord, Son of God, §20b.

172 Who realizes and effectuates the “grace” and “love” as “a divine work on earth”; so Hermann, Kyrios und Pneuma, 136–37.

173 See Hainz, Koinonia, 61.

174 Using Deichgräber’s terminology; Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus, 95.

175 Plummer, 384.

176 Contemporary Cross, 57–58.

177 Commentary on Paul’s Epistles; see CSEL, 81:314; trans. ACCS, NT 7:315.

 

[vol. 40, p. 718]

[Emanuel Cardona]

If possible, are there any comments from AYB, BECNT, NICNT, and PNTC addressing just the last part of the verse, "... the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all"? Thank you!

[Emanuel Cardona]

May someone please help me with this either on here or in a pm? I truly appreciate all the help.

[sfarson]

Emanuel, Here is what the PNTC has to say about the last part of the verse...

 

Paul’s final reference—to the “fellowship” or “communion” of the Holy Spirit—brings a decisive reminder of his message to the Corinthians; namely, salvation consists not of the possession of gifts but of communion with the Giver. This communion, according to Paul, is effected by the Spirit, who is given through the apostolic mission and the Gospel, with which Paul has been entrusted. The whole of 2 Cor 3 appears here in highly concentrated form: the Corinthians are a letter written by “the Spirit of the living God” (3:3); Paul has been made an agent of the new covenant, which brings the gift of the Spirit (3:6); and the Corinthians have thereby been brought into a saving, face-to-face relationship with God (3:17–18). The Spirit is nothing other than God in his saving presence in communion with and indwelling the human being. Yet, as is apparent in the present context, this identification does not overrun the distinction that Paul obviously allows to stand.

 

It is of fundamental significance, too, that Paul identifies the Spirit not only with Israel’s God but also, implicitly, with Christ. This is apparent already in 4:4–6, where Paul, having identified the Spirit with Israel’s Lord, goes on to name Christ the “image of God,” the person in whom God’s glory is displayed, and the Lord whom Paul proclaims. Elsewhere in the Corinthian correspondence, Paul does not speak of the koinoœnia of the Spirit, but of the koinoœnia “of God’s Son, Jesus Christ,” into which the Corinthians have been called (1 Cor [2 Cor, p. 500] 1:9), and the koinoœnia of Christ’s “blood and body” in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 10:16). In a similar way, in Second Corinthians, Paul instructs the Corinthians that there can be no koinoœnia of “light with darkness,” just as there can be no agreement between Christ and Beliar (2 Cor 6:14–15). For the Corinthians to bear happily the proclamation of a “different Jesus” is for them to receive “a different spirit” (2 Cor 11:4). Likewise, in Phil 2:1 Paul locates the koinoœnia of the Spirit “in Christ Jesus.” The blessing of the “fellowship of the Spirit” that Paul invokes upon the Corinthians is not a different fellowship from that of the “fellowship of Christ,” of which he otherwise speaks in varying ways. In this indirect manner, Paul identifies the Spirit not only with God but also with Christ. Yet even in this identification, the distinction between the two remains, as is obvious from both the present context and others.

 

Paul’s language here is thus incipiently Trinitarian, even though he obviously does not use the categories of “person” and “substance” that played large roles in later debates. With him we find merely the juxtaposition of identification and distinction. This grace-pronouncement is not an isolated phenomenon within Paul’s letters, even if it is remarkable here in its threefold form. Something similar appears in the summary description of the apostolic mission in 1:21–22. We likewise have noted the progression of identification that takes place in 3:17–4:6. A form similar to the one we find in this closing of Second Corinthians appears in Paul’s discussion of spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12:4–6: the same Spirit, the same Lord, and the same God work varieties of gifts, bring varieties of tasks, and work varieties of effects. Paul’s point here fails if there does not exist a fundamental identity of the Spirit, Lord, and God whom he names. As is well known, Romans 6–8 develops chapter-by-chapter with a progression of references to God, Christ, and the Spirit. Similar forms appear in other passages. It must not escape our notice that, in all these contexts, Paul’s “Trinitarian expressions” serve as clarifications of the Gospel. The earliest Christian confession is the confession of Jesus as risen Lord. It is out of this confession that Paul’s incipiently Trinitarian formulations emerge. At the risk of anachronism, we may say that Paul’s Trinitarian theology is nothing other than an explication of his Christology. This is especially apparent in the present verse, where Paul offers his last word to the Corinthians. As we have observed more than once, Paul above all else seeks to make clear to them that the salvation brought to them through the Gospel is one of a relationship of communication with God, the Giver, not one of the private possession of gifts. The beginnings of a doctrine of the Trinity, as they appear with Paul, present this understanding of God in an unfolding of the Gospel. The apostle speaks only of the “economic Trinity” and invites no speculation concerning [2 Cor, p. 501] the “immanent Trinity.” The God who saves is found solely and entirely in the crucified and risen Jesus. It is this God of all comfort, who is present as the Spirit in the Gospel of Christ, whom Paul has proclaimed afresh to the Corinthians in this letter.

[Daniel Francis]

Here is NICNT:

 

14 With this justly famous benediction13 the apostle concludes both his farewell words and the entire letter. A few verses earlier he prayed that the “God of love and of peace” be “with” them (v. 11). Now he prays that “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit” be “with” them.

This prayer reflects the experience of both the believer and the church through the gospel message (1:19), wherein the “grace [i.e., the sheer mercy see on 1:2] of the Lord Jesus Christ” is understood. This fundamental of the gospel was expressed as a benediction that was often pronounced on its own (1 Thess 5:28; Gal 6:18; 1 Cor 16:23; Rom 16:20b; Phlm 25) and is reflected in the well-known christological passage earlier in the letter (see on 8:9). As a consequence of apprehending “the grace of … Christ,” there is the knowledge of “the love of God” (so also Rom 5:5; 8:9), that is, of the Father (see on 1:2–3; cf. 1 Thess 1:2–3). Because he is “the God of love” (v. 11), he is the God who “loves” (cf. 9:7) his children (see on 1:3, 9–11, 21; 7:6). As a further consequence of the “grace of … Christ,” there is the “fellowship of the Holy Spirit,” arising from the now-fulfilled “day of salvation” (5:14–6:2; cf. 1:21–22; 3:3, 8, 18; 5:5; 11:4), as a result of which there is both14 (1) the individual’s fellowship with the Spirit (Phil 2:1; cf. “we cry, ‘Abba,’ Father” Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6), and (2) the fellowship created by the Spirit in the assembly of Spirit-indwelt ones (6:16; cf. 1 Cor 3:16–17; Eph 2:21–22).

But this benediction, being normative of the experience of those who receive the word of God, also serves to recall the Corinthians to relearn the fundamentals of “the faith” (see on 13:5a), and so be “restored” (or “mended” vv. 9, 11) in their relationship to God and to each other. Whether they are flirting with the “other Jesus” of the intruders, or enmeshed in a Gentile lifestyle, or loftily critical of Paul and by those errors distanced from God and divided from one another let them return to “the grace of … Christ,” which in turn opens the doors to their experience of “the love of God” and the “fellowship of the Holy Spirit.”15 Here is the key to renewal of both the individual and the church, then and now.

It is clear from this three-part benediction, when read next to “the God of love and of peace” (v. 11), that Paul thinks of the one God as in some sense triune. There is (1) the Lord Jesus Christ, (2) God, his Father (1:3; 11:31) who are in a personal (“Father” and “Son”) relationship and (3) the Holy Spirit, whose “fellowship” with persons implies that he is a person, not a “force” or “influence.”

Triune references are quite common in Paul (e.g., Gal 4:4–6; 1 Cor 12:4–6; Eph 1:3, 13–14; 2:18; 3:14–17; 4:4–6), though there, as here, he does not explain either the relative status of the persons or their relationship with one another or with God. Nonetheless, this statement cannot be dismissed as merely “functional.” The “grace … love … fellowship” relate to “personal beings” who are called by different names. It is a small step to believe that the “God of love and of peace” of whom Paul spoke comes to us as three “persons” within the one God. Thus we may agree with H. B. Swete16 that this verse “suggests beyond doubt that beneath the religious life of the apostolic age there lay a profound, though as yet unformulated, faith in the tri-personality of God.” As Karl Barth observed, “Trinity is the Christian name for God.”

 

So the letter ends. As the lector closes the scroll, the minds of the Corinthians will be focused on one thing: Paul’s impending arrival for his final visit. In the weeks between their receipt of the letter and his coming, did they heed his admonition? Although we can only speculate, it appears that this letter, like the “Severe Letter,” brought a change of heart, for the following reasons: (1) Paul spent three months there soon afterward upon his arrival (Acts 20:2–3), (2) the Achaians participated in the collection (so Rom 15:26, despite the absence of named persons in Acts 20:4), and (3) the Letter to the Romans, which was probably written from Corinth soon after his arrival, has little of the anguish and heat evident in 2 Corinthians.

 

Be that as it may, what remains for posterity is this letter. It is remarkable for the patient confidence of its author toward those wayward and fickle believers in Roman Corinth, for its disclosure of Paul’s personal hurt, and for his own robust yet subtle exposition of the gospel of Christ in relationship to the matters of current concern in Corinth, matters that are forever lost through the distance of history and the eternal incompleteness of our knowledge. Yet Paul’s words the text remain, and come to us borne by the Spirit of God, with the authority of the Lord Christ himself, whose devoted minister Paul was.

 

 

Footnotes

 

 

13. According to Furnish, 587, “No other Pauline letter concludes with a benediction so theologically imposing as this one.” G. D. Fee goes further, referring to it as in some ways “ ‘… the most profound theological moment in the Pauline corpus” (Presence, 363). According to Fee (362), this prayer is almost certainly ad hoc, not directly quoted from the church’s liturgical tradition.

 

14. The genitive ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ πνεύματος can be understood both subjectively and objectively, though many argue for either the former (e.g., Plummer, 383–84) or the latter (e.g., Barrett, 344; Furnish, 584). The subjective genitive is to be preferred, given the emphasis on the Spirit within this letter (1:20–22; 3:3, 8, 18; 5:5; 6:16; 11:4).

 

15. See R. P. Martin, “The Spirit in 2 Corinthians,” 112–28, for the view that the triune benediction is especially appropropriate to the present ecclesial situation of the Corinthians and that Paul’s emphasis falls on the work of the Spirit in the lives of the Corinthians, in the light of other Spirit references throughout this letter.

 

16. Quoted in Plummer, 384.

 

Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 618-620.

accord://read/NICNT18#59511

Closing, 13:11–13[14]

13 11 Finally, brothers and sisters, rejoice; be restored; pay attention to my appeals; be of one mind; be at peace—and the God of love and of peace will be with you.

12 Greet one another with a holy kiss. [13] All the saints greet you.

13[14] The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and participation in the Holy Spirit be with all of you.

Notes

13:11. Finally. Translates loipon, as in 1 Thess 4:1, which is perhaps “more colloquial” (Plummer, 380) than to loipon in, e.g., Phil 3:1; 4:8.

brothers and sisters. Literally: “brothers”; but see Notes on 1:8. The appellation occurs nowhere else in chaps. 10–13, although “beloved” in 12:19 is comparable. Here, as elsewhere, it functions to accentuate the following admonitions by stressing the writer’s solidarity with his readers; note, e.g., how often Paul uses it in association with the verb parakalein, “to exhort,” especially toward the close of a letter: Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 16:15; 1 Thess 4:10; 5:14. In Phil 4:8 and 1 Thess 4:1 as well as here, it follows (to) loipon, “Finally”; cf. 1 Cor 15:58; Phil 4:1, following hōste (“So,” “So that”).

rejoice. Some would translate the imperative form here (chairete) as a greeting; thus, “farewell” (RSV) or “good-bye” (Barrett, 342), and it is true that the verb chairein may be used as a salutation (e.g., at the beginning of letters, Acts 15:23; 23:26; Jas 1:1). In favor of the tr. adopted here, see, among others, Hughes, 486, and Webber 1970:184–86. To support this, one may note (a) that here the term stands as the first in a series of imperatives, and is most naturally given an imperative sense along with those that follow (Bultmann, 252); ( that the same verb has just been used in v. 9 to mean “rejoice”; and ©—perhaps decisively—that in 1 Thess 5:16, where the imperative form also heads a list of brief admonitions at the end of a letter, it can only mean “to rejoice” (pantote chairete, “Always rejoice”). A similar question of tr. occurs in Phil 3:1; 4:4, where some interpret the verb as “farewell” (e.g., Goodspeed 1945:174–75), and others as “rejoice” (e.g., Lohmeyer 1954:123, 167–68). For the theme of rejoicing in Paul’s letters, see Notes on 6:10.

be restored. If katartizesthe is middle voice, one could translate “Mend your ways” (RSV, NEB) or, with Barrett, 342, “Pull yourselves together.” However, given the use of the cognate noun in v. 9, where Paul has indicated that he prays that God may restore the Corinthians to a firm faith, it is slightly preferable to treat the verb as a passive (thus Chrysostom, NPNF, 1st ser. XII:418; Windisch, 426; Allo, 342). Less likely, “set one another right” (Héring, 101, 103).

pay attention to my appeals. This interprets parakaleisthe as passive voice (so also, e.g., RSV; Plummer, 380; Hughes, 487; Windisch, 426—tentatively), and as a reference to exhortation (note 10:1) rather than to “comfort” or “encouragement.” The expression thus would seem to function like the appeal in Heb 13:22, cited by Windisch, ibid.: “Bear with my word of exhortation” (RSV). Another possibility is to take it as equivalent to parakaleite allēlous in 1 Thess 4:18; 5:5, “exhort one another” (thus, e.g., Bultmann, 252; Barrett, 342).

be of one mind. The expression (to auto phronein) is also found in Rom 12:16; 15:5; Phil 2:2; 4:2, and derives from political discourse (many examples from Aelius Aristides are assembled by van der Horst 1980:49–50).

be at peace. Cf. Rom 12:18, “Be at peace with all people,” and 1 Thess 5:13, “Be at peace among yourselves” (RSV); also Mark 9:50, “Be at peace with one another” (RSV). Similar exhortations appear as closing formulas in some Aramaic letters (Fitzmyer 1974b:217).

the God of love and of peace. The phrase the God of love appears only here in the NT, and never in the LXX (or Hebrew Bible). On the other hand, Paul also refers to the God of peace in Rom 15:33; 16:20; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 5:23; cf. 1 Cor 14:33. Jewish sources have yielded only one example of this predicate used of God, T Dan 5:2 (“But ye shall be in peace, having the God of peace” [APOT]), so it seems not to have been a fixed formula (Deichgräber 1967:94–95; Delling 1975:80). There are, however, frequent references to an “angel of peace” (1 Enoch 40:8–60:24; T Dan 6:2, 5; T Benj 6:1; T Asher 6:5–6; cited by Delling, ibid.:78). Cf. also 2 Thess 3:16; Heb 13:20.

will be with you. For the overall form of this blessing, in which the naming of the divine source is followed by the wish and then the identification of the recipient(s), see Mullins (1977:62, 63), who believes it bears the marks of the LXX and of the synagogue (ibid.:64). For the promise of God’s presence, which is also the content of the blessing in Phil 4:9, see 1 Kgs 11:38; Amos 5:14; and LXX Isa 58:11 (cited by Delling, ibid.:80).

12a. Greet one another. The aorist tense (aspasasthe) is striking after the string of present-tense imperatives in v. 11 (noted in GNTG III:75 and by Moule 1953:21), but it is always used when Paul asks his readers to “greet” someone (Rom 16:3–16; 1 Cor 16:20; Phil 4:21; 1 Thess 5:16; cf. Col 4:15).

a holy kiss. In Rom 16:16a; 1 Cor 16:20b; 1 Thess 5:26 there are virtually identical instructions to greet one another with a holy kiss (but in 1 Thess 5:26, “all of the brothers [and sisters]” instead of “one another”). Cf. 1 Pet 5:14a, “Greet one another with a kiss of love [agapēs].” In Phil 4:21, where Paul closes a letter with the instruction to “greet every saint in Christ Jesus,” there is no mention of a kiss. Stählin (TDNT IX:119–24) provides an excellent survey of the meaning and forms of kissing in the ancient world apart from the Bible. This was practiced first of all within the family and among relatives. There was also the kiss which betokened friendship (e.g., Ps.-Lucian, The Ass 17: “they greeted one another with kisses,” cited by Conzelmann 1975:299 n. 23), the erotic kiss, and others which signified reception into a closed group (e.g., Apuleius, Metamorphoses VII, 9), reconciliation, respect, or subservience. Upon initiation into a Mystery cult, one kissed the mystagogue (ibid. XI, 25), and members of such groups were known as “those within the kiss” (hoi entos tou philēmatos; misunderstood as an erotic gesture by Lucian, Alexander the False Prophet 41 [betz 1961:115 n. 1]). A kiss could take many forms: it could be placed on the foot, the knee, the hand, the breast, the cheek, the forehead, the mouth (the erotic kiss, specifically); or it could be placed on some object (e.g., certain kinds of cultic kisses) or even “blown” with the hand. It may be that the holy kiss to which Paul refers was no more than a kiss of greeting bestowed upon another member of one’s particular religious association (so Thraede, RAC VIII:508), but it is also possible (so, e.g., Stählin, TDNT IX:139–40; Goppelt 1978:354–55; Käsemann 1980:416) that the kiss had already become a feature of the Christian liturgy, associated perhaps with the eucharist (see especially 1 Cor 16:20, followed closely in v. 22 by the formulas “Anathema” and “Maranatha”). And—it may be noted in support of the latter—in the mid-second century Justin can attest that those gathered for the eucharist “salute one another with a kiss” following the prayers and immediately preceding the offertory of bread and wine (Apology I, 65). For this liturgical usage in the later church, see especially Hofmann 1938:94–144 and Stählin, TDNT IX:142–46. There seems to have been no precedent in the synagogue liturgy for this practice (Stählin, ibid.:125–28).

12b[13]. Many English versions (e.g., KJV, ASV, RSV, NEB, NIV) number this sentence v. 13, and the closing benediction v. 14; but others (e.g., TEV and all Roman Catholic trs. into English) retain the versification first introduced into the Greek and Latin texts by Robert Estienne (in 1551 and 1555, respectively), whereby this sentence is still part of v. 12. The re-numbering to obtain fourteen verses, which is peculiar to the English versional tradition, appears to have originated with the second folio edition of the so-called “Bishops’ Bible,” published in 1572, for the first edition of 1568 has the older division of 2 Cor 13 into thirteen verses.

All the saints greet you. As in Rom 16:16, the instruction to the readers to greet one another with a holy kiss (v. 12a) is followed by the communication of greetings to them from someone presently with Paul; in Rom 16, from “all the churches of Christ.” See also 1 Cor 16:20, where the conveyance of greetings from “all the brothers and sisters” precedes the instruction about the holy kiss; and cf. 1 Pet 5:13, which precedes the reference to the “kiss of love” in v. 14. But then again, in Phil 4:21b–22, Paul conveys greetings from others only after he has instructed the Philippians to greet one another (v. 21a). Other third-person greetings occur in Rom 16:21, 23, and Phlm 23–24, leaving Gal and 1 Thess as the only certainly Pauline letters which do not have them. Mullins (1968:421) cites POxy 530 as an example of such greetings in a secular letter.

the saints. For the term in general, see Notes on 1:1, where it is used of all the believers in the province of Achaia (around Corinth). In 8:4; 9:1, 12 it designates the Christians of Jerusalem. On the identity of the saints to whom reference is made in the present verse, see Comment.

13[14]. On the matter of verse division and numbering, see note on v. 12b above.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Note the benedictions in Rom 16:20b; 1 Cor 16:23; Gal 6:18; Phil 4:23; 1 Thess 5:28; Phlm 25. Similar blessings customarily open Paul’s letters, as in 2 Cor 1:2 (on which see Notes). Apart from 12:9, this is the only occurrence of the word grace in chaps. 10–13. In chaps. 1–9 see especially 8:9, where the readers are reminded of “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.” In all these cases the genitive is certainly subjective, referring to the grace bestowed in Christ.

the love of God. As in Rom 5:5 and 8:39, the genitive tou Theou is subjective; God is the one who loves (e.g., Rom 5:8; 1 Thess 1:4). Cf. v. 11, the God of love, and 9:7, with note. Christ’s love is spoken of in 5:14 (as in Rom 8:35, 37; Gal 2:20), and is to be closely identified with God’s (e.g., Rom 5:8; 8:39). See also Rom 15:30, “the Spirit’s love”; 1 Cor 16:24, “My love be with you all in Christ Jesus” (RSV); and 2 Thess 3:5.

participation in the Holy Spirit. To this phrase (hē koinōnia tou Hagiou Pneumatos) Phil 2:1 offers the closest parallel: “If there is any participation in the Spirit” (koinōnia Pneumatos). Some have argued that the genitive tou Hagiou Pneumatos (literally “of the Holy Spirit”) should be interpreted as subjective, like the two preceding genitives referring to the source of a divine gift (so, e.g., Plummer, 383–84; Bruce, 255; Jourdan 1948:118; Spicq 1965:217); thus, “the fellowship given by the Holy Spirit.” Others, however, interpret the genitive as objective, designating the Spirit as that which is shared by believers (so, e.g., Windisch, 428; Kümmel, 214; Barrett, 344; Hauck, TDNT III:807; George 1953:180–81); thus the tr. given here (and in RSV mg.). Decisive reasons for espousing the latter view are given by Seesemann 1933:62–72, who argues for the same meaning in Phil 2:1 (ibid.:56–62). In fact, even scholars who hold to the former position acknowledge that “the fellowship given by the Holy Spirit” would have to mean, also, a participation in the Holy Spirit (thus Schweizer, TDNT VI:434; McDermott 1975:223–24; B. Schneider 1976:422, 436–47). Cf. the remarks by Martin (1976:86–87) on Phil 2:1. Elsewhere in 2 Cor the word koinōnia and its cognate koinōnos are found only in chaps. 1–9 (1:7, “partners,” on which see the note; 6:14, “partnership”; 8:4, “participation”; 8:23, “partner”; 9:13, “sharing”). The only other certain reference to God’s Spirit in chaps. 10–13 is in 11:4 (but see 12:18, with Notes); for the occurrences in chaps. 1–9, see Notes on 1:22. The only other Pauline benediction which refers to God’s Spirit is the one in Rom 15:33 (“that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope” [RSV]).

with all of you. The benedictions which conclude Paul’s other letters have either “with you” (Rom 16:20b; 1 Cor 16:23; 1 Thess 5:28) or “with your spirit” (Gal 6:18; Phil 4:23; Phlm 25).

Comment: General

Paul devotes the last lines of his letter to (a) final, succinct admonitions (v. 11), ( the matter of greetings (v. 12[–13]) and © a concluding benediction (v. 13[14]). If our canonical 2 Cor is indeed a composite of two or more originally separate letters to Corinth, as many hold (Introduction, pp. 35–41), one must ask to which of them these last verses most likely belonged. Bornkamm, who discerns parts of at least three different letters in 2 Cor, suggests that 13:11–13[14] is perhaps best taken with the so-called “conciliatory letter” which he finds in 1:1–2:13; 7:5–16 (perhaps including chap. 8), although he acknowledges the possibility that it may belong with the letter of chaps. 10–13 (1971:187; cf. Marxsen 1968:90; Bultmann, 252). Strachan, 145, who divides 2 Cor into two letters only, takes the verses as the conclusion to chaps. 1–9, because he believes the “tone” of this ending better fits that letter. However, Plummer, 379–80, and Windisch, 426, who divide 2 Cor in the same way, believe that vv. 11–13[14] are in their original place following chaps. 10–13. (Cf. Borse 1972:111; Barrett, 341. Windisch, however, thinks it conceivable that chap. 9 originally stood between 13:10 and 13:11 [ibid.].)

Two points may be mentioned in support of the view that 13:11–13[14] originally concluded the letter of chaps. 10–13. First, it is a priori probable that when two or more letters are combined into one the editor would retain the opening of the one placed first and the closing of the one placed last—unless there were some compelling reason to do otherwise. Second, there are several significant links between v. 11 and the letter of chaps. 10–13. (a) The admonition to rejoice may well echo “For we rejoice” in 13:9. As Paul rejoices in the prospect of his readers’ being strengthened in their faith, so he would have them rejoice that his prayers are directed to that end. Just as there is no real difficulty in understanding how Paul can write “we rejoice” in 13:9, so there is no problem with taking the call to rejoice in 13:11 as part of the letter of chaps. 10–13. ( The admonition to be restored seems clearly to echo the apostle’s statement in 13:9 that he prays for the restoration of the Corinthians, © The admonition to pay attention to my appeals is in accord with Paul’s stated intention in chaps. 10–13 to “appeal” to the Corinthians (10:1) in advance of his forthcoming visit (13:10).

Comment: Detailed

The brief, summary-like admonitions of v. 11a are an apt conclusion to the appeal being made in chaps. 10–13: that the Corinthians renew their commitment to the gospel and bring their behavior into conformity with the latter before Paul’s arrival (see especially 10:1–6; 12:19–13:10). The succinct admonitions which stand near the close of Rom (12:9–13), 1 Cor (16:13–14), and 1 Thess (5:12–22) are comparable. The exhortation to rejoice follows on 13:9, where Paul has written of his own rejoicing in the anticipation that his prayers will be answered and that the Corinthians will become truly strong in their faith (cf. Phil 2:17–18, “I am glad and rejoice with you all. Likewise you also should be glad and rejoice with me” [RSV]). It is therefore a “rejoicing in the Lord” that he has in mind (Phil 3:1; 4:4), a rejoicing which is an integral part of the life of faith. It is not surprising that this appeal heads the list (as in 1 Thess 5:16). The remaining four admonitions also have special meaning in this context. Just as Paul’s prayer is that God may “restore” the Corinthian congregation as a community of faith, so he now urges his readers to allow that to happen, to be restored (cf. the passive-voice imperative of Rom 12:2, to “be transformed”). The exhortation to pay attention to my appeals looks back especially to 10:1–6 and 12:19–13:10. And the two final admonitions in this series, be of one mind and be at peace, are fully appropriate in view of Paul’s fear that he may find “discord, jealousy, explosive tempers,” etc., when he gets to Corinth (12:20).

The admonitions of v. 11a are supported by the promise of v. 11b, which functions here exactly as the parallel promise of Phil 4:9b does after the appeals of Phil 4:8–9a (Deichgräber 1967:95). The point is not that God’s presence will come as a reward for obedience (against Windisch, 426), but that God’s presence will (a “logical” future) enable the Corinthians to be restored, etc. (Barrett, 343). Formally, this promise represents Paul’s adaptation of the type of peace-blessing which stands near the close of 1 Thess (5:23) and Rom (15:33; 16:20; cf. Bultmann, 252; Wiles 1974:107 n. 2; Delling 1975:83). First, the usual connective, de (ho de Theos), has been replaced with kai (“and”), which ties the promise more effectively to the preceding admonitions (the same thing has happened in Phil 4:9b). Second, the usual reference to “the God of peace” is expanded into a reference to the God of love and of peace. This expansion serves to emphasize that aspect of God’s presence which is most pertinent to and therefore most supportive of the preceding admonitions: as God’s love and peace are with them, the Corinthians can be of one mind and at peace. Thus, the peace-blessing has been accommodated to this particular context (Delling 1975:80. 84; cf. Spicq 1965:215).

In v. 12a, as in Rom 16:16a; 1 Cor 16:20b; 1 Thess 5:26 (cf. 1 Pet 5:14a), Paul asks that his readers greet one another with a holy kiss. Whether the exchange of such a kiss among the congregants already had a stated place in the liturgy of Paul’s churches must remain an open question (see Notes). Even if it did, the presence of this instruction in a few of his surviving letters is not sufficient warrant for concluding that the apostle’s letters were always read out in the service just before that liturgical act. Clearly, Paul is not simply giving a direction to proceed with the liturgy. Rather, by asking the members of his congregation to exchange this recognized Christian greeting he is asking them to affirm and demonstrate their existence as Christ’s body. The “holiness” of the kiss inheres in its being the sign exchanged among “the saints” (= “holy ones”) who, as a people called to the service of God, constitute an eschatological congregation (cf. Käsemann 1980:415). It probably would not have been a kiss on the lips, since that kind of a kiss always had erotic connotations. Although by the latter part of the fourth century it was deemed prudent that male and female worshipers not exchange the kiss with one another (Apostolic Constitutions II.vii.57)—and that the clergy should kiss only the bishop (ibid. VIII.ii.11)—in Paul’s churches the kiss seems to have been a fully communal and inclusive act.

It is characteristic that Paul either precedes or, as here, follows the instruction to his readers to greet one another with the transmittal of greetings on behalf of others (see Notes). Thus, in v. 12b (for the numbering of this as v. 13 in some English versions, see Notes) he conveys greetings from all the saints. Who are these saints? The reference is certainly more inclusive than is the case when, in other letters, the apostle conveys greetings from particular individuals (Rom 16:21; Phlm 23–24) or from his entourage (Phil 4:21b; perhaps also 1 Cor 16:20). But it does not seem to be as inclusive as when, to the Romans, Paul conveys greetings from “all the churches of Christ” (16:16). Since this letter is probably being written from Macedonia (see Introduction, pp. 44–46), he could mean “all the Macedonian Christians”; or, more specifically, it could be a reference to “all the Christians” in the city from which the letter is being sent (more likely Beroea or Thessalonica than Philippi; see Introduction, p. 46).

No other Pauline letter concludes with a benediction so theologically imposing as the one in v. 13 (v. 14 in some English versions; see Notes on v. 12b). The present benediction refers not only to Christ’s grace (as in Rom 16:20b; 1 Cor 16:23; Gal 6:18; Phil 4:23; 1 Thess 5:28; Phlm 25; cf. 2 Thess 3:18; 1 Tim 6:21; 2 Tim 4:22b; Tit 3:15b), but also to God’s love and to participation in the Holy Spirit. In the NT, only the benedictory form of Eph 5:23 is comparable. It is evident that the triadic benediction here in 2 Cor represents an expansion of the shorter form found elsewhere in Paul’s letters, and it is at least conceivable that this expansion was effected not by the apostle himself but by the person(s) responsible for the final redaction of 2 Cor (or of the Pauline Corpus; so Goodspeed 1945:57; cf. Barrett 341, 343). There is, however, no reason why Paul himself could not have expanded his own more usual form, just as he expanded the peace-blessing in v. 11b.

Spicq (1965:216) calls this benediction “the most explicitly Trinitarian formula in the entire Pauline corpus,” and believes that it “establishes clearly both the equality of the three Persons and their separateness” (cf. B. Schneider 1976:437, 438). However, the sequence Christ … God … Holy Spirit should in itself be a warning about too quickly reading the church’s later Trinitarian theology into this benediction. Unlike the clearly Trinitarian baptismal formula of Matt 28:19, this benediction does not refer to Christ as “the Son” nor to God as “the Father.” It neither presupposes nor teaches anything specific about the relationship of Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit. Rather, it focuses attention only on the grace and the love which characterize God’s dealings with humanity, and on the believers’ joint participation in the Holy Spirit. All three themes are at home in Paul’s theology, and the three are always closely related. It is specifically through Christ that one is gifted with God’s saving grace (e.g., Rom 5:1–2; cf. Gal 1:15–16; 2:12; 2 Cor 8:9). God’s love, because it is decisively present to faith in Christ’s death (Rom 5:8), can also be referred to as “Christ’s love” (e.g., 2 Cor 5:14); and, because it is also known through the presence of the Spirit (Rom 5:5), it can even be called “the Spirit’s love” (Rom 15:30). Moreover, just as Paul can characterize the life of faith as a participation in the (Holy) Spirit (here, and in Phil 2:1), he can also characterize it as a participation in Christ (1 Cor 1:9), especially in his sufferings (2 Cor 1:7; Phil 3:10).

One could cite many further examples of the great freedom and flexibility which characterize Paul’s references to Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit. In one sentence he can refer to “the Spirit of God,” and in the very next one to “the Spirit of Christ” (Rom 8:9). Is it Christ (so, e.g., Gal 2:20) or is it the Spirit (so, e.g., Rom 8:11) who “dwells” within believers? And though, at first glance, it may seem that different roles have been assigned to “the Spirit,” “the Lord,” and “God” in 1 Cor 12:4–6, a closer inspection will show that the distinction is simply for rhetorical effect. The triadic formulation of 2 Cor 13:13[14], however, is not merely rhetorical, even though it is also not “Trinitarian” in the more technical sense. Whether or not this benediction in its present form be attributed to Paul himself, it is a fully appropriate summation of the history of salvation as he understands it (e.g., in Gal 4:4–7, where Father, Son, and Spirit are in fact all mentioned; cf. Kümmel, 214). In and through Christ, God’s love is present and active as a gracious redeeming, reconciling, and renewing gift (cf. 2 Cor 5:14, 17–19). As believers accept the rule of Christ’s love, they are turned from self to him, and thus to one another (2 Cor 5:15), quickened by the life-giving Spirit (e.g., Rom 8:1–17; 2 Cor 3:3, 6) into a community of faith devoted to the service of God and of God’s people (Gal 5:25–6:10).

 

cf. compare

RSV Revised Standard Version Bible (copyrighted 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches)

tr. translator, translation

v. verse

tr. translator, translation

RSV Revised Standard Version Bible (copyrighted 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches)

NEB The New English Bible with the Apocrypha (Oxford and Cambridge: Univ. Presses, 1970)

v. verse

NPNF A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, eds. P. Schaff [and H. Wace], 24 vols. (New York: Christian Literature Co. [and Scribner’s], 1886–1900)

ser. series

RSV Revised Standard Version Bible (copyrighted 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches)

RSV Revised Standard Version Bible (copyrighted 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches)

Cf. compare

RSV Revised Standard Version Bible (copyrighted 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches)

RSV Revised Standard Version Bible (copyrighted 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches)

LXX Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta, 5th ed., 2 vols. (Stuttgart: Privileg. Württ., 1952)

cf. compare

APOT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R. H. Charles, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913)

1 Enoch Ethiopic, Slavonic, Hebrew Enoch

Cf. compare

LXX Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta, 5th ed., 2 vols. (Stuttgart: Privileg. Württ., 1952)

LXX Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta, 5th ed., 2 vols. (Stuttgart: Privileg. Württ., 1952)

v. verse

GNTG Grammar of New Testament Greek, by James H. Moulton, Wilbert F. Howard, and Nigel Turner, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: Clark; vol. I [3rd ed.], 1908; vol. II, 1919–29; vol. III, 1963; vol. IV, 1976)

cf. compare

Cf. compare

TDNT Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (translated and edited by G. W. Bromiley), 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964–76)

Ps. Pseudo

n. note

n. note

RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, ed. T. Klauser (Leipzig: Hiersemann, 1941–)

TDNT Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (translated and edited by G. W. Bromiley), 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964–76)

v. verse

TDNT Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (translated and edited by G. W. Bromiley), 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964–76)

KJV King James Version

ASV The Holy Bible, newly edited by the American Revision Committee a.d. 1901, standard ed. (New York: Nelson, 1901)

RSV Revised Standard Version Bible (copyrighted 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches)

NEB The New English Bible with the Apocrypha (Oxford and Cambridge: Univ. Presses, 1970)

NIV The Holy Bible. New International Version (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1978)

v. verse

v. verse

TEV Good News Bible. The Bible in Today’s English Version (New York: American Bible Society, 1976)

trs. translators, translations

v. verse

cf. compare

v. verse

POxy Oxyrhynchus Papyrus (cited according to the enumeration and quoted in the translations in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, published under the direction of various editors by the Egypt Exploration Fund [society]; London, 1899–)

v. verse

Cf. compare

v. verse

RSV Revised Standard Version Bible (copyrighted 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches)

TDNT Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (translated and edited by G. W. Bromiley), 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964–76)

tr. translator, translation

RSV Revised Standard Version Bible (copyrighted 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches)

mg. marginal reading, usually given in a footnote

TDNT Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (translated and edited by G. W. Bromiley), 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964–76)

Cf. compare

RSV Revised Standard Version Bible (copyrighted 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches)

cf. compare

vv. verses

Cf. compare

v. verse

v. verse

cf. compare

RSV Revised Standard Version Bible (copyrighted 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches)

cf. compare

Corinth Corinth (published by the American School of Classical Studies in Athens, 1929–; 1929–43, Cambridge, Mass.; thereafter, Princeton, N.J.)

v. verse

v. verse

cf. compare

n. note

cf. compare

v. verse

cf. compare

cf. compare

v. verse

v. verse

v. verse

v. verse

cf. compare

cf. compare

v. verse

cf. compare

cf. compare

cf. compare

cf. compare

Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians: Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, vol. 32A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 581–588.

[PhilT]

Baker Exegetical

 

2 Cor 13:11-13

 

Paul affectionately addresses the Corinthians as ἀδελφοί (adelphoi, brothers and sisters) as he does elsewhere at 1:8 and 8:1.1 He then follows with a list of five present imperatives:

     χαίρετε (chairete)    rejoice    
     καταρτίζεσθε (katartizesthe)    be restored    
     παρακαλεῖσθε (parakaleisthe)    be encouraged    
     τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖτε (to auto phroneite)    be of one mind    
     εἰρηνεύετε (eirēneuete)    live in peace    
 
The first exhortation is to “rejoice” (χαίρετε),2 a common theme in Paul’s [2 Cor, p. 650] writings, with the verb used twenty-nine times.3 Elsewhere in 2 Corinthians, Paul states that he has handled communication with the Corinthians in a particular way “in order that when I arrive, I might not be made sad by the ones who ought to give me joy” (2:3). The apostolic ministry is characterized by being sorrowful “but constantly rejoicing” (6:10), and Paul has been made to rejoice over Titus’s report on his recent visit (7:7, 9, 13, 16). Finally, in 13:9 Paul has just written the Corinthians, “We rejoice when we are weak and you are strong.” So in a nuanced way his admonition for the Corinthians to rejoice shows how Paul wants the Corinthians to join him in a particular response to life that marks his ministry. He does not want the heavy tone of the latter part of the letter to leave a cloud over the church. Rather, he hopes for a good response from the church, a response that will give them—as well as him—joy.
    We encountered the cognate noun of the second exhortation, καταρτίζεσθε (katartizesthe, be restored), at 13:9 (κατάρτισιν, katartisin) and translated the noun as referring to the Corinthians’ “restoration.” Further, at the beginning of our extant Corinthian correspondence is a passage parallel in thought to 13:11. It reads, “I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united [κατηρτισμένοι, katērtismenoi] in mind and thought” (1 Cor. 1:10 NIV). In the 1 Corinthians passage, the perfect participle form of our verb means not allowing divisions, an emphasis also found in 2 Cor. 13:11 (τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖτε, to auto phroneite, be of one mind), and the nuanced thought shows that Paul wants the divided Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:10–17) to “be restored” to a community of unity. In any case, the idea clearly relates to the church being put into proper order, which relates very directly to being unified in mind and purpose. This, for Paul, would be an answer to prayer (13:9).
    Paul’s third exhortation in this list, παρακαλεῖσθε (parakaleisthe), a present passive imperative, reiterates one of 2 Corinthians’ main themes—encouragement.4 In fact, here we have a theme that ties the ending of 2 Corinthians back to the introduction of the book. Although the word could be translated as “be comforted” (e.g., ESV, NASB, Tyndale, KJV), we render it with the sense of “be encouraged” (so HCSB, NLT2, NIV, NET; BDAG 765), that is, “allow yourself to be exhorted.”5 Any pastor who has dealt with a difficult [2 Cor, p. 651] and morally entrenched person or group in a church knows the frustration, the “wall” thrown up by those who will not receive exhortation. Resistance sets in, and progress in the faith suffers. So Paul exhorts the Corinthians to be open to his words and God’s ways for their spiritual well-being.
    The fourth exhortation, “be of one mind” (τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖτε, to auto phroneite), constitutes another common Pauline theme (Rom. 12:16; 15:5; Gal. 5:10; Phil. 2:2, 5; 3:15; 4:2). The apostle wants members of Christ’s community to “think” the same way and thus be unified. The juxtaposition of “comfort” (that is, encouragement, παρακλῄσεως, paraklēseōs) and “unity” (τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ἐν ἀλλῄλοις, to auto phronein en allēlois) also occur at Rom. 15:5: “Now may the God of endurance and comfort give you unity with one another in accordance with Christ Jesus” (Rom. 15:5 NET).6 As is obvious from 1 Corinthians, the Corinthian church, at least for several years, has been marred by relational fragmentation, with the church splintering into pods gathered around particular leaders (1 Cor. 1:10–17). Further, key points of 2 Corinthians reek of disunity. For example: the accusation that Paul, by changing his travel itinerary, manifests a wishy-washy character (2 Cor. 1:17–18); conflict with a key figure in the community, who has opposed Paul publicly while much of the church was standing by (2:5–11); the question of whether Paul needs to go through the process of recommending himself to the Corinthians (3:1); the tolerance of interloping teachers, who bring an impressive public style of “ministry,” while bearing a false gospel and an alien “spirit” (11:4); and differences regarding genuine spirituality (10:2–7) and Paul’s apostolic ministry (11:1–12:14; Barnett 1997: 616). In 12:20 Paul mentions that when he arrives in Corinth, he is afraid that he might find the community locked in “dissension, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambitions, slanderous words, gossiping, swelled heads, and chaos,” all destroyers of church unity.
    The absence of unity relates closely to a lack of relational “peace,” an ancient and pervasive Jewish value and a widely published exhortation in the NT literature. In offering final words to the chaotic Corinthians, whose recent relationship with Paul has been so marked by tension, his exhortation “Live in peace” fails to surprise. The apostle longs for them to be at peace with one another and with him. The result7 (καί, kai, and then) of living in peace will be that “the God of love and peace will be with you” (ὁ θεὸς τῆς ἀγάπης καὶ εἰρῄνης ἔσται μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν, ho theos tēs agapēs kai eirēnēs estai meth’ hymōn). When God’s children live at peace with one another, they manifest the Father’s character and are given the blessing of the Father’s presence. God himself is not a God of disorder, but rather a God characterized by peace (1 Cor. 14:33). Thus he is called the “God of peace” at several points in the NT (Rom. 15:33; 16:20; Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 5:23), and, as noted in the comments at 1:2, the blessings of “grace” and “peace” are widely used in the NT letters as a form of greeting (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 2 Thess. 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philem. 3; 2 John 3). By contrast, God is called “the God of love” only here, although 1 John notes twice that “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16), and the NT bears witness extensively and eloquently to the “love of God” (John 5:42; Rom. 5:5; 8:39; 2 Thess. 3:5; 1 John 2:5; 3:17; 4:9; 5:3; Jude 21), which Paul mentions in the next verse.
    Paul continues in verse 12: “Greet one another with a holy kiss. All God’s [2 Cor, p. 652] people send their greetings” (Ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλῄλους ἐν ἁγίῳ φιλῄματι. Ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ ἅγιοι πάντες, Aspasasthe allēlous en hagiō philēmati. Aspazontai hymas hoi hagioi pantes).8 Greetings were often offered in Greco-Roman letters, and exchanging kisses was common, both in Judaism and the broader culture. A kiss could express respect, or a simple form of greeting or parting between friends or relatives, or a sign of brotherhood in a religious context (Thrall 2000: 912). Yet to describe the kiss of greeting as “holy” seems to have originated with Paul (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 1 Thess. 5:26),9 since, as far as we know, such a description did not exist in the broader Greco-Roman world; it seems to have been born in the extended-family context of the early church.10 The convention marked Jesus’s first followers as a distinct subculture, one that manifested the kind of affection that might be found in a family. In Paul’s use, the kiss as “holy” could speak of proper and pure motives, but it also represented unity in the church (Weima 1994: 113–14). Thus Paul’s exhortation to greet brothers and sisters with “a holy kiss” was an especially apt exhortation for such a fragmented church. “A holy kiss” is also appropriate for those who are part of that larger communion of people referred to as “holy ones.” Thus Paul sends greetings from “all the saints,” that is, “all God’s people” (οἱ ἅγιοι πάντες, hoi hagioi pantes), supposedly referring to those in Macedonia. Elsewhere Paul sends greetings from those who share a common geographical heritage, but here the greeting is more general, highlighting the universal bond of all believers.
    Paul ends the letter with a beautiful, balanced, tripartite blessing, which has been celebrated as the most robust expression on the interworking of the Trinity in the NT:

Ἡ    χάρις    τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ    καὶ
ἡ    ἀγάπη    τοῦ θεοῦ    καὶ
ἡ    κοινωνία    τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος    
               μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν.
Hē    charis    tou kyriou Iēsou Christou    kai
hē    agapē    tou theou    kai
hē    koinōnia    tou hagiou pneumatos    
               meta pantōn hymōn.
The    grace    of the Lord Jesus Christ    and
the    love    of God    and
the    fellowship    of the Holy Spirit    
               be with all of you.
 

[2 Cor, p. 653]

Paul’s wish is that grace, love, and fellowship, each initiated by a member of the Trinity, might “be11 with all of” the Corinthians.
    The benediction at the end of 1 Corinthians states more simply, “The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you” (ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν, hē charis tou kyriou Iēsou meth’ hymōn) and then adds, “My love be with all of you in Christ Jesus” (ἡ ἀγάπη μου μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, hē agapē mou meta pantōn hymōn en Christō Iēsou). Yet here in 2 Cor. 13:13 Paul expands on his normal, more basic benediction to point to God as the source of love and the Spirit as the true source of fellowship.
    The closing of the letter begins with the most common element of Pauline benedictions, the “grace” (Ἡ χάρις, hē charis) of the Lord Jesus Christ.12 The apostle may start with the grace offered through Christ, since it is foundational to the believers’ relationship with God (Harris 2005: 938), but it may also be that, as the most common element of Paul’s benediction when writing his churches, the “grace” of Christ most naturally comes to mind first. Further, Paul has started his letter with the blessing of “grace and peace” (1:2) and [2 Cor, p. 654] speaks of various manifestations of God’s grace through Christ throughout the letter (2 Cor. 1:12; 4:15; 6:1; 8:1, 9; 9:8, 14–15; 12:9; 13:13). At 8:9 Paul celebrates “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” (τὴν χάριν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, tēn charin tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou Christou), who manifested his grace by the incarnation: “though he was rich, he became poor for your sake, so that by his poverty you might become rich.” Accordingly, most commentators take the genitive, τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, as a subjective genitive, pointing to Christ as the initiator of the grace.13 Moreover, the apostolic benediction wishes a continuous supply of grace for the believers, for God’s ongoing generosity and favor constitute an ongoing need (e.g., 9:8; 12:9).
    The second element of the benediction wishes for the Corinthians “the love of God” (cf. John 5:42; Rom. 5:5; 8:39; 2 Thess. 3:5; 1 John 2:5; 3:17; 4:9; 5:3; Jude 21). The apostle has just mentioned the “God of love” in verse 11. We face the question as to whether the genitive here (ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ, hē agapē tou theou) is subjective (i.e., love given by God) like the first element of the benediction, or objective (i.e., “love for God”). Its close proximity to “the God of love” in verse 11 and the fact that Paul wishes on the Corinthians a blessing from God—both call for the former, “God’s love.” The Corinthians, in their fractious state, desperately need love from God the Father to be manifested among them.
    Although the third element of the benediction, “the fellowship of the Holy Spirit” (ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος) could be read as an objective genitive (believers embracing a relationship with the Spirit),14 I suggest that the parallelism in the benediction, in which the first two elements almost certainly are subjective genitives, along with the emphasis on the need for church unity in the book’s broader context—both point to this third element also being a subjective genitive, that is, a fellowship among members of the church that is prompted by the Holy Spirit. Once the Spirit fell on the earliest church, “fellowship” formed a foundational element of the Christian community (Acts 2:42). In 2 Corinthians, Paul does not want the Corinthians to have fellowship with unbelievers (6:14) but rather to participate in fellowship among the saints, for instance, in the sharing of resources (8:4; 9:13). That fellowship stems in part from the presence and work of the Spirit in the hearts of believers (1:22; 3:3; 5:5). An alien “spirit” produces chaos (11:4), but the life-giving Spirit produces unity.
    As Harris (2005: 938) points out, these three gifts—grace, love, and fellowship—should not be seen as exclusive to the respective members of the Trinity here. For instance, elsewhere Paul speaks of the “grace of God” (1 Cor. 1:4), the “love of Christ” (2 Cor. 5:14), and “the fellowship of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:9). [2 Cor, p. 655] Further, this concise trinitarian statement, which speaks of Jesus Christ and the Spirit in parallel with God the Father, pulls together in a concise statement the cooperative working within the Godhead manifested throughout the letter.

Reflection
     
 
At the end of this letter, we recognize that in 2 Corinthians Paul offers a profoundly God-centered solution to the problems at Corinth. Ultimately, the church’s struggle with their apostle manifests an underlying dysfunction in their relationship with God. The answer, then, has to do with the Corinthians being restored to right relationship with God through a proper understanding of the gospel and an obedience to the implications of the gospel for their various relationships with each other, with other believers, with the false teachers, and with Paul himself, but ultimately with God through the Lord Jesus. Perseverance in the faith always stems from a clarity with which we see Jesus and what he has accomplished on our behalf. If we lose a clear picture of the Christ and lose a grasp of the gospel, that leads to chaos in community. As Paul demonstrates, God uses authentic ministers of the gospel to project a clear picture of Christ and the gospel, through both their words and lives.
    In closing, dear readers, I echo the apostle:

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ
and
the love of God
and
the fellowship of the Holy Spirit
be with all of you.

     
 

Additional Note

13:13. Some manuscripts include a closing ἀμῄν (ℵa2 D K L P Ψ 104 365 1505 2464

[PhilT]

NIGNT

 

13:13 Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” Instead of concluding his letter with a generalized wish such as is found in contemporary letters (e.g., ἐρρῶσθαι ὑμας εὔχομαι, “I pray you may fare well”), Paul closes with a benediction in the form of a wish.44 Compared with his other closing benedictions, this verse contains two distinctives: (1) He refers not only to χάρις but also to ἀγάπη and κοινωνία; (2) he refers not only to the Lord Jesus Christ but also to God and the Holy Spirit.45
    The genitive in the first element of the triad is clearly subjective. Salvation and all its associated blessings (χάρις) were brought (8:9) and are being brought (12:9) by Christ. But although in Pauline benedictions Christ is the sole source of χάρις, in Pauline salutations (including 1:2) God the Father and Christ are generally mentioned as the joint source of χάρις.46 This illustrates the  [2 Cor., p. 938]  point that the χάρις, ἀγάπη, and κοινωνία that are attached to the three persons mentioned in this verse should not be thought of as exclusive characteristics. Other examples of this fact would include the phrases ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ (1 Cor. 1:4), ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ (5:14; Rom. 8:35), ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πνεύματος (Rom. 15:30), and κοινωνία . . . Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1 Cor. 1:9). But why, in this embryonic trinitarian formulation, do we find the unexpected order, Christ-God-Spirit? Three reasons may be suggested for the “priority” of Christ in this triadic structure. (1) Paul began the benediction with his customary reference to “the grace of (our) Lord Jesus (Christ)” and then expanded it. (2) Christ’s grace is the means by which God’s love reaches the believer. As Paul expresses it in Rom. 8:39, nothing can separate believers “from the love of God that is revealed in [the grace of] Christ Jesus our Lord” (ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν). The third element of the triad also is dependent on the first. It was through the grace of Christ exhibited in the cross that God demonstrated his love (Rom. 5:8) and that believers came to participate in the Spirit’s life and so form the community of the new Age. (3) The verse does not describe relationships within the Trinity but the chronological order (so to speak) of the believer’s experience of God: we come to Christ and so encounter God and then receive his Spirit.
    Without embarrassment Paul has conjoined the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit with God in a benediction, just as God the Father and Christ are presented in 1:1 as forming a single source of divine grace and peace. In both cases parity of status between Christ and God is implied by the juxtaposition, for it would be blasphemous for a monotheistic Jew to associate a mere mortal with God in a formal, religious salutation or benediction. But these are not the only evidences in the Pauline epistles of a high christology. That Paul believed in the deity of Christ is also indicated by his description of Christ as sharing the divine nature (Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; Tit. 2:13) and attributes (Eph. 4:10; Col. 1:19; 2:9), as being the object of saving faith (Rom. 10:8–13) and of human and angelic worship (Phil. 2:9–11), as being the addressee in petitionary prayer (1 Cor. 1:2; 16:22; 2 Cor. 12:8), and as exercising exclusively divine functions, such as creational agency (1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16), the forgiveness of sins (Col. 3:13), and final judgment (1 Cor. 4:4–5; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Thess. 1:7–9).47
    Although ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ could mean “love for God” (objective genitive),48 parallelism with the preceding phrase and the appropriateness of expressing a divine blessing in a benediction favor taking τοῦ θεοῦ as a subjective genitive. Paul is expressing his wish and prayer that the love God has already poured out (Rom. 5:5) and demonstrated (Rom. 5:8) may continue to fortify his readers. He realized that only by fresh infusions of divine love would they be able to heed his appeals (παρακαλεῖσθε, v. 11a). This wish,  [2 Cor., p. 939]  therefore, functions in the same way as the assurance of the presence of ὁ θεὸς τῆς ἀγάπης does in v. 11b in relation to the injunctions of v. 11a; the one enables the other.49 As elsewhere in Paul (and the NT) (ὁ) θεός signifies the Father.50
    The most difficult exegetical problem in this verse arises from the phrase ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. If the genitive is subjective, the sense will be “the fellowship with one another that is engendered by the Spirit” or “the participation granted by the Spirit in himself” or “the sense of community created by the Spirit.” Arguments adduced in support of such an interpretation are as follows.
    (1) Given the close parallelism between the three elements in the triad (viz. an articular abstract noun in the nominative followed by an articular personal noun in the genitive, with two cases of a conjunctive καί), it is antecedently probable that the third genitive will function in the same way as the first and second, that is, as a subjective genitive.51
    (2) Such a view accords well with the context. If the Spirit fostered fellowship between the Corinthian believers, the harmony, reconciliation, and unity that Paul longed for (v. 11a) would be achieved. Moreover, the activity of the Spirit is highlighted throughout 2 Corinthians.52
    (3) The concept of believers’ personal communion with the Spirit is an unparalleled Pauline notion, whereas the idea of the Spirit’s creating unity among believers finds a close parallel in Eph. 4:3, “. . . making every effort to maintain the unity engendered by the Spirit (τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ πνεύματος) by binding peace on yourselves.” Cf. also 1 Thess. 1:6, μετὰ χαρας πνεύματος ἁγίου, “with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit” (RSV, NRSV).
    On the other hand, if the genitive is objective53 we could render the phrase “participation in the Holy Spirit” (Barrett 341; Furnish 581), or “communion with the Holy Spirit” (Thrall 904; cf. TCNT). How has this view been supported?

[2 Cor., p. 940]

(1)    Although κοινωνία has a wide range of meanings in the NT,54 when it is followed by a genitive, it is usually synonymous with μετοχή or μετάλημψις and means “participation (in),” “a partaking of,” and the genitive specifies the object in which one partakes.55 Thus κοινωνία . . . τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ . . . κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ (1 Cor. 10:16), “participation in the blood of Christ . . . in the body of Christ.”56 Even when that “object” is personal, κοινωνία can still signify a “sharing in”: ἐκλήθητε εἰς κοινωνίαν . . . Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, “you were called to share in [the life of] . . . Jesus Christ” (cf. NEB, REB)/“to have fellowship with . . . Jesus Christ” (GNB) (1 Cor. 1:9).
(2)    1 Cor. 12:13 affords a close conceptual parallel to this phrase. After speaking of an outward “immersion in the Spirit,” the verse speaks of an inward participation in the Spirit. “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body — Jews or Greeks, slaves or free — and we were all given one Spirit to drink.”
(3)    The closest verbal parallel to our phrase is in Phil. 2:1, εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος, which in all probability means “if any participation in the Spirit.”57
(4)    This view, too, suits the context. Common participation in the one Spirit would promote harmony and dispel factionalism (cf. 12:20; 13:11), just as adherence to the one name of the Lord Jesus Christ prompted unity and banished dissensions (1 Cor. 1:10).

    Some argue that both the subjective and objective senses are implied or intended.58 In his EDNT article on the κοιν- root, which draws on his earlier monograph (KOINONIA), J. Hainz argues for a unified structure in Pauline usage of the word group: “fellowship/partnership (with someone) through (common) participation (in something)” (EDNT 2.304).59 ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ (ἁγίου) πνεύματος he renders by “the partnership [through common participation] of the (Holy) Spirit” (EDNT 2.305). But it is not clear that the notions of fraternal fellowship created by the Spirit and common participation in the Spirit could be  [2 Cor., p. 941]  simultaneously present in our phrase. Schweizer seems to be on safer ground when he opts for the subjective sense — “the ‘Spirit’s giving of a share (in Himself)’”60 — but adds “which may well include brotherly fellowship too. Materially this amounts to the same thing as the exposition in terms of an obj[ective] gen[itive]” (TDNT 6.434).61
    Clearly the evidence supporting the two main options62 is rather evenly balanced, although I believe the arguments for the objective sense are slightly stronger. Paul is expressing a wish that the Corinthians should continue (cf. 1 Cor. 1:7; 12:13) in their common participation in the Spirit’s life, power, and gifts (cf. 1 Cor. 12:7; 14:1). Yet this “participation in the Spirit” inevitably results in an ever-deepening fellowship among believers.
    The presence of πάντων in the phrase μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν (cf. 2 Thess. 3:18; Tit. 3:15) is significant. No sections of the Corinthian church — not even the rebellious elements — were excluded from Paul’s benediction.63 Does it also suggest that he expected a positive response to his letter, as earlier to his “severe letter” (cf. 7:14)? With this final phrase we should understand the optative εἴη64 rather than the indicative ἐστίν or the imperative ἔστω.65
    It is a singular paradox that a letter so full of indignation, remonstrance, and gyrating emotions should conclude with the most elevated trinitarian affirmation in the NT66 couched in the form of a benediction addressed to all the members of a factious church.
 

[Emanuel Cardona]

Thank you so much to all of you! This is a great help! 

[Daniel Francis]

I know you didn't ask but thought the ICC from 2004 might be useful for you too....

 

© Translation and exegesis

11Finally, brothers, rejoice, co-operate in your restoration, accept admonition, be of the same mind, be at peace. And the God of love and peace shall be with you. 12Greet each other with a holy kiss. All the members of the holy people greet you. 13The grace of the Lord Jesus [Christ] and the love of God and communion with the Holy Spirit be with you all.

11a. Λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί, χαίρετε, καταρτίζεσθε, παρακαλεῖσθε, τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖτε, εἰρηνεύετε, That this is the point of transition to the letter-ending is signified by the initial λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί, an expression which ‘typically serves in Paul’s letters to introduce a closing hortatory section’.252Some of these sections are of a general nature. The present passage, however, as in Rom 16:17–20, has direct reference to what has been said in the letter-body.253 The initial τὸ λοιπόν means ‘finally’,254 and simply serves to mark the transition. But the ἀδελφοί as a form of address may have more significance, as several exegetes remark. For Furnish, it emphasises Paul’s ‘solidarity’ with the Corinthians, and thus serves ‘to accentuate the following admonitions’.255 Weima sees the apostle as wishing to restore a good relationship with his correspondents after the harsh things he has been saying to them.256 It is certainly interesting to observe that the vocative ἀδελφοί is frequent in 1 Corinthians (19 instances), but rare in 2 Cor 1–9 (twice), and here only in 2 Cor 10–13.257 Perhaps this is simply because there is a greater proportion of direct ethical exhortation in 1 Corinthians, although not all the instances of ἀδελφοί are immediately so connected. But might the disparity relate also to Paul’s growing concern for the maintenance of his apostolic authority in Corinth? The term ἀδελφοί may suggest ‘solidarity’, as Furnish supposes. But it implies also a fundamental equality of status. If, at the time of writing of 1 Corinthians, Paul felt reasonably confident that his pastoral authority was accepted in the Corinthian church, he would feel also free to write to the members of the congregation as to his Christian brothers, i.e. to those who, equally with himself, shared the status of sonship to God (Rom 8:14–17). But subsequent events (the incident during the Interim Visit, the Painful Letter, and the advent in force of the rival missionaries) had shaken this confidence and freedom. So it is only at the very end of the present letter in defence of his authority that Paul reverts to his original form of address, as a gesture of conciliation and in the hope that he may now be understood.

Is the χαίρετε likewise intended as a conciliatory gesture? If it has its usual meaning, ‘rejoice’, this could perhaps be so.258 In several translations, however, it is understood to mean ‘farewell’.259 According to BAGD, it could have this sense in Phil 3:1 and 4:4.260 It is supported in the present verse by Plümmer on the ground that the meaning ‘rejoice’ would be somewhat incongruous after the threat of ruthless action in v. 2.261 This certainly appears to be a difficulty. Nevertheless, most commentators take χαίρετε in the sense ‘rejoice’, for several reasons. First, it stands at the head of a list of four imperatives in the second person plural.262 Secondly, in a similar passage in 1 Th 5:16, where χαίρετε is followed by a series of imperatives, ‘rejoice’ is the only meaning possible.263 Thirdly, the verb means ‘rejoice’ in v. 9.264

What of the following imperatives? The first, καταρτίζεσθε, is ambiguous in two respects. Does καταρτίζω, here, have the sense ‘restore’, ‘put to rights’, or does it mean ‘make complete’?265 A few commentators opt for the second sense, finding here an allusion to the achievement of perfection.266 Most, however, prefer the first,267 and since it is this meaning we have favoured in discussing the cognate noun κατάρτισις in v. 9268 we shall adopt it here. The other point of ambiguity concerns the voice of καταρτίζεσθε. In form, it could be either passive or middle in a reflexive sense. The linguistic possibility of the latter alternative is attested in Mt 21:16 in a quotation from Ps 8:3 (LXX): κατηρτίσωαἶνον, ‘you have prepared praise for yourself’ (NRSV).269 Barrett takes it in this sense, translating, ‘Pull yourselves together’.270 Martin, similarly, has, ‘aim for restoration’.271 He comments that Paul would be ‘lessening the burden on the Corinthians’, had he intended the imperative to be understood as passive: this is not likely, since he is anxious for them to take action before he arrives in person.272 Furnish, however, takes καταρτίζεσθε as passive, ‘be restored’, on the ground that it relates to the prayer for the Corinthians’ restoration in v. 9.273 If, in view of these differing interpretations, one looks to BAGD for guidance, the note on the verse appears at first sight less than helpful, since the imperative is classified as passive, but translated, ‘mend your ways’.274 But in fact this lexical entry may point to the resolution of the difficulty. The form of the imperative may be passive. But a passive imperative, in the logical nature of things, must have a kind of reflexive nuance, since it requires a response from the person addressed. In the present instance, the Corinthians will be restored by God in answer to prayer, but at the same time their co-operation is needed.275

The same question of voice arises in the case of the following παρακαλεῖσθε, which may be middle or passive. Barrett takes it as middle, ‘exhort one another’,276 and Martin, similarly, translates, ‘encourage one another’.277 As Meyer points out, however, these injunctions would have been expressed by παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους (cf. 1 Th 4:18; 5:11), or παρακαλεῖτε ἑαυτούς (cf. Heb 3:13).278 It is better to take the imperative as passive, ‘be admonished’,279 ‘be exhorted’.280 Paul is urging the Corinthians to respond to the entreaties, explicit or implicit, conveyed by his letter.281 The following τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖτε, ‘be of one mind’,282 is straightforward. It probably refers back to 12:20,283 and urges the positive attitude which will counteract the sinful behaviour deplored there. The εἰρηνεύετε, ‘be at peace’, will likewise refer to this previous warning.284 Chrysostom supposes that there is some distinction between εἰρηνεύετε and the preceding τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖτε :people may ‘be of one mind’ as regards doctrine but at variance with each other on the personal level.285 It is doubtful, however, whether Paul would have had this distinction in mind. The more likely connection between the two exhortations would be that of cause and effect, as suggested by Barrett, with reference to Calvin: εἰρηνεύετε ‘expresses the result of being of the same mind’.286

This concludes the string of imperatives. Their accumulation suggests to Martin ‘that Paul is urgently (and passionately?) encouraging the Corinthians to remedy the situation in the church before he arrives’.287 Perhaps this is so. But there is an even longer string of imperatives in 1 Th 5:16–22 (immediately, as in 2 Cor 13:11, preceding the peace benediction), addressed to a church which did not present Paul with the acute problems found in Corinth.

11b. καὶ ὁ θεὸς τῆς ἀγάπης καὶ εἰρήνης ἔσται μεθʼ ὑμῶν. At this point we have the Pauline epistolary convention which Weima entitles the ‘peace benediction’, an element which is found in all the recognised epistles except 1 Corinthians and Philemon.288 The usual form, however, refers to God as ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης: it is only here that τῆς ἀγάπης is added.289 But even the usual form is unusual, viewed in a wider context. Furnish notes that there is only one Jewish example of the phrase ‘God of peace’ to be found, i.e., in T. Dan 5:2.290 Nevertheless, it is legitimate to ask whether, in broader terms, Paul is indebted to some aspect of Jewish tradition. Does his formula, perhaps, derive in some way from liturgical practice? Weima notes that a peace-petition would sometimes conclude a worship service, and, in particular, that the blessing of Num 6:24–26, which includes a peace-blessing as the final element, was used regularly in this way.291 He claims, however, that there is a ‘closer analogy’ to be found in Semitic letters of the first decades of the second century.292 In these letters, ‘the most common closing formula was the farewell wish, expressed in Aramaic and Hebrew letters by a wish for “peace” ’.293 The presence of a farewell wish, in turn, however, may derive from hellenistic epistolary practice.294 Since Paul is in other respects indebted to the latter, it is more likely that it would be the epistolary rather than the liturgical convention that would be the immediate source of his ‘peace benediction’.

Two further questions which require discussion relate to the form of v. 11b but also raise issues of meaning. The first is the unusual addition of τῆς ἀγάπης. This is easy to account for, since reference to love is relevant to the preceding exhortation to be of the same mind and at peace with each other,295 and to the overcoming of the vices listed in 12:20.296 Such amendment of the Corinthians’ attitudes and behaviour will be consonant with the indwelling of God in their community to which Paul had referred in his earlier letter (2 Cor 6:16), since God is characterised by love.297

The second question, however, is more complex. What kind of sentence is v. 11b? Furnish uses the term ‘blessing’,298 and Weima calls this element of the letter-ending a ‘benediction’, and regards its content as a ‘wish’.299 But the verb ἔσται is in the future indicative. Can this tense and mood be used to express a wish? One would expect the optative εἴη. Further, if the discussion should suggest that v. 11b is simply an assertion, one would then have to ask what its logical relationship is to v. 11a.

To begin with, what is the justification for treating v. 11b as a ‘wish’ or ‘benediction’? Here we may refer to the work of Wiles.300 In the course of his investigation of Paul’s prayers he asks whether there are some ‘wish-prayers’ which have the verb in the future indicative instead of in the optative, or (to put the question the other way round), whether there are some apparent ‘declarations’ in the future indicative which may or should be understood as wish-prayers. The texts under consideration are: Rom 16:20a; 1 Cor 1:8; 2 Cor 13:11b; Phil 4:7, 9b, 19; 1 Th 5:24b. Wiles observes that in some instances (Rom 16:20a; Phil 4:19; 1 Th 5:24b) the textual tradition alternates between the future indicative and the optative.301 This could indicate that scribes understood the future indicative as the expression of a wish and substituted the optative, simply because ‘the two forms could be used interchangeably in petitionary prayer’.302 As further evidence of interchangeability Wiles draws attention to Ps 20:9–11 (LXX); in these verses there is an alternation between optative and future indicative, where the Hebrew text has imperfect jussive forms, ‘which would imply a wish’.303 Having considered the Pauline texts individually, he then concludes that Rom 16:20 is a wish-prayer, that 1 Th 5:24b is a declaration,304 and that 2 Cor 13:11b and two of the Philippians texts are primarily statements, but could also be taken as ‘surrogates for peace blessings or prayers near the end of the letter’.305 In the case of 2 Cor 13:11b, Wiles comments further that its situation ‘points to its being a surrogate for a peace-prayer in the closing liturgical pattern, in preparation for the holy kiss’.306 This last point is of dubious value, since Wiles depends here on an article by J. A. T. Robinson which itself has come under criticism.307 He is in any case cautious about his conclusions. Weima and Furnish appear more confident that v. 11b is a blessing, though Furnish uses the term ‘promise’ also, which perhaps confuses the issue somewhat.308 In favour of the view that v. 11b constitutes a wish, we could refer to the possible influence on Paul of the Semitic peace-wish as an epistolary farewell.309 Against this interpretation, however, there is still the ambiguity of the indicative verb, and the fact that this so-called ‘peace benediction’ does not, either, follow the pattern of Paul’s grace benedictions. A comparable peace benediction would run: ὁ θεὸς τῆς (ἀγάπης καὶ) εἰρήνης μεθʼ ὑμῶν.

Hence, the alternative interpretation of v. 11b clearly requires consideration. At face value this half-verse appears to be simply the declaration of a promise. It is what its form indicates: a statement. Why the elaborate argumentation designed to present it as a benediction? As we have briefly noted above, it is the logical relationship of 11b to 11a that is problematic. Although the connective is merely the comparatively neutral καί, this in itself allows space for conjecture as to the existence of some more specific logical link in Paul’s mind.

Is the relationship conditional? Windisch claims that v. 11b is an assurance that God will be with the Corinthians, provided that they pay attention to the exhortations of v. 11a. These imperatives function, logically, as the protasis of a conditional concept which has v. 11b as its apodosis. The notion is ‘Pelagian’.310 There is, of course, no explicit syntactical evidence for this interpretation. But it is probably rejected more because of its theological implications than on account of syntactical deficiency. Is God’s presence (not a matter of grace but) something that has to be earned or deserved by amendment of conduct and attitudes? Another reading of the verse, supported by Barrett and Furnish, is that v. 11b gives the grounding for v. 11a. The fact that God is the supplier of love and peace will make it possible for the Corinthians to put Paul’s exhortations into practice.311 But this would surely require something like ὁ γὰρ θεός … Or perhaps Paul is simply juxtaposing separate syntactical items, i.e., a string of imperatives followed by the assertion of a promise, without intending to suggest any organic relationship between them.312 This is the simplest solution. It is obviously possible to promise, by implication, God’s presence to help and support the Corinthians as they endeavour to respond to Paul’s exhortations without making the support conditionally dependent upon the endeavour.313

A definite conclusion is difficult. On balance, however, we prefer to understand v. 11b as a promise, somewhat loosely connected in thought with v. 11a in the last of the various ways we have noted. The fact that the grace-benediction in v. 13 mentions God in addition to Christ (and the Spirit) might also tell against the interpretation of v. 11b as a benediction.

12. Ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλους ἐν ἀγίῶ φιλήματι. Ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ ἅγιοι πάντες. Here we have the closing greeting which had become a regular convention in the endings of hellenistic letters, and which was nearly always expressed by means of the verb ἀσπάζομαι.314 The identical formula ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλους ἐνφιλήματι ἁγίῳ occurs also in Rom 16:16 and 1 Cor 16:20; similarly, in 1 Th 5:26 we have ἀσπάσασθε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς πάντας ἐν φιλήματι ἁγίῳ.315 The specifically Christian element is the injunction to exchange the ‘holy kiss’. The general custom of exchanging kisses was widespread in the ancient world, in various contexts and for various purposes.316 Relatives and friends kissed each other, and a kiss could also function as a mark of respect.317 Kisses were exchanged at greeting and parting, both in the ancient world in general318 and also in Judaism.319 A kiss could be a sign of reconciliation.320 According to Stählin, it could function also in a religious context as ‘a sign of brotherhood’ when given to those who were received into a closed group; he notes: ‘Those received into a religious fraternity by a kiss are called οἱ ἐντὸς τοῦ φιλήματος.’321 Paul’s description of the kiss as ‘holy’, however, is something new, it appears.322 What is its significance? Weima observes that it could refer to the need for ‘proper and holy motives’. There was later patristic concern in this respect.323 But it served primarily to distinguish the greeting kiss of believers from the greetings of non-believers. The latter were certainly a symbol of ‘friendship and goodwill’, but the former was (also) a symbol of unity within the church.324 In Paul’s usage it challenges his readers to eliminate any mutual hostility that may remain in their midst.325 The fellowship of the church, moreover, is grounded in the presence of the Holy Spirit, and this presence holds good for the exchange of the kiss326 which is the outward sign of the fellowship of the ἅγιοι.327

These various considerations would seem to account satisfactorily for Paul’s allusion to the holy kiss. There has been the further suggestion, however, that it reflects a fixed element within the embryonic liturgies in the Pauline churches. According to Lietzmann, the Pauline letter would be read in the assembly, then would follow the kiss of peace, and then the Lord’s Supper, introduced by the triadic greeting of 2 Cor 13:13.328 Stählin, with reference to the closing of 1 Corinthians, sees the greeting, with the kiss (1 Cor 16:20), and the anathema and Maranatha (1 Cor 16:22) as constituting the introduction to the supper.329 The argument in favour of this viewpoint is threefold. First, Lietzmann points out that in the old liturgies the triadic greeting found in 2 Cor 13:13 always follows the kiss of peace. This suggests that the connection is ancient, and derives from the ritual of the Pauline churches.330 Secondly, Justin refers to the kiss of greeting in connection with the eucharist,331 and it is seen to come immediately before the offering of the bread and wine.332 Thirdly, in 1 Cor 16:20, 22, as already noted, the kiss is associated with the Maranatha. In the Didache (10:6) the Maranatha concludes the final prayer in the eucharist.333

There are several objections, however, to this whole line of argument. First, if a connection exists between the epistolary convention and the liturgical usage, it is more likely that the latter was secondary, derived from the former.334 Secondly, it is interesting that there is no mention of the eucharistic kiss in the Apostolic Fathers. Stählin, who draws attention to the fact, finds it odd.335 But it is so, only if we start from the assumption that it was already part of the liturgy in the apostolic age. In that case, there might indeed be an unaccountable gap between Paul and Justin. Otherwise it is not odd at all. On the contrary, the existence of the gap tells against the correctness of the liturgical theory. Thirdly, it must be emphasised that the contexts of Paul’s allusions to the kiss (to state the obvious) are epistolary, not liturgical. And this holds good for other items which are later found in a liturgical context. They are intermingled with other contents which are in no sense liturgical. In 2 Cor 13:12, the injunction to exchange the kiss precedes the transmission of the greeting from ‘all the saints’. In 1 Th 5:26 it is followed by an instruction about the reading of the letter. In Rom 16:16 the reference to the kiss is preceded by Paul’s personal greetings to specific individuals and followed by the general greeting from ‘all the churches of Christ’. This intermingling is most apparent in the very passage on which the liturgical theory is most commonly based, i.e. 1 Cor 16:19–24: the injunction to exchange the kiss is preceded by greetings from the churches of Asia, from Aquila and Prisca, and from ‘all the Christian brothers’. It is followed by Paul’s epistolary signature. Then comes the Maranatha, then the grace, and finally Paul’s love to his readers.336 It seems highly unlikely, therefore, that these letter-endings reflect a fixed liturgical pattern already in existence. Of course the ‘holy kiss’ could be termed ‘liturgical’ in a more general sense, in that it would be exchanged when the members of the church met for worship.337 But that is all.

The greeting to the Corinthians from ‘all the saints’ is paralleled in Rom 16:16 by the reference to ‘all the churches of Christ’, by the reference in 1 Cor 16:19 to ‘the churches of Asia’ and in 16:20 to ‘all the brothers’, and by the ‘all the saints’ of Phil 4:22.338 Weima sees in this second greeting of v. 12 a hidden allusion to Paul’s apostolic authority since the greeting is of so broad a nature, and also a reminder to the Corinthians that they are accountable to the wider church, not only to themselves.339

Furnish notes that in some English versions (KJV, RV, NEB [also REB]) v. 12b is numbered as v. 13 and the closing grace as v. 14. This originated, apparently, with the second folio edition of the Bishops’ Bible in 1572.340

13. Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ [Χριστοῦ] καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. As in all the other epistles of the Pauline corpus, this letter ends with a grace-benediction beginning with ἡ χάρις, and consisting of three items: wish(es), divine source(s), and recipients.341 But whereas in the other letters the blessing consists simply of the wish that the grace of Christ should be with the recipients, here the benediction is expanded with reference to the love of God and the κοινωνία of the Holy Spirit. This could look like an embryonic trinitarian formula, and, since it is unique within the Pauline literature, the question arises as to whether it might be post-Pauline in origin.342 As we shall see,343 however, the term ‘trinitarian’ may be in some respects misleading. Furthermore, there is nothing in this longer formula which would be alien to Paul’s own theological outlook.

If, then, we accept the whole verse as originally Pauline, there are four main questions to be considered. First, can anything be said about background influences which may have played some part in the construction of Paul’s expanded formula? Secondly, what is the meaning of the various elements of the triadic blessing? Thirdly, how and why did the expansion come about? And fourthly, how ‘trinitarian’ is the formula?

(i) Windisch claims that the Christian formulation must have been influenced by external religious tendencies, such as the invocation of three gods in prayer, and philosophical motifs such as the Philonic triad of God, Sophia and Logos. For apostolic Christianity was primarily aware only of a duality of divine persons, i.e., God and Christ, or Father and Son.344 Bultmann, however, points out that the order of mention in the Pauline triad counts against this. In these other threefold motifs and practices the Father God would be named first.345 In any case, Windisch’s suggestion is more than a little implausible. Would Paul, having mentioned what to him were such experiential realities as divine grace and love, then proceed to complete his formulation with a third element derived from some extraneous cultic or religio-philosophical milieu? In fact, Windisch comes near to contradicting himself. For he suggests that in Paul’s discussion of spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12 we may have the beginning of a conception of the Spirit as a personal power with a personal will.346 In that case, the concept of threefold personal divine being originates within Christian experience. Elsewhere in the NT it becomes explicit only in the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19: βαπτί ζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. It is unlikely that Paul was aware of this tradition. Had this been so, we should have expected a nearer approach to it.347 The order of the divine entities is different from the order in the present verse, and two of their titles also differ from those of the Pauline formula. It is not likely, either, that there is any link with the Johannine tradition concerning the Spirit as Paraclete. Windisch notes that there is a parallel of sorts here, in that, as ἄλλος παράκλητος (Jn 14:16, 26), the Spirit is very nearly raised to personal status (cf. 1 Jn 2:1, where Christ himself is παράκλητος).348 Again, however, the terminology is quite different. It seems, then, that what we have here is a development within the Pauline tradition itself, unaffected by external influences.

(ii) Turning now to the question of meaning, we have to begin by asking whether Paul’s formula is, in fact, a blessing, or whether he is making a declaration. Does he pray that divine grace, love, and fellowship (may) be with his correspondents, or does he assert that these gifts are (will be) with them? The verb is omitted. Obviously we are to supply some part of εἰμί, but which? Should it be εἴη (optative) or perhaps ἔστω (imperative), to express the first of our alternatives? Or are we to supply ἐστίν or ἔσται (indicative), to express the second?349 In support of this second possibility it could be argued that it would express a certainty that the alternative lacks.350 But the alternative rests on better evidence. In favour of the optative, there is its use in other Pauline blessings and wishes: see Rom 15:5; 15:13; 1 Th 3:11; 3:12–13; 5:23. And the imperative would find support in Graeco-Roman letters, since it would correspond with ‘the common hellenistic farewell wish ἔρρωσο that is always expressed in the imperative mood’.351 Paul is uttering a blessing, leaving either the optative or the imperative of εἰμί to be understood.352

The main point for discussion under the present heading can also be expressed in grammatical terms, but in one instance opens out into a wider debate. The grammatical question concerns the force of the genitives of the divine names. In the first phrase, ‘the grace of the Lord Jesus [Christ]’, the genitive τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ [Χριστοῦ ] is clearly subjective, expressing the origin of grace. Paul prays that Christ will bestow upon the Corinthians the blessing of his gracious favour.353 Similarly, in the second phrase, ‘the love of God’, the τοῦ θεοῦ is usually understood as subjective, i.e., as denoting God’s love for man rather than man’s love for God.354 This is the more natural sense in the context of a blessing. It is the third phrase, the κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, that is ambiguous. Is the genitive, (a), subjective, indicating origin? This would mean that the κοινωνία is the fellowship within the Christian community engendered by the action of the Spirit. Or is the genitive, ( , objective? In that case κοινωνία will refer to the participation of believers in the life and power of the Spirit. In the one instance, (a), what is in view is the relationship of believers with each other, in the other, ( , the direct relationship with the third of the divine entities as with the other two.

There is some support for the first alternative, (a): the genitive is subjective, and the intention of the blessing is that the Spirit may create fellowship within the Christian community. Two reasons are given. (1) The first genitive in the verse is subjective (Christ is the source of grace), and it is likely that the other two genitives are to be understood in the same way.355 (2) The general context would support this interpretation. Party spirit has damaged church life in Corinth, and in consequence a prayer for renewed fellowship within the community would be felt by Paul to be appropriate.356 Against this viewpoint, however, it could be argued that elsewhere in the NT a genitive following κοινωνία is usually objective, indicating what it is that participants share in.357 This is most obvious in 1 Cor 10:16: κοινωνία … τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ.358 See also 1 Cor 1:9: κοινωνίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ;359 Phil 3:10: κοινωνίαν τῶν παθημάτῶν αὐτοῦ ;360 and possibly Phil 2:1: κοινωνία πνεύματος.361 In addition, one has to ask whether party spirit within the Corinthian church has really been a prime concern in the letter of chaps. 10–13 (or, indeed, within the canonical 2 Corinthians as a whole).

This brings us to the consideration of alternative ( : the genitive is objective, and Paul is thus praying that his readers may experience personal communion with the Holy Spirit. In favour of this interpretation there are various considerations.

(1) It would be supported by the NT instances cited above as counting against alternative (a),362 with the possible exception of Phil 2:1.363

(2) Chrysostom appears to support the objective interpretation. He comments that whilst Paul speaks here of the κοινωνία of the Spirit, elsewhere (1 Cor 1:9) he refers to the κοινωνία of the Son.364 Thus Chrysostom understands the πνεύματος of the present verse in the same way as the υἱοῦ of the other passage, i.e., as objective.365 There is no Greek patristic evidence for the subjective interpretation.366

(3) What, then, of the argument under (a) (1) that all three genitives should be understood in the same way, and hence as subjective? This is scarcely decisive. In 2 Th 2:13, we have genitival phrases similarly related, but the functions of the genitives differ. In ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας, the first genitive must be subjective, the second objective.367

(4) The argument under (a) (1) relates to grammatical congruity. But congruity of sense would favour alternative ( . When Paul speaks of the grace of Christ and the love of God he has in mind a personal relationship between Christ and the Corinthians and between God and the Corinthians. The third phrase would then most probably refer to personal relationship between the Corinthians and the Spirit, not to relationship between various church members. There is a good case for the view that τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος is an objective genitive. Nevertheless, we still need to look at two possible counter-arguments. The phrase κοινωνία πνεύματος in Phil 2:1 is clearly important, since it is the only NT example cited in which the dependent genitive, as in 2 Cor 13:13, is πνεύματος. And here the sense of the expression is ambiguous. The following verse speaks of mutual love and unity of mind within the community, which could suggest that the genitive might have a subjective function. Furthermore, the evidence of Chrysostom may be ambiguous likewise. He sees κοινωνία as the Spirit’s gift to the church,368 and this could likewise imply that πνεύματος is seen as subjective.

It seems that the arguments on each side may be somewhat finely balanced. Perhaps it is on this account that some commentators suggest that both ideas are implicit in the phrase κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος : fellowship within the community engendered by the Spirit, by virtue of participation in the Spirit’s power. Prumm supposes that we may have a genitive with a dual function, indicating both origin (subjective) and participation (objective).369 This solution is not wholly convincing. Certainly the Greek genitive is multifunctional. But does this also mean that in some one particular instance it can possess more than one function?370 It is better to make a choice. In our view, the second alternative, ( , is preferable. The genitive is objective, and Paul wishes the Corinthians personal fellowship with the Spirit, in addition to experience of the grace of Christ and of the love of God. In each case what he has in mind is relationship with divine being. In adopting this interpretation we follow Kümmel,371 Barrett,372 Furnish,373 and Seesemann.374

(iii) How and why did this expansion of the usual Pauline grace benediction come about? It is likely that Paul began with his usual blessing which refers only to the grace of Jesus Christ.375 Deciding then to expand it, he would naturally, we might suppose, refer next to the love of God, since Christ and God are regularly associated in his opening epistolary greetings, and last would come the mention of participation in the Spirit. Whether this means that we find here an intentional trinitarian formula we shall discuss below, but reference to Lord, God, and Spirit is not in itself an innovation at this late point in the Corinthian correspondence: see 1 Cor 12:4–6. The question of why Paul on this occasion expanded his usual epistolary conclusion is more difficult. Plümmer offers two suggestions. Perhaps a longer blessing might have seemed suitable to a church which had been so divided by faction.376 But Paul has already addressed this situation in v. 11, and in any case the problem of factionalism is not a main concern in chaps. 10–13. Alternatively, he may have wished to assure his readers of his affection, after what will have seemed his harsh treatment of them.377 If so, however, why did he not explicitly send them his own love (as he had done in 1 Cor 16:24)? Plümmer may have a point here, nevertheless. Weima notes that the word πάντων is also an addition to Paul’s usual formula. In itself this is a common epistolary convention. But the fact that he makes use of it may be intended to indicate that he wishes his benediction to include those whom he had censured at an earlier stage in the letter.378 If so, we should have to reject the rather different explanation which Martin proposes to account for the addition of the reference to the Spirit to the more usual binitarian formula, i.e., that it has a polemical connotation, with an oblique allusion to the ‘other spirit’ of 11:4.379 This would be inappropriate, if the expanded conclusion is to be understood as in some sense a conciliatory gesture. Such a gesture might be especially appropriate, also, if Paul were to regard this letter as the conclusion of his correspondence with the Corinthian church, and the fuller form of the benediction would likewise appear fitting in such circumstances. In 10:16 he has spoken of his hope of evangelistic mission in areas ‘beyond’ Corinth, and in Rom 15:22–24 he plans to visit Rome and Spain, observing that he has ‘no further scope’ in his present locale. Whilst his imminent third visit would enable him to make his farewells in person, he might have thought it profitable to leave the church also with a full benediction in written form, praying that its members might be endowed with all the blessings which derive from the threefold personal divine agency of Christ, God, and Spirit.

(iv) To what extent might the benediction be termed ‘trinitarian’? Obviously, in comparison with the later doctrine, it is not explicitly so. Nothing is said or implied about the mutual relationship of the divine entities,380 the terms ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are not used,381 and the sequence in which each is mentioned should caution against finding here a reflection of the developed concept.382 At the same time it would be possible to see in the Pauline formula one of the starting points of trinitarian development. This is denied by Kümmel, who sees it, rather, as a way of expressing belief in the eschatological saving act of God in history, in sending Christ and bestowing the Spirit.383 Barrett, however, regards Kümmel as mistaken. He points out that, in Paul’s benediction, ‘Christ, God, the Spirit, appearing in balanced clauses in one sentence, must stand on one divine level’. This will eventually raise the question of their mutual relationship, as will what Paul says or implies elsewhere about Christ as God’s Son, and about the Spirit as the Spirit of Christ.384 Barrett’s view is preferable.

Textual variants in verse13

1. Whilst most witnesses read Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, a few (B Ψ 323. 1881 pc) have simply Ἰησοῦ. The arguments on either side tend to balance one another out. First, each reading might be plausibly explained as arising out of the other. If the longer text should be original, accidental scribal omission of Χριστοῦ could be due to homoioteleuton; the scribe`s eye would have skipped from the οῦ of Ἰησοῦ to the identical ending of Χριστοῦ. But if the shorter text should be original, the longer reading could be the result of the general scribal tendency to expand the divine names. Secondly, both readings could find support in Pauline usage. The longer version occurs in Gal 6:18; Phil 4:23; 1 Th 5:28; Philem 25: the shorter in 1 Cor 16:23. In relation to this second point, however, it is worth noting that the four instances attesting the longer version occur without variants, whilst at 1 Cor 16:23 some witnesses also have the longer form. This brings us to a third line of argument. Initially these textual facts would seem to count in favour of the longer reading, as consonant with the better attested usage in Paul`s letters. But in 1 Cor 16:23, according to Metzger, Textual Commentary1, p. 570, the longer reading is secondary. And a further fact is that the original shorter text is supported by the two main witnesses, i.e., B Ψ, which attest the shorter reading in 2 Cor 13:13. This certainly could mean that in our present verse the scribes of B Ψ changed an original longer reading so as to create conformity with 1 Cor 16:23. Alternatively, however, it could well suggest that in both cases these two witnesses have preserved the original shorter reading, in face of a widespread tendency to conform the grace benedictions of the Corinthian letters to Pauline usage elsewhere. Such a tendency, moreover, would go hand in hand with the scribal habit of expanding the divine titles. Certainty is impossible, but the shorter reading has more to be said in its favour than might at first appear.

2. The omission of ἁγίου in p46 is an obvious scribal error.

3. The concluding ἀμήν (א2 D Ψ m lat sy bo) is secondary: see Metzger, Textual Commentary1, p. 588. Its omission (p46 א * A B F G 0243, 6, 33, 630, 1175, 1241, 1739, 1881 pc sa boms Ambst) is correct. The Subscription.385 For detailed information, see Metzger, Textual Commentary1, p. 588, 2, p. 519. The original form is πρὸσΚορινθίους β (p46 א* A B* 33). Later witnesses add the information that the letter was written from Philippi (Bc K L P 201, 205, 209, 328, 337, 642), and that Titus and Luke were the scribes (K L), to whom some witnesses add Barnabas (201. 205. 209. 328. 337). That the letter was written from Philippi will be an intelligent guess on the basis of the references to Macedonia in chaps. 2, 8–9 and on the assumption of the unity of the canonical epistle. That Titus was one of the amanuenses will have been deduced from the allusions to him in chaps. 7–8. That Luke was the other must depend on Acts 20:6. The addition of Barnabas may come from 1 Cor 9, but takes no account of the separation recorded in Acts 15:36–41.

Excursus XVI

2 Cor 10–13: some rhetorical perspectives

As we have seen, renewed interest in the rhetorical characteristics of the Pauline letters has produced several studies of these chapters. It may be of interest to make some assessment of the two more recent monographs to which we have drawn attention in the exegesis, and to consider their possible implications, should their arguments prove acceptable.

Sundermann, we have observed, analyses the structure of the letter in detail, finding in it a complex of separate units which correspond to the classical divisions of a speech, together with some freedom of organisation.386 As we have worked through the exegesis, we have found the analysis in general to be plausible. It has not caused any change in exegetical decisions. Nevertheless, it has provided an interesting perspective on the structure of chaps. 10–13, and has given additional support to the view that in these chapters we have a separate letter from

Paul to Corinth.387 DiCicco takes a different approach, demonstrating Paul`s use of the three methods of persuasion: proof of the orator`s moral character, the arousal of appropriate emotion, and logical argument.388 This, in our view, is a helpful way of looking at the text. It is rejected, however, by Winter, who comments,

If it is correct that Paul rejects these persuasive techniques in his evangelism in Corinth (1 Cor. 2:1–5) as has been argued here, it is inexplicable why he would make such full use of them in a later letter to the Corinthians without again calling into question his integrity.389

This objection could also well apply, mutatis mutandis, to the rhetorical analysis proposed by Sundermann. But in face of the detailed argumentation adduced by both authors in favour of their rhetorical theories, the objection can scarcely be upheld with any confidence, unless supported by equally detailed considerations. We may add three further points. First, by claiming to speak ‘as a fool’ in 11:1–12:18, Paul has covered himself to some extent against a possible charge of lack of integrity.

Secondly, in 1 Corinthians itself Paul can be seen to be in two minds about the appropriate style of evangelism. Was it to be wholly reflective of the content of the gospel (1 Cor 2:1–5)? Or was he to adapt his approach to various types of audience (1 Cor 9:20–22)? Thirdly, in his correspondence with the Corinthians Paul was not, in any case, concerned with primary evangelism of either type. The passage cited by Winter is of doubtful relevance.

If, then, these chapters do show some evidence of Paul`s use of rhetorical technique, what are the implications? Most obviously, it would look as though he possessed a considerable degree of rhetorical training. He knows, and can make use of, the conventional divisions of a speech. He is sufficiently confident, according to Sundermann`s analysis, to fit smaller units, each with its separate pattern, into the larger structure, and to reverse the more usual order of proof and refutation.390 He keeps track of all these complexities. Moreover, since this letter is a response to a crisis situation, it must have been composed fairly rapidly. Sundermann, however, claims indifference to the question of Paul`s rhetorical education. The use of rhetoric as an instrument of analysis is independent of whether or not the author, in the production of the text, is consciously guided by the rules methodically formulated by means of the rhetorical system. Sundermann is concerned with the rhetorical stamp of the Pauline text, whether this is conscious or unconscious, deliberate or unintentional.391 It is possible for authors to write in accordance with theory without knowledge of it.392 As a generalisation this may be true. But we are offered no firm evidence. Neither Sundermann nor Classen, to whom he refers, provides a specific example of an ancient text whose author is known to have been wholly uneducated in rhetoric but who nevertheless has produced a work that conforms in some detail to the rules of rhetoric. In the case of the Pauline letters some qualification is certainly necessary. As Classen points out, Paul`s command of Greek gave him access to Greek literature, which was itself impregnated with the rhetorical conventions.393 And had he never, during his formal education or in the course of his travels in the Mediterranean world, heard speeches which conformed to these conventions? We may remind ourselves that listening to speeches was itself one of the ways of learning to speak (or write) rhetorically.394 Hence, it seems improbable that Paul completely lacked rhetorical education. Sundermann claims to be neutral on this question. But it cannot be regarded as irrelevant if one is concerned with understanding Paul`s relationship with the Corinthians, who had a low view of his oral proficiency (10:11; 11:6).

It is not possible fully to investigate the question here. We may conclude, however, by taking note of two recent views. First, Murphy-O`Connor argues forcefully that Paul would certainly have been educated in rhetoric. After all, the Corinthians had to allow that his letters were impressive, despite his poor showing as an orator. Moreover, in 1 Cor 2:2. it is significant that he presents his style of preaching as ‘a matter of choice’. He could, realistically, have chosen the other alternative.395 His letters, according to Forbes, display the mastery of rhetoric that comes of ‘long practice, and possibly long study as well’.396 In striking contrast, the second of the two authors, R. Dean Anderson, thinks it unlikely that Paul had received any formal education in rhetoric. He refers to 2 Cor 10:10 and 11:6, and to what Paul says in Phil 3:5 about his Jewish upbringing.397 Chiefly, however, his view is based on his examination of Rom 1–11, Gal 1–5:12 and 1 Corinthians. The sections investigated fit neither the conventional rhetorical genres nor a rhetorical scheme of the parts into which an oration may be divided. Any connection that may be observed, Anderson claims, may depend simply on ‘the fact that most literary productions have a beginning, middle and an end’.398 Since he does not deal with 2 Cor 10–13 (or with any other part of the epistle), we do not know whether the same conclusions would result from a similar study of these four chapters. If this should be so, they would appear to clash with the specific and detailed analysis proposed by Sundermann, on the on the one hand, and with Murphy-O`Connor`s view of Paul`s education on the other. All three works share 1996 as their year of publication. Hence, no one author can respond to either or both of the others. The questions raised remain open.

 

252 Weima, Endings, p. 208. See also p. 146, where Weima give a list of these passages and especially notes the introductory word or phrase of each, as follows:

Rom 16:17–18, 19b

ἀδελφοί

 

1 Cor 16:13–16, 22

ἀδελφοί

 

2 Cor 13:11a

λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί

 

Gal 6:17

τοῦ λοιποῦ

 

Phil 4:8–9a

τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί

 

1 Th 5:25, 27

ἀδελφοί

 

Philem 20–22

ναὶ ἀδελφέ

 

 

253 Weima, Endings, p. 147. See the following exegesis for details. On the passage in Romans he comments, p. 148: ‘Paul’s autograph warning in 16:17–20 against those who create dissension and division recalls his earlier appeals against disunity in the Roman congregation stemming from tensions between the “weak” and the “strong”.’

254 BAGD s.v. λοιπός 3.b. See also, e.g., Plümmer, p. 380; Barrett, p. 341; Furnish, p. 581; Martin, p. 490. On the use of (τὸ) λοιπόν see, in addition: Roller, Formular, p. 66 and n. 308; also p. 67, where Roller comments that this is the only occasion in Paul’s letters where we have something resembling the τὰ δʼ ἄλλα of the secular letters; Thrall, Particles, p. 30.

Furnish Furnish, V. P., II Corinthians, AB 32A, New York, 1984.

255 Furnish, p. 581.

256 Weima, Endings, p. 210.

257 Plümmer, p. 380, notes the frequency of the address in 1 Corinthians and its rarity in these two sections of 2 Corinthians.

Furnish Furnish, V. P., II Corinthians, AB 32A, New York, 1984.

258 See below.

259 RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, BCN; Barrett, p. 341.

BAGD A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Chicago and London, 21979, revised and augmented by F. W. Gingrich and R. W. Danker from Bauer, Wörterbuch, 51958.

260 BAGD s.v. χαίρω 2. a.

Plümmer Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, ICC, Edinburgh, 1915.

261 Plümmer, p. 380.

262 Bultmann, p. 252; Furnish, p. 581; Weima, Endings, p. 210 n. 2.

263 Furnish, p. 581; Weima, ibid.

264 Furnish, ibid.; Martin, p. 498; Weima, ibid.

265 See BAGD s.v. καταρτίζω for these meanings.

266 Plümmer, p. 380; Filson, p. 423.

267 See, e.g., Tasker, p. 190; Furnish, p. 581; Barrett, pp. 341–2; Martin, p. 490.

268 See above, pp. 898–9.

LXX Septuaginta, ed. A. Rahlfs, Stuttgart, sixth edition.

Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, London and New York, 1971.

RSV The Revised Standard Version, 1973.

269 BAGD s.v. καταρτίζω 2.b.

Barrett Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, London, 1973.

270 Barrett, p. 341.

Martin R. P., 2 Corinthains, WBC 40, Waco, 1986.

271 Martin, ibid.

272 Martin, p. 499.

Furnish Furnish, V. P., II Corinthians, AB 32A, New York, 1984.

273 Furnish, p. 581.

BAGD A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Chicago and London, 21979, revised and augmented by F. W. Gingrich and R. W. Danker from Bauer, Wörterbuch, 51958.

274 BAGD s.v. καταρτίζω 1.a.

275 See Cranfield, Romans, p. 607, for a similar understanding of μεταμορφοῦσθε in Rom 12:2.

Barrett Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, London, 1973.

276 Barrett, p. 341.

Martin R. P., 2 Corinthains, WBC 40, Waco, 1986.

277 Martin, p. 490.

Meyer Meyer, H. A. W., Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians II, Edinburgh, 1879, translated by W. P. Dickson from Der zweite Brief an die Korinther, MeyerK 6, Göttingen, 51870 (11840).

278 Meyer, p. 513, with reference to de Wette, p. 261, who renders the verb, ‘ermahnet euch unter einander’.

279 Hughes, p. 487.

280 Plümmer, p. 380.

281 Hughes, p. 487; see also Prumm, Diakonia Pneumatos I, p. 728, and Furnish, pp. 581–2.

282 Furnish, p. 581.

283 Windisch, p. 426.

284 Windisch, ibid.; Furnish, p. 585.

Chrysostom Chrysostom, Homiliae XXX in Epistolam secundam ad Corinthios, PG 61 cols. 381–610. Translated in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, NPNF 1st ser. XII, Grand Rapids, 1969; the Oxford translation, revised by T. W. Chambers.

285 Chrysostom, PG 61 col. 606 (NPNF XII, p. 418).

Barrett Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, London, 1973.

Calvin Calvin, J., pp. 1–177 in The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, Edinburgh, 1964, translated by T. A. Smail. The original commentary on 2 Corinthians is Commentaire sur la Seconde évpistre aux Corinthiens, Geneva, 1547, with a Latin version in 1548.

286 Barrett, p. 342; Calvin, p. 176.

Martin R. P., 2 Corinthains, WBC 40, Waco, 1986.

287 Martin, p. 493.

288 Weima, Endings, p. 87; see the table on p. 89. The benediction consists of the following elements: (a) an introductory particle (δέ or καί); ( the reference to the divine source of blessing; © the wish (variously expressed—the verb is ἔσται in Phil 4:9b as here in 2 Cor 13:11); (d) the reference to the recipient. This is the analysis in Endings, pp. 88–9. Whether the terms ‘benediction’ and ‘wish’ are strictly correct may be debatable (see below).

289 Plümmer, p. 381, and Furnish, p. 582, note that the phrase ὁ θεὸς τῆς ἀγάπης occurs nowhere else in the NT, and Furnish that it is not found in the OT either.

Furnish Furnish, V. P., II Corinthians, AB 32A, New York, 1984.

290 Furnish, p. 582; cf. Weima, Endings, p. 91. The sentence runs: ‘but be at peace, holding to the God of peace. Thus no conflict will overwhelm you.’ (OTP I, p. 809).

291 Weima, Endings, p. 98; he refers, p. 98 n. 1, to m. Ber. 5:4; m. Meg. 4:3, 5, 6, 7; m. Sota. 7:6.

292 See Weima, Endings, pp. 59–61. The majority of the letters studied belong to the period of the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–35 C.E.): a few are slightly earlier.

293 Weima, Endings, p. 99.

294 Weima, Endings, p. 65–6.

295 Furnish, p. 586.

296 Weima, Endings, pp. 92–3.

297 Cf. Barrett, p. 343.

Furnish Furnish, V. P., II Corinthians, AB 32A, New York, 1984.

298 Furnish, pp. 582, 586.

299 Weima, Endings, p. 88 and throughout.

300 Wiles, Intercessory Prayers.

301 Wiles, Intercessory Prayers, p. 33.

302 Wiles, ibid.

LXX Septuaginta, ed. A. Rahlfs, Stuttgart, sixth edition.

Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, London and New York, 1971.

303 Wiles, Intercessory Prayers, pp. 33–4.

304 Wiles, Intercessory Prayers, p. 35. This is surely obvious, since a wish would scarcely be introduced by a relative pronoun. This would be true also in the case of 1 Cor 1:8, although Wiles, p. 35, regards this verse as a wish-prayer.

305 Wiles, Intercessory Prayers, p. 36, with reference to Phil 4:7, 9b; Phil 4:19 is ‘primarily declarative’.

306 Wiles, Intercessory Prayers, p. 107 n. 2.

307 See Wiles, Intercessory Prayers, p. 66 n. 1, for the reference to J. A. T. Robinson, ‘Traces of a Liturgical Sequence in 1 Cor. xvi: 20–24’, JTS n.s. 4 (1953), pp. 38–41. For criticism, see C. F. D. Moule, Essays in New Testament Interpretation, Cambridge, 1982, pp. 222–6: ‘A Reconsideration of the Context of Maranatha’. Other proponents of the basic idea are noted in Fee, First Corinthians, p. 834 n. 6.

Furnish Furnish, V. P., II Corinthians, AB 32A, New York, 1984.

Furnish Furnish, V. P., II Corinthians, AB 32A, New York, 1984.

308 Furnish, p. 586.

309 See above, pp. 908–9.

Windisch Windisch, H., Der zweite Korintherbrief, MeyerK 6, Göttingen, 91924 (reprinted 1970).

310 Windisch, p. 426.

Barrett Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, London, 1973.

Furnish Furnish, V. P., II Corinthians, AB 32A, New York, 1984.

311 Barrett, p. 343; Furnish, p. 586, with reference to Barrett.

312 Barrett, p. 342, thinks this also is a possibility.

313 See the somewhat similar comment by Bultmann, pp. 252–3. The thought, he says, is not Pelagian: ‘Denn der Gedanke, da β Gott als der Gott der Liebe und des Friedens nur bei denen weilt, die Liebe und Frieden wirken, schlie βt den Verdienstbegriff nicht notwendig ein’ (see p. 253).

314 See Weima, Endings, pp. 39–45, 105.

315 See also 1 Pet 5:14: ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλους ἐν φιλήματι ἀγάπης.

316 See G. Stählin, on φιλέω, in TWNT IX, pp. 112–69. On the kiss, see pp. 118–22, 124–6, 136–44.

317 Stählin, on φιλέω, pp. 118–19, 124.

318 Stählin, on φιλέω, p. 120.

319 Stählin, on φιλέω, p. 125.

320 Stählin, on φιλέω, pp. 120, 125.

321 Stählin, on φιλέω, p. 121; the quotations are from the ET in TDNT IX, p. 122.

322 Weima, Endings, p. 113.

323 Weima, ibid.; see n. 1 for references to Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. Cranfield, Romans, p. 796, quotes Ambrosiaster as indicating such concern.

324 Weima, ibid.

325 Weima, Endings, p. 114.

326 Karl-Martin Hofmann, Philema Hagion, BFCT 2nd ser. 38, Gütersloh, 1938, p. 91.

327 Hofmann, Philema Hagion, p. 23. The greeting with the holy kiss is thus, p. 91: ‘nämlich reale Mitteilung und tatsächlicher Austausch der Agape, die durch den heiligen Geist gewirkt ist, den heiligen innewohnt und von ihnen betätigt wird.’

328 H. Lietzmann, Messe und Herrenmahl, Bonn, 1926, p. 229 (ET, D. H. G. Reeve, Mass and Lord’s Supper, Leiden, 1979, p. 186).

329 Stählin, on φιλέω, p. 138; cf. Martin, p. 501. Furnish, p. 583, allows that it is possible that the kiss had become part of the liturgy (although Paul’s reference may simply relate to an ordinary kiss of greeting).

330 Lietzmann, Herrenmahl, p. 229 (Lord’s Supper, p. 186).

331 Justin, Apol. I 65; PG 6 col. 428; cited by Windisch, p. 427, and others.

332 Noted by Furnish, p. 583; cf. Weima, Endings, p. 85 n. 3.

333 See Robinson, ‘Liturgical Sequence’, p. 39.

334 Barrett, p. 343.

335 Stählin, on φιλέω,p. 140.

336 On the oddity of this order, should the liturgical theory be accepted, see also Moule, ‘Reconsideration’ (see above, p. 910 n. 307) who asks why, if the letter was intended as ‘the homily, leading on into the eucharist’, the Maranatha comes before the grace and the apostle’s love.

337 Cf. Windisch, p. 427.

338 On the greeting from ‘all the saints’, Furnish, p. 583, refers to T. Y. Mullins, ‘Greeting as a New Testament Form’, JBL 87 (1968), pp. 418–26, who cites P Oxy 530 as a secular example of a third person greeting: see p. 421. The greeting runs: ἀσπάζεταί σε Θεωνᾶς.

339 Weima, Endings, pp. 212–13.

Furnish Furnish, V. P., II Corinthians, AB 32A, New York, 1984.

KJV The King James Version, 1611.

RV The Revised Version, 1885.

NEB The New English Bible, 1970.

REB The Revised English Bible, 1989.

340 Furnish, p. 583.

341 Weima, Endings, pp. 78–83; see the table on p. 80. In the present instance there are textual variants which require discussion: see below, p. 921.

342 Barrett, p. 343, suggests the possibility, although in his comments, pp. 344–5, he does not appear to treat the formula as post-Pauline.

343 See below, pp. 920–1.

Windisch Windisch, H., Der zweite Korintherbrief, MeyerK 6, Göttingen, 91924 (reprinted 1970).

344 Windisch, pp. 429–30.

Bultmann Bultmann, R., Der zweite Brief an die Korinther, MeyerK 6, Göttingen, 101976, ed. E. Dinkler.

345 Bultmann, p. 254.

Windisch Windisch, H., Der zweite Korintherbrief, MeyerK 6, Göttingen, 91924 (reprinted 1970).

Windisch Windisch, H., Der zweite Korintherbrief, MeyerK 6, Göttingen, 91924 (reprinted 1970).

346 Windisch, p. 429.

347 Plümmer, p. 384.

Windisch Windisch, H., Der zweite Korintherbrief, MeyerK 6, Göttingen, 91924 (reprinted 1970).

348 Windisch, pp. 429–30.

349 See Weima, Endings, p. 83, for this formulation of the problem, and pp. 83–4 for discussion of it.

350 The argument is noted by Weima, Endings, p. 83.

351 Weima, Endings, pp. 83–4; see p. 84 for the words quoted.

352 Weima, Endings, p. 84.

353 On Paul’s understanding of grace, see the comment on 1:2, in Vol. I, p. 97. On the subjective force of the genitive, see Furnish, p. 583, who draws attention to the parallels in 8:9 and 12:9.

354 See, e.g., Windisch, p. 428; Bruce, p. 255; Barrett, p. 344; Furnish, p. 583; Martin, p. 504.

355 Tasker, p. 191; cf. Bruce, p. 255.

356 Bruce, p. 255; cf. Martin, p. 505.

357 Meyer, p. 514 n. 2.

358 Windisch, p. 428; Lietzmann, p. 162; Meyer, p. 514 n. 2.

359 Meyer, ibid.; Windisch, ibid.

360 Windisch, ibid.

361 Meyer, ibid.

362 See above.

363 See below.

Chrysostom Chrysostom, Homiliae XXX in Epistolam secundam ad Corinthios, PG 61 cols. 381–610. Translated in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, NPNF 1st ser. XII, Grand Rapids, 1969; the Oxford translation, revised by T. W. Chambers.

364 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , p. 56, with reference to Chrysostom, PG 61, col. 608 (NPNF XII, p. 419).

Chrysostom Chrysostom, Homiliae XXX in Epistolam secundam ad Corinthios, PG 61 cols. 381–610. Translated in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, NPNF 1st ser. XII, Grand Rapids, 1969; the Oxford translation, revised by T. W. Chambers.

365 Seesemann, ibid.

366 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , p. 70. He cites, p. 72, Oecumenius and Theophylact as using μετοχή and μετάληψις as synonyms for κοινωνία.

367 Seesemann, ibid.

Chrysostom Chrysostom, Homiliae XXX in Epistolam secundam ad Corinthios, PG 61 cols. 381–610. Translated in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, NPNF 1st ser. XII, Grand Rapids, 1969; the Oxford translation, revised by T. W. Chambers.

368 See, G. V. Jourdan, ‘ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ in 1 Corinthians 10:16’, JBL 67 (1948), pp. 111–24; see pp. 116–17. He claims that Chrysostom makes it clear that ‘he regarded κοινωνία, χάρις and ἀγάπη to be gifts from the three Divine Persons equally’. This is so, but in the context the point is the equality of divine status, not the precise nature of each gift.

Prumm Prümm, K., Diakonia Pneumatos 1: Theologische Auslegung des zweiten Korintherbriefs, Rome, Freiburg and Vienna, 1967.

369 Prumm, Diakonia Pneumatos I, p. 732; Martin, p. 505 (with some hesitation). Prumm is followed by M. McDermott, ‘The Biblical Doctrine of ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ ’, BZ 19 (1975), pp. 64–77, 219–33. Martin, ibid., cites J. Hainz, Koinonia: Kirche als Gemeinschaft bei Paulus, BU 16, Regensburg, 1982, p. 61. Furnish, p. 584, notes others in favour of assigning a dual function to the genitive.

370 See also Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , pp. 40–1.

Kümmel Kümmel, W. G., Notes in Lietzmann, An die Korinther, 41949, pp. 165–214.

371 Kümmel, p. 214.

Barrett Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, London, 1973.

372 Barrett, p. 341.

Furnish Furnish, V. P., II Corinthians, AB 32A, New York, 1984.

373 Furnish, p. 584.

374 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , throughout.

375 Plümmer, p. 383.

Plümmer Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, ICC, Edinburgh, 1915.

376 Plümmer, ibid.

377 Plümmer, ibid.

Plümmer Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, ICC, Edinburgh, 1915.

378 Weima, Endings, p. 82. He comments: ‘In ancient letters, the adjective πᾶς in a prepositional phrase was commonly added to expand the scope of a farewell wish or greeting.’ See p. 32 for examples of the elaboration of farewell wishes by means of such phrases as μετὰ τῶν σῶν πάντων, σὺν τοῖς σοῖς πᾶσιν.

Martin R. P., 2 Corinthains, WBC 40, Waco, 1986.

379 Martin, p. 497.

380 Strachan, p. 145; cf. Furnish, p. 587.

381 Furnish, ibid.

382 Furnish, ibid.; cf. Weima, Endings, p. 81.

Kümmel Kümmel, W. G., Notes in Lietzmann, An die Korinther, 41949, pp. 165–214.

383 Kümmel, p. 214.

Barrett Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, London, 1973.

Kümmel Kümmel, W. G., Notes in Lietzmann, An die Korinther, 41949, pp. 165–214.

384 Barrett, p. 345.

Barrett Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, London, 1973.

385 The term ‘subscription’ is used here, as in both editions of Metzger`s Textual Commentary in the sense given to it in his book The Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 1968), pp. 205–6, i.e., of ‘scribal additions … appended to the Pauline Epistles, giving information regarding the traditional place from which each was sent, as well as in some cases what was believed to be the name of the amanuensis or of the messenger who was to carry the Epistle`. Other scholars employ the same term with reference to postscripts which were always part of the original letter, summarising its contents; see, e.g., Richards, Secretary, pp. 81–3, and his references to the work of G. J. Bahr. Roller, Formular, pp. 73–7, differently again, uses subscriptio of the final greeting written in a different hand. In a letter sent by the Emperor Justinian the term itself occurs: ‘Divina subscriptio’. It precedes the final good wish and indicates the Emperor as the sender. Cranfield, Romans, pp. 803–4, follows Roller. Within the conclusion of the letter, the greeting of 16:20b, ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ μεθʼ ὑμῶν, functions as Paul`s subscription.

386 Sundermann, Kraft der Rede, throughout.

387 See above, pp. 595–6, and throughout.

388 DiCicco, Ethos, Pathos and Logos; see above, pp. 698–9 (πάθος), p. 706, pp. 797–8 (ἦθος) , and pp. 831–2 (λόγος).

389 Winter, Sophists, p. 229 n. 114.

390 According to Sundermann, (Kraft der Rede, p. 45), the refutation precedes the proof. Cicero has the reverse order in his discussions of the parts of a speech: see Inv. I 4:19; Part. Or. 9:33. This, of course, could be regarded as a major objection to the theory proposed.

391 Sundermann, Kraft der Rede, p. 13.

392 Ibid., n. 18, with reference to C. J. Classen, ‘Paulus und die antike Rhetorik’, ZNW 82 (1991), pp. 1–33, p. 31.

393 Classen, ‘Rhetorik’, pp. 3–4.

394 Winter, Sophists, pp. 30–1, 33–4.

395 Murphy-O`Connor, Paul, pp. 50–1, with reference, n. 129, to P. Marshall, Enmity in Corinth, p. 390.

396 Forbes, ‘Comparison’, p. 23; cited by Murphy-O`Connor, Paul, p. 51 n. 131.

397 R. Dean Anderson Jr, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 17, Kampen, 1996, pp. 249–50.

398 Anderson,Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, pp. 251–2; the quotation is on p. 252. Rather similarly, Professor Cranfield, in a note referring to 2 Cor 10:1–11, suggests to me that the use of an insinuatio to evoke interest and gain agreement would be a natural way of approaching one`s audience, as would a probatio, and that such strategies would come about without the aid of rhetorical theory. The rhetoricians may simply formalise actual practice.

Margaret E. Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of the Corinthians, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 904–925.

[Emanuel Cardona]

Thank you so much, Daniel!

[Joel Brown]

We've generally been pretty lax about this in the past, but to protect the rights of the content publishers, we are implementing a 2,000 word cap on quotations from resources.  At this time we won't be editing down already supplied quotations, but moving forward please be mindful of the gap when requesting or supplying excerpts.  Thank you very much for understanding.

[Emanuel Cardona]

Thanks Joel. I didn't know that. I sincerely apologize my friends.

[Daniel Francis]

Will keep that in mind sorry as I know i have been one who has freely shared...

 

-dan