2 Corinthians 2:5

2Co_2:5-11

But if any have caused grief

The aim of Church discipline

is in the last resort the restoration of the fallen.

The Church has, of course, an interest of its own to guard i it is bound to protest against all that is inconsistent with its character; it is bound to expel scandals. But the Churchs protest, its condemnation, its excommunication even, are not ends in themselves; they are means to that which is really an end in itself, a priceless good which justifies every extreme of moral severity, the winning again of the sinner through repentance. The judgment of the Church is the instrument of Gods love, and the moment it is accepted in the sinful soul it begins to work as a redemptive force. The humiliation it inflicts is that which God exalts; the sorrow, that which He comforts. But when a scandal comes to light in a Christian congregation, what is the significance of that movement of feeling which inevitably takes place? In how many has it the character of goodness and of severity, of condemnation and compassion, of love and fear, of pity and shame, the only character that has any virtue in it, to tell for the sinners recovery? If you ask nine people out of ten what a scandal is, they will tell you it is something that makes men talk; and the talk in nine cases out of ten will be malignant, affected, more interesting to the talkers than any story of virtue or piety--scandal itself, in short, far more truly than its theme. Does anybody imagine that gossip is one of the forces that awaken conscience, and work for the redemption of our fallen brethren? If this is all we can do, in the name of all that is Christian let us keep silence. Every word spoken about a brothers sin, that is not prompted by a Christian conscience, that does not vibrate with the love of a Christian heart is itself a sin against the mercy and the judgment of Christ. (J. Denney, B. D.)

Sufficient unto such a man is this punishment.--

Christian punishment and absolution

I. The Christian idea of punishment includes in it--

1. The reformation of the offender (2Co_2:6). The ancient system of law sacrificed the individual to the society, and feeble philanthropy would sacrifice society to the individual, whereas Christianity would save both.

2. The purification of society. Sin committed with impunity corrupts the body of men to which the sinner belongs; and this purification is effected partly by example, and partly by removal of the evil. The discipline by which this removal was effected was excommunication, and at that time apostolic excommunication represented to the world Gods system of punishment.

3. The expression of righteous indignation. For there is a right feeling in human nature which we call resentment, although in the worst natures it becomes malice. It existed in Christ Himself. Mark what follows from this. Man is the image of God: so there is something in God which corresponds with that which we call resentment, stripped, of course, of all selfishness or fury. So we must not explain away those words of Scripture, the wrath of God, God is angry with the wicked every day, the wrath of God is revealed from heaven. These sayings contain a deep and an awful truth. If the wrath of God be only a figure, His love must be but a figure too.

II. The Christian idea of absolution. Forgiveness is one thing, absolution is another. Absolution is the authoritative declaration of forgiveness. When Christ said, Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee, He did not forgive him; he was forgiven already, but He declared his forgiveness. Now the case before us is a distinct instance of ecclesiastical absolution. St. Paul says, I forgive. This is absolution; mans declaration of Gods forgiveness--man speaking in Gods stead.

1. Consider the use of absolution. It was to save from remorse, and is here considered as a comfort.

2. This absolution was representative--

(1) Of the forgiveness of God. St. Paul forgave the sinner in the person, that is in the stead of Christ. Thus, as the punishment of man is representative of the punishment and wrath of God, so the absolution of man is representative of the forgiveness of God.

(2) Of the Christian congregation: for your sakes. Every member, therefore, of that congregation was forgiving the sinner; it was his right to do so, and it was in his name that St. Paul spoke; nay, because each member had forgiven, St. Paul forgave. Absolution therefore is not a priestly prerogative. It belongs to man, and to the minister because he stands as the representative of purified humanity. Who does not know how the unforgivingness of society in branding men and women as outcasts makes their case hopeless? Men bind his sins--her crimes--on earth, and they remain bound. Now every man has this power individually. For years the thought of his deceit, and the dread of his brother, had weighed on Jacobs heart, and when Esau forgave him, it was as if he had seen the face of God. When we treat the guilty with tenderness, hope rises in them towards God; their hearts say, They love us; will not God forgive and love us too? (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)

Ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.--

Overmuch sorrow

I. When sorrow is overmuch. It is notorious that Overmuch sorrow for sin is not the ordinary case of the world,

1. When it is fed by a mistaken cause. If a man thinketh that a duty which is no duty, and then sorrow for omitting it, such sorrow is all too much, because it is undue, and caused by error. Many fearful Christians are troubled about food, clothes, thoughts, and words, thinking or fearing that all is sinful which is lawful, and that unavoidable infirmities are heinous sins.

2. When it hurteth and overwhelmeth nature itself, and destroyeth bodily health or understanding. God would not have us hurt our neighbour, nor have us destroy or hurt ourselves.

II. How overmuch sorrow doth swallow a man up.

1. It often overthrows the sober use of reason, so that a mans judgment is corrupted by it. A man in anger, fear, or trouble thinks not of things as they are, but as his passions represent them.

2. It disableth a man to govern his thoughts, and ungoverned thoughts must needs be both sinful and very troublesome. You may almost as easily keep the leaves of trees in quietness and order in a blustering wind, as the thoughts of one in troubling passions.

3. It would swallow up faith itself, and greatly hindereth its exercise.

4. It yet more hindereth hope.

5. It swalloweth up all comfortable sense of the love of God, and thereby hindereth the soul from loving Him. And in this it is an adversary to the very life of holiness.

6. It is a false and injurious judge of all the word and works of God, and of all His mercies and corrections. Whatever such an one reads or hears, he thinks it all makes against him.

7. It is an enemy to thankfulness.

8. It is quite contrary to the joy in the Holy Ghost. Yea, and the peace in which Gods kingdom much consisteth.

9. It is much contrary to the very tenor of the gospel, which is glad tidings of pardon and everlasting joy.

10. It greatly advantageth Satan, whose design is to describe God to us as like himself, who is a malicious enemy.

11. It unfits men for all profitable meditation. The more they muse, the more they are overwhelmed. And it turneth prayer into mere complaint, instead of child-like, believing supplications.

12. It is a distemper which maketh all sufferings more heavy.

III. What are the causes of it?

1. With very many it arises from distemper or weakness of the body, and by it the soul is greatly disabled to any comfortable sense.

2. But usually other causes go before this disease of melancholy. And one of the most common is sinful impatience, a want of sufficient submission to the will of God.

3. The guilt of some wilful sin; when conscience is convinced, yet the sin is beloved and yet feared. Gods wrath doth terrify, yet not enough to lead to the overcoming of sin.

4. Ignorance and mistakes in matters which peace and comforts are concerned.

(1) Ignorance of the tenor of the gospel.

(2) Mistakes about the use of sorrow for sin, and about the nature of hardness of heart.

(3) Ignorance of ourselves, not knowing the sincerity which God hath given us.

(4) Failure to fetch comfort from bare probabilities, when we get not certainty.

(5) Ignorance of other men, many think, by our preaching and writing, that we are much better than we are.

(6) Unskilful teachers cause the perplexities of many.

IV. What is the cure?

1. Look not on the sinful part of your troubles, either as better or worse than indeed it is.

2. Give not way to a habit of peevish impatience.

3. Set yourselves more diligently than ever to overcome the inordinate love of the world.

4. If you are not satisfied that God alone, Christ alone, heaven alone, is enough for you, as matter of felicity and full content, go, study the case better, and you may be convinced.

5. Study better how great a sin it is to set our own wills and desires in a discontented opposition to the wisdom, will, and providence of God, and to make our wills, instead of His, as gods to ourselves.

6. Study well how great a duty it is wholly to trust God, and our blessed Redeemer, both with soul and body, and all we have.

7. If you would not be swallowed up with sorrow, swallow not the baits of sinful pleasure.

8. But if none of the fore-mentioned sins cause your sorrows, but they come from the mere perplexities of your mind, I will lay down your proper remedies, and that is, the cure of that ignorance and those errors which cause your troubles.

(1) Many are perplexed about controversies in religion. Directions:

(a) See that you be true to the light and law of nature, which all mankind is obliged to observe.

(b) As to Gods supernatural revelation, hold to Gods Word, the sacred Bible.

(c) Yet use with thankfulness the help of men for the understanding and obeying the Word of God.

(d) Take nothing as necessary to the being of Christianity, and to salvation which is not recorded in the Scripture, and hath not been held as necessary by all true Christians in every age and place.

(e) Maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, with all true Christians, as such, and live in love in the communion of saints.

(f) Never set a doubtful opinion against a certain truth or duty.

(g) Faithfully serve Christ as far as you have attained, and be true to all the truth that you know.

(2) If your trouble be about your sins, or want of grace, and spiritual state, digest well these counsels.

(a) Gods goodness is equal to His greatness.

(b) Christ hath come to save us.

(c). The condition of pardon and life is that we believe Him, and willingly accept of the mercy which He freely giveth us.

(d) The day of grace is never so past to any sinner but still he may have Christ and pardon if he will.

(3) But if melancholy have got head, there must be, beside what is said, some other and proper remedies used.

(a) Avoid your melancholy musings.

(b) Let those thoughts which you have be laid out on the most excellent things. The infinite goodness of God; the unmeasurable love of Christ; the unconceivable glory and joy which all the blessed have with Christ.

(c) When you pray, resolve to spend most of your time in thanksgiving and praising God.

9. If further the sorrow proceed from some bodily disorder, as it often doth, the physician must take the place of the preacher. This sorrow must be treated by medicine and diet. (R. Baxter.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. The case of the incestuous, now penitent, 2Co_2:5-11.

5. But if any—Any one. A very delicate introduction of the offender, whose crime Paul now avoids even to name.

He… all—The literal rendering is: He hath grieved, not me, but partially—that I may not press too heavily—you all. The only difficulty is in the apologetic phrase that… heavily. We understand that Paul therein declines the arrogance of claiming the whole offence as being committed against himself. The grieved feelings of others, namely, the Corinthian saints, are to be taken into view. The offender has wounded not me alone; and I say this to avoid the arrogance of seeming to regard myself solely.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 6

CHURCH DISCIPLINE.- 2Co_2:5-11 (R.V)

IN verses 5-11 {2Co_2:5-11} of this Epistle, St. Paul said a great deal about sorrow, the sorrow he felt on the one hand, and the sorrow he was reluctant to cause the Corinthians on the other. In this passage reference is evidently made to the person who was ultimately responsible for all this trouble. If much in it is indefinite to us, and only leaves a doubtful impression, it was clear enough for those to whom it was originally addressed; and that very indefiniteness has its lesson. There are some things to which it is sufficient, and more than sufficient, to allude; least said is best said. And even when plain-speaking has been indispensable, a stage arrives at which there is no more to be gained by it; if the subject must be referred to, the utmost generality of reference is best. Here the Apostle discusses the case of a person who had done something extremely bad; but with the sinners repentance assured, it is both characteristic and worthy of him that neither here nor in 2Co_7:1-16. does he mention the name either of offender or offence. It is perhaps too much to expect students of his writings, who wish to trace out in detail all the events of his life, and to give-the utmost possible definiteness to all its situations, to be content with this obscurity; but students of his spirit-Christian people reading the Bible for practical profit-do not need to perplex them, selves as to this penitent mans identity. He may have been the person mentioned in 1Co_5:1-13. who had married his step-mother; he may have been some one who had been guilty of a personal insult to the Apostle: the main point is that he was a sinner whom the discipline of the Church had saved.

The Apostle had been expressing himself about his sorrow with great vehemence, and he is careful in his very first words to make it plain that the offence which had caused such sorrow was no personal matter. It concerned the Church as well as him. "If any one hath caused sorrow, he hath not caused sorrow to me, but in part to you all." To say more than this would he to exaggerate (έπιβαρεῖν). The Church, in point of fact, had not been moved either as universally or as profoundly as it should have been by the offence of this wicked man. The penalty imposed upon him, whatever it may have been, had not been imposed by an unanimous vote, but only by a majority; there were some who sympathized with him, and would have been less severe. Still, it had brought conviction of his sin to the offender; he could not brazen it out against such consenting condemnation as there was; he was overwhelmed with penitential grief. This is why the Apostle says, "Sufficient to such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority." It has served the purpose of all disciplinary treatment; and having done so, must now be superseded by an opposite line of action. "Contrariwise ye should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow." In St. Pauls sentence "such a one" comes last, with the emphasis of compassion upon it. He had been "such a one," to begin with, as it was a pain and a shame even to think about; he is "such a one," now, as the angels in heaven are rejoicing over; "such a one" as the Apostle, having the spirit of Him who received sinners, regards with pro-roundest pity and yearning; "such a one" as the Church ought to meet with pardoning and restoring love, lest grief sink into despair, and the sinner cut himself off from hope. To prevent such a deplorable result, the Corinthians are by some formal action {κυρωσαι: cf. Gal_3:15} to forgive him, and receive him again as a brother; and in their forgiveness and welcome he is to find the pledge of the great love of God.

This whole passage is of interest from the light which it throws upon the discipline of the Church; or, to use less technical and more correct language, the Christian treatment of the erring.

It shows us, for one thing, the aim of all discipline: it is, in the last resort, the restoration of the fallen. The Church has, of course, an interest of its own to guard; it is bound to protest against all that is inconsistent with its character; it is bound to expel scandals. But the Churchs protest, its condemnation, its excommunication even, are not ends in themselves; they are means to that which is really an end in itself, a priceless good which justifies every extreme of moral severity, the winning again of the sinner through repentance. The judgment of the Church is the instrument of Gods love, and the moment it is accepted in the sinful soul it begins to work as a redemptive force. The humiliation it inflicts is that which God exalts; the sorrow, that which He comforts. But when a scandal comes to light in a Christian congregation when one of its members is discovered in a fault gross, palpable, and offensive-what is the significance of that movement of feeling which inevitably takes place? In how many has it the character of goodness and of severity, of condemnation and of compassion, of love and fear, of pity and shame, the only character that has any virtue in it to tell for the sinners recovery? If you ask nine people out of ten what a scandal is, they will tell you it is something which makes talk; and the talk in nine cases out of ten will be malignant, affected, more interesting to the talkers than any story of virtue or piety-scandal itself, in short, far more truly than its theme. Does anybody imagine that gossip is one of the forces that waken conscience, and work for the redemption of our fallen brethren? If this is all we can do, in the name of all that is Christian let us keep silence. Every word spoken about a brothers sin, that is not prompted by a Christian conscience, that does not vibrate with the love of a Christian heart, is itself a sin against the mercy and the judgment of Christ.

We see here not only the end of Church discipline, but the force of which it disposes for the attainment of its end. That force is neither more nor less than the conscience of the Christian people who constitute the Church: discipline is, in principle, the reaction of that force against all immorality. In special cases, forms may be necessary for its exercise, and in the forms in which it is exercised variations may be found expedient, according to time, place, or degree of moral progress; the congregation as a body, or a representative committee of it, or its ordained ministers, may be its most suitable executors; but that on which all alike have to depend for making their proceedings effective to any Christian intent is the vigor of Christian conscience, and the intensity of Christian love, in the community as a whole. Where these are wanting, or exist only in an insignificant degree, disciplinary proceedings are reduced to a mere form; they are legal, not evangelical; and to be legal in such matters is not Only hypocritical, but insolent. Instead of rendering a real Christian service to offenders, which by awakening conscience will lead to penitence and restoration, discipline under such conditions is equally cruel and unjust.

It is plain also, from the nature of the force which it employs, that discipline is a function of the Church which is in incessant exercise, and is not called into action only on special occasions. To limit it to what are technically known as cases of discipline-the formal treatment of offenders by a Church court, or by any person or persons acting in an official character is to ignore its real nature, and to give its exercise in these cases a significance to which it has no claim. The offences against the Christian standard which can be legally impeached even in Church courts are not one in ten thousand of those against which the Christian conscience ought energetically to protest; and it is the vigor with which the ceaseless reaction against evil in every shape is instinctively maintained which measures the effectiveness of all formal proceedings, and makes them means of grace to the guilty. The officials of a Church may deal in their official place with offences against soberness, purity, or honesty; they are bound to deal with them, whether they like it or not; but their success will depend upon the completeness with which they, and those whom they represent, have renounced not only the vices which they are judging, but all that is out of keeping with the mind and spirit of Christ. The drunkard, the sensualist, the thief, know perfectly well that drunkenness, sensuality, and theft are not the only sins which mar the soul. They know that there are other vices, just as real if not so glaring, which are equally fatal to the life of Christ and man, and as completely disqualify men for acting in Christs name. They are conscious that it is not a bona fide transaction when their sins are impeached by men whose consciences endure with equanimity the reign of meanness, duplicity, pride, hypocrisy, self-complacency. They are aware that God is not present where these are dominant, and that Gods power to judge and save can never come through such channels. Hence the exercise of discipline in these legal forms is often resented, and often ineffective; and instead of complaining about what is obviously inevitable, the one thing at which all should aim who wish to protect the Church from scandals is to cultivate the common conscience, and bring it to such a degree of purity and vigor, that its spontaneous resentment of evil will enable the Church practically to dispense with legal forms. This Christian community at Corinth had a thousand faults; in many points we are tempted to find in it rather a warning than an example; but I think we may take this as a signal proof that it was really sound at heart: its condemnation of this guilty man fell upon his conscience as the sentence of God, and brought him in tears to the feet of Christ. No legal proceedings could have done that: nothing could have done it but a real and passionate sympathy with the holiness and the love of Christ. Such sympathy is the one subduing, reconciling, redeeming power in our hands; and Paul might well rejoice, after all his affliction and anguish of heart, when he found it so unmistakably at work in Corinth. Not so much formal as instinctive, though not shrinking on occasion from formal proceedings; not malignant, yet closing itself inexorably against evil; not indulgent to badness, but with goodness like Christs, waiting to be gracious, -this Christian virtue really holds the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and opens and shuts with the authority of Christ Himself. We need it in all our Churches today, as much as it was needed in Corinth; we need it that special acts of discipline may be effective; we need it still more that they may be unnecessary. Pray for it as for a gift that comprehends every other - the power to represent Christ, and work His work, in the recovery and restoration of the fallen.

In 2Co_2:9-11, the same subject is continued, but with a slightly different aspect exposed. Paul had obviously taken the initiative in this matter, though the bulk of the Church, at his prompting, had acted in a right spirit. Their conduct was in harmony with his motive in writing to them, which had really been to make proof of their obedience in all points. But he has already disclaimed either the right or the wish to lord it over them in their liberty as believers; and here, again, he represents himself rather as following them in their treatment of the offender, than as pointing out the way. "Now to whom ye forgive anything, I also forgive"-so great is my confidence in you: "for what I also have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, for your sakes have I forgiven it in the presence of Christ." When he says "if I have forgiven anything," he does not mean that his forgiveness is dubious, or in suspense; what he does is to deprecate the thought that his forgiveness is the main thing, or that he had been the person principally offended. When he says "for your sakes have I forgiven it," the words are explained by what follows: to have refused his forgiveness in the circumstances would have been to perpetuate a state of matters which could only have injured the Church. When he adds that his forgiveness is bestowed "in the presence of Christ," he gives the assurance that it is no complaisance or formality, but a real acceptance of the offender to peace and friendship again. And we should not overlook the fact that in this association of Christ, of the Corinthians, and of himself, in the work of forgiveness and restoration, Paul is really encompassing a desponding soul with all the grace of earth and heaven. Surely he will not let his grief become despair, when all around him and above him there is a present and convincing witness that, though God is intolerant of sin, He is the refuge of the penitent.

The gracious and conciliatory tone of these verses seems to me worthy of special admiration; and I can only express my astonishment that to some they have appeared insincere, a vain attempt to cover a defeat with the semblance of victory, a surrender to the opposition at Corinth, the painfulness of which is ill-disguised by the pretence of agreement with them. The exposition just given renders the refutation of such a view unnecessary. We ought rather to regard with reverence and affection the man who knew how to combine, so strikingly, unflinching principle and the deepest tenderness and consideration for others; we ought to propose his modesty, his sensitiveness to the feelings even of opponents, his sympathy with those who had no sympathy with him, as examples for our imitation. Paul had been deeply moved by what had taken place at Corinth, possibly he had been deeply injured; but even so his personal interest is kept in the background; for the obedient loyalty which he wishes to prove is not so much his interest as theirs to whom he writes. He cares only for others. He cares for the poor soul who has forfeited his place in the community; he cares for the good name of the Church; he cares for the honor of Jesus Christ; and he exerts all his power with these interests in view. If it needs rigor, he can be rigorous; if it needs passion, he can be passionate; if it needs consideration, graciousness, a conciliatory temper, a willingness to keep out of sight, he can be depended upon for all these virtues. If they were only affected, Paul would deserve the praise of a great diplomatist; but it is far easier to believe them real, and see in them the signs of a great minister of Christ.

The last verse puts the aim of his proceedings in another light: "All this," he says, I do, "that no advantage may be gained over us by Satan: for we are not ignorant of his devices." The important words in the last clause are of the same root; it is as if Paul had said: "Satan is very knowing, and is always on the alert to get the better of us; but we are not without knowledge of his knowing ways." It was the Apostles acquaintance with the wiles of the devil which made him eager to see the restoration of the penitent sinner duly carried through. This implies one or two practical truths, with which, by way of application, this exposition may close.

(1) A scandal in the Church gives the devil an opportunity. When one who has named the flame of Jesus, and vowed loyal obedience to Him, falls into open sin, it is a chance offered to the enemy which he is not slow to improve. He uses it to discredit the very name of Christ: to turn that which ought to be to the world the symbol of the purest goodness into a synonym of hypocrisy. Christ has committed His honor, if not His character, to our keeping; and every lapse into vice gives Satan an advantage over Him.

(2) The devil finds his gain in the incompetence of the Church to deal with the evil in the Spirit of Christ. It is a fine thing for him if he can drive the convicted sinner to despair, and persuade him that there is no more forgiveness with God. It is a fine thing if he can prompt those who love little, because they know little of Gods love, to show themselves rigid, implacable, irreconcilable, even to the penitent. If he can deform the likeness of Christ into a morose Pharisaism, what an incalculable gain it is! If the disciples of Him who received sinners look askance on those who have lapsed, and chill the hope of restoration with cold suspicion and reserve, there will be JOY over it, not in heaven, but in hell. And not only this, but the opposite is a device of the devil, of which we ought not to be ignorant. There is hardly a sin that some one has not an interest in extenuating. Even the incestuous person in Corinth had his defenders: there were some who were puffed up, and gloried in what he had done as an assertion of Christian liberty. The devil takes advantage of the scandals that occur in the Church to bribe and debauch mens consciences; indulgent words are spoken, which are not the voice of Christs awful mercy, but of a miserable self-pity; the strongest and holiest thing in the world, the redeeming love of God, is adulterated and even confounded with the weakest and basest thing, the bad mans immoral forgiveness of himself. And not to mention anything else under this head, could any one imagine what would please and suit the devil better than the absolutely unfeeling but extremely interesting gossip which resounds over every exposure of sin?

(3) But, lastly, the devil finds his advantage in the dissensions of Christians. What an opportunity he would have had in Corinth, had strained relations continued between the Apostle and the Church! What opportunities he has everywhere, when tempers are on edge, and every movement means friction, and every proposal rouses suspicion! The last prayer Christ prayed for His Church was that they might all be one: to be one in Him is the final security against the devices of Satan. What a frightful commentary the history of the Church is on this prayer! What frightful illustrations it furnishes of the devils gain out of the saints quarrels! There are plenty of subjects, of course, even in Church life, on which we may naturally and legitimately differ; but we ought to know better than to let the differences enter into our souls. At bottom, we should be all one; it is giving ourselves away to the enemy, if we do not, at all costs, "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

2:5-11 These verses are the outcome of Paul’s earlier visit and the insult he received. Following Paul’s severe but tearful letter, the church condemned the behavior of the man who caused all the trouble and disciplined him (2:6). He repented, so now it was time to forgive and comfort him, as Paul had already done.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

2Co 2:5. Τὶς, any) He now speaks mildly; any one and any thing, 2Co 2:10. In both epistles Paul refrained from mentioning the name of him, of whom he is speaking.—οὐκ ἐμὲ λελύπηκεν, he hath not grieved me) i.e., He has not made me lastingly grieved [I am not now so disposed towards him] ἀλλʼ ἀπὸ μέρους, only in part) he has occasioned me sorrow.—ἐπιβαρῶ, be heavy upon [overcharge]) a weightier expression, than I make sorry, 2Co 2:2.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2Co_2:5. To cause grief among you was not my intention (2Co_2:4); he, however, who has (really) caused grief has not grieved me. In other words: I did not wish to grieve you; one of you, however, has with his afflicting influence, not affected me, but, etc. Olshausen connects 2Co_2:5 with 2Co_2:3 : if, however, any one formerly has awakened grief. But how arbitrary it is to leap over the natural reference to the immediately preceding λυπηθῆτε! And if the formerly made the contrast, it must have been somehow expressed.

In the hypothetical εἰ, as in the indefinite τις, there lies a delicate, tender forbearanc.

οὐκ ἐμὲ λελύπηκεν, ἀλλʼ] Paul does not say οὐ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καί, because as concerns the relation of the matter to himself he wishes absolutely to deny that he is the injured party. He could do this, because he did not belong to the church, and he wishes to leave wholly out of view his position as apostle and founder of the church in the interest of love and pardon. Olshausen thinks that he wishes indirectly to refute the erroneous position of some (impenitent) Corinthians towards the incident with the incestuous person; that many, namely, had lamented much to the apostle about the solicitude which that unhappy person had caused to him; and that, in order to make these turn from him to themselves, he says that the question is not about him, but about them, that they should look to their own pain. But of this alleged direction to occupy themselves with their own pain, there is nothing whatever in what follows; and the apostle would have set forth in more precise terms a rebuke so weighty; it was not at all fitting here, where the touched heart beats only with mildness and forgivenes.

λελύπηκεν] Bengel says aptly: contristatum habet.

ἀλλʼ ἀπὸ μέρους κ.τ.λ.] but in part, that I may not burden him (with greater guilt), you all. ἀπὸ μέρους, which Paul adds φειδόμενος αὐτοῦ (Chrysostom), softens the thought in λελύπηκεν πάντας ὑμᾶς, while it expresses that the grief is only in a partial degree, not wholly and fully (as on the one immediately concerned), inflicted on all, i.e. on the whole church by means of moral sympathy; only quodammodo (see Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 16 ff.), therefore, are the readers all affected by that grief as sharers in it. The ἵνα μὴ ἐπιβαρῶ (sc. αὐτόν) contains the purpose, for which he had added the softening limitation ἀπὸ μέρους. Beza, Calvin (in the Commentary), Calovius, Hammond, Homberg, Wolf, Estius, and others, following Chrysostom, agree with this punctuation and explanation; also Emmerling, Fritzsche, Rückert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald. Yet Räbiger explains it as if Paul had written σχεδόν instead of ἀπὸ μέρους. But others read ἵνα μὴ ἐπιβ. πάντας ὑμ. together: he has not grieved me (alone and truly), but only in part (consequently you also); in order that I may not lay something to the charge of you all; for, if he had grieved me alone, you would all have been indifferent towards the crime. So Thomas, Lyra, Luther, Castalio, Zeger, Bengel, Wetstein, and others, including Flatt. Incorrectly, because οὐκ ἐμέ and ἀλλʼ ἀπὸ μέρους cannot be antitheses. Mosheim and Billroth separate πάντας and ὑμᾶς: he has not grieved me, but in part, that I may not accuse all, you; for I will not be unjust, and give you all the blame of having been indifferent towards that crime. At variance with the words; for, according to these, with this punctuation those whom Paul accuses (ἐπιβαρεῖ) must appear to be not those indifferent, but those grieved by the incest. Olshausen also follows this punctuation, but finds in ἀπὸ μέρους, ἵνα μὴ ἐπιβ. πάντας a delicate irony (comp. also Michaelis, who, however, follows our punctuation), in so far as Paul would have held it as the highest praise of the Corinthians, if he could have said: he has grieved you without exception. Since he could not have said this, he wittily turns his words in this way: he has not grieved me, but, as regards a part, you, in order that I may not burden you all with this care. But this very wit and irony are quite foreign to the mild tone and the conciliatory disposition of this part of the Epistle. Hofmann takes οὐκ ἐμὲ λελύπ. as a question, after which there comes in with ἀλλά the contrast (nevertheless) which continues over 2Co_2:5 and includes 2Co_2:6; in this case ἀπὸ μέρους is temporal in meaning (yet firstly is enough); and ἵνα μὴ ἐπιβαρῶ πάντας ὑμᾶς, which is to be taken together, is meant to say that the apostle, if he expressed himself dissatisfied with what had been done by the majority, would burden the whole church with the pain of knowing that one of their members was under the ban of sin which remained unforgiven on the part of the apostle; lastly, the ὑπὸ τῶν πλειόνων stands in opposition to a minority, which had wished to go beyond the punishment decreed, a minority which is included in πάντας. But all this involved explanation is inadmissible, partly because the blunt question οὐκ ἐμὲ λελύπ., bringing forward so nakedly a sense of personal injury, would be sadly out of unison with the shrewdly conciliatory tone of the whole context; partly because ἀπὸ μέρους, taken of time, is as linguistically incorrect as at 2Co_1:14, and would also furnish the indelicate thought of a ἱκανότης with reservation, and till something further; partly because the complexity of thought, which is said to lie in ἐπιβαρῶ, is just imported into it; partly because the supposition that the minority of the church would have gone still further in the punishment than the resolution of the majority went, is without all ground, nay, is in the highest degree improbable after the reproach of too great indulgence, 5

On ἐπιβαρεῖν, comp. 1Th_2:9; 2Th_3:8; Dion. Hal. iv. 9, viii. 73; Appian, B. C. 4:31. Comp. βάρος of the burden of a feeling of guilt, Gal_6:2.

2Co_2:5-11. Digression regarding the pardon to be granted to the incestuous person.

That the incestuous person is meant, as even Klöpper maintains in spite of his assumption of a lost intermediate letter, is denied by Tertullian (de Pudicitiâ, 13) simply for dogmatic-ascetic reasons. The exclusion, which Paul demanded in the first Epistle, 2Co_5:13, left open the possibility of a return to the communion of the church by the path of suitable penitence and expiation; as may be gathered also from 1Co_5:5, where the apostles threat of the higher excommunication, of the giving over to Satan, contemplates in this punishment the conversion and saving of the offender, and consequently shows clearly that in the apostles eyes the penal procedure of the church, even in the case of so grave a sin, was of a paedagogic nature in reference to the person of the evil-doer. The penance of the latter, however, as well as that of the whole church on his account (2Co_7:7 ff.), may have really been so deeply and keenly manifested, that Paul, in accordance with the now changed state of things, might express himself in such a mild, conciliatory way as he does here. And there is no sufficient ground in the passage for the assumption of an intermediate letter, or that there is here meant, not the unchaste person, but a slanderer rebuked by Paul in this intermediate letter (see Introd. § 1). Besides, the mild, soft tone of the present passage, if it referred to such a personal opponent, would not be in keeping with the quite different way in which, from chap. 10 onwards, he pours forth his apostolic zeal against his personal opponents and slanderers.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2Co 2:5-11 . THE OFFENDER HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY PUNISHED: THE APOSTLE ACQUIESCES IN THEIR REMISSION OF THE PENALTY OF 1Co 5:1-5 .

2Co 2:5 . εἰ δέ τις λελύπηκεν κ . τ . λ .: but if any one, sc. , the incestuous person of 1Co 5:1 , his name being suppressed with a rare delicacy of feeling, hath caused sorrow, he hath caused sorrow, not to me, sc. , I am not the person directly aggrieved, but to some extent ( that I press not too heavily on him ) to you all . That is to say to the words ἀπὸ μέρους are added by the Apostle ἵνα μὴ ἐπιβαρῶ ( sc. , αὐτόν ). The sentence has been otherwise construed “he hath not caused sorrow to me [alone], but [only] in part [having caused sorrow to you also]: [this I add] that I may not press heavily on you all,” sc. , by representing myself as the only person aggrieved. But this would require εἰ μή instead of ἀλλά , and, further, does not suit the context so well as the rendering given above, which treats ἵνα μὴ ἐπιβαρῶ as parenthetic.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Lest I should overcharge him, who is burdened enough of himself, which I would be glad were taken from him.

He passeth to another part of this Epistle: which notwithstanding is put amongst the first, whereunto he returneth afterward, and he handleth the releasing and unloosing of the incestuous person, because he seemed to have given sufficient testimony of his repentance: showing the true use of excommunication, to wit, that it proceed not of hatred, but of love, and so ends lest if we keep no measure, we serve Satan the devil.

As if he said, All that sorrow is so clean wiped away, as though he had never felt it.

As for me (saith Paul) I have no more to do with him.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

In these verses the apostle treats concerning the incestuous person who had been excommunicated, which seems to be one principal cause of his writing this epistle. Here observe, 1. He tells them that the crime of that person had grieved him in part; and that he was grieved also with a part of them, who, notwithstanding this scandal had been found among them, were puffed up and had not mourned, Co1 5:2. However, he was unwilling to lay too heavy a charge upon the whole church, especially seeing they had cleared themselves in that matter by observing the directions he had formerly given them. 2. He tells them that the punishment which had been inflicted upon this offender was sufficient, Co2 2:6. The desired effect was obtained, for the man was humbled, and they had shown the proof of their obedience to his directions. 3. He therefore directs them, with all speed, to restore the excommunicated person, or to receive him again to their communion, Co2 2:7, Co2 2:8. This is expressed several ways. He beseeches them to forgive him, that is, to release him from church-censures, for they could not remit the guilt or offence against God; and also to comfort him, for in many cases the comfort of penitents depends upon their reconciliation not only with God, but with men also, whom they have scandalized or injured. They must also confirm their love to him; that is, they should show that their reproofs and censures proceeded from love to his person, as well as hatred to his sin, and that their design was to reform, not to ruin him. Or thus: If his fall had weakened their love to him, that they could not take such satisfaction in him as formerly; yet, now that he was recovered by repentance, they must renew and confirm their love to him. 4. He uses several weighty arguments to persuade them to do thus, as, (1.) The case of the penitent called for this; for he was in danger of being swallowed up with over-much sorrow, Co2 2:7. He was so sensible of this fault, and so much afflicted under his punishment, that he was in danger of falling into despair. When sorrow is excessive it does hurt; and even sorrow for sin is too great when it unfits for other duties, and drives men to despair. (2.) They had shown obedience to his directions in passing a censure upon the offender and now he would have them comply with his desire to restore him, Co2 2:9. (3.) He mentions his readiness to forgive this penitent, and concur with them in this matter. "To whom you forgive I forgive also, Co2 2:10. I will readily concur with you in forgiving him." And this he would do for their sakes, for love to them and for their advantage; and for Christ's sake, or in his name, as his apostle, and in conformity to his doctrine and example, which are so full of kindness and tender mercy towards all those who truly repent. (4.) He gives another weighty reason (Co2 2:11): Lest Satan get an advantage against us. Not only was there danger lest Satan should get an advantage against the penitent, by driving him to despair; but against the churches also, and the apostles or ministers of Christ, by representing them as too rigid and severe, and so frightening people from coming among them. In this, as in other things, wisdom is profitable to direct, so to manage according as the case may be that the ministry may not be blamed, for indulging sin on the one hand, or for too great severity towards sinners on the other hand. Note, Satan is a subtle enemy, and uses many stratagems to deceive us; and we should not be ignorant of his devices: he is also a watchful adversary, ready to take all advantages against us, and we should be very cautious lest we give him any occasion so to do.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

grief . . . grieved--Translate as before, "sorrow . . . made sorry." The "any" is a delicate way of referring to the incestuous person.

not . . . me, but in part--He has grieved me only in part (compare Co2 1:14; Rom 11:25), that is, I am not the sole party aggrieved; most of you, also, were aggrieved.

that I may not overcharge--that I may not unduly lay the weight of the charge on you all, which I should do, if I made myself to be the sole party aggrieved. ALFORD punctuates, "He hath not made sorry me, but in part (that I press not too heavily; namely, on him) you all." Thus "you all" is in contrast to "me"; and "in part" is explained in the parenthetical clause.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 5. But, if any have caused grief] Here he seems to refer particularly to the cause of the incestuous person.

Grieved me, but in part] I cannot help thinking that the εκ μερους and απο μερους, which we render in part, and which the apostle uses so frequently in these epistles, are to be referred to the people. A part of them had acknowledged the apostle, 2Co 1:14; and here, a part of them had given him cause of grief; and therefore he immediately adds, that I may not overcharge you all; as only a part of you has put me to pain, (viz. the transgressor, and those who had taken his part,) it would be unreasonable that I should load you all, επιβαρω παντας υμας, with the blame which attaches to that party alone.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5. But if any one. Here is a third reason with the view of alleviating the offense — that he had grief in common with them, and that the occasion of it came from another quarter. “We have,” says he, “been alike grieved, and another is to blame for it.” At the same time he speaks of that person, too, somewhat mildly, when he says, if any one — not affirming the thing, but rather leaving it in suspense. This passage, however, is understood by some, as if Paul meant to say: “He that has given me occasion of grief, has given offense to you also; for you ought to have felt grieved along with me, and yet I have been left almost to grieve alone. For I do not wish to say so absolutely — that I may not put the blame upon you all.” In this way the second clause would contain a correction of the first. Chrysostom’s exposition, however, is much more suitable; for he reads it as one continued sentence — “He hath not grieved me alone, but almost all of you. And as to my saying in part, I do so in order that I may not bear too hard upon him.” I differ from Chrysostom merely in the clause in part, for I understand it as meaning in some measure. I am aware, that Ambrose understands it as meaning — part of the saints, inasmuch as the Church of the Corinthians was divided; but that is more ingenious than solid.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(5) But if any have caused grief.—The man who had been the chief cause of his sorrow is now prominent in his thoughts. He will not name him. He is, as in 1Co_5:1-5, and here in 2Co_2:7, “a man,” “such a one.” The abrupt introduction of the qualifying clause, “but in part,” and the absence of any authoritative punctuation, makes the construction ambiguous. It admits of three possible explanations: (1) “If any have caused grief, it is not I alone whom he hath grieved, but in part, to some extent—not to press the charge against him too heavily—all of you” They, the members of the Corinthian Church, were really the greatest sufferers from the scandal which brought shame upon it. (2) “If any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, save in part” (i.e., he is not the only offender), “that I may not press the charge against all of you—so that I may not treat you as if you were all open to the same condemnation, or had all caused the same sorrow.” (3) Combining parts of (1) and (2): “It is not I whom he hath grieved, save in part, that I may not lay the blame on all of you.” Of these (1) seems the simplest and most natural. In any case, it is important to remember that the position of the pronoun in the Greek, “me he hath not grieved,” makes it specially emphatic.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all] According to the A. V. the meaning is that the Apostle, anxious not to lay too heavy a charge at the door of the Corinthian Church, to which (see 1Co_5:2; 1Co_5:6) he considers the guilt to attach, declares that the offender has only pained him to a certain extent. But the words are capable of another rendering, ‘But if any one hath caused pain, it is not me whom he has pained, but to a certain extent—not to press too heavily upon him—all of you.’ This rendering is susceptible of two interpretations (1) he has caused pain to the whole community; but not to be too severe upon him, the Apostle is willing to admit that this pain is to a certain extent lessened by the mutual sympathy of the members of the Church. Or perhaps (2) there is a slight reproof here, implying, as in 1Co_5:2, that the Corinthians had not sufficiently felt the disgrace brought on them all by such a crime. Cf. ch. 2Co_1:14. The Apostle thus, with no less adroitness than simple honesty, places the personal aspect of the question in the background, and deals with it as a matter of public principle, with which every member of the Church is as intimately concerned as himself. The whole passage refers to the offender mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But if any have caused grief,.... The incestuous person is here manifestly designed, though he is not named, who had been the cause and occasion of much grief and sorrow, both to himself and others; for the apostle is not to be understood, as though he doubted whether he had caused grief or not, but rather takes it for granted, as a certain point; "if", seeing, or although he has caused grief:

he hath not grieved me but in part; or in some measure; as it has reflected dishonour on God and his ways, truths and ordinances; and has brought trouble upon himself, and the church of which he is a member; for the apostle now rejoiced, that he was truly humbled for his sin, and sincerely, and in an evangelical manner, repented of it; his grief was over, and it was as if it was not; and the offence he took was now wholly removed: besides, though this man did grieve him, it was but in part; he was not the sole cause of his grief: they also greatly added to it by their unconcernedness of him, and negligence in reproving him, though he takes notice only of this single man:

that I may not overcharge you all; bear hard upon them, aggravate their sin, and increase their trouble: or thus, that man has not grieved me only, but in some measure all of you; for the phrase "all you", may be considered, not in connection with the word "overcharge", but with the word "grieved"; and the reading and sense of the whole be this, "he hath not grieved me, but in part, or in some measure"; or as the Syriac reads it, , "almost all of you": but this, as if he should say, I do but just mention, would not dwell upon it, "that I may not overcharge" him, or be thought to be overbearing, or should aggravate his sin and sorrow: for,

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

5 But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all.

Ver. 5. Have caused grief] Wicked livers are Hazaels to the godly, and draw many sighs and tears from them. Lot’s righteous soul was set upon the rack by the filthy Sodomites. Jeremiah weeps in secret for Judah’s sins. Paul cannot speak of those belly gods with dry eyes, Php 3:18.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If any have caused grief - There is doubtless here an allusion to the incestuous person. But it is very delicately done. He does not mention him by name. There is not anywhere an allusion to his name; nor is it possible now to know it. Is this not a proof that the names of the offending brethren in a church should not be put on the records of sessions, and churches, and presbyteries, to be handed down to posterity? Paul does not here either expressly refer to such a person. He makes his remark general, that it might be as tender and kind to the offending brother as possible. They would know whom he meant, but they had already punished him, as Paul supposed, enough, and note all that he said in regard to him was as tender as possible, and suited, as much as possible, to conciliate his feelings and allay his grief. He did not harshly charge him with sin; he did not use any abusive or severe epithets; but he gently insinuates that he “had caused grief;” he had pained the hearts of his brethren.

He hath not grieved me, but in part - He has not particularly offended or grieved me. He has grieved me only in common with others, and as a part of the church of Christ. All have common cause of grief; and I have no interest in it which is not common to you all. I am but one of a great number who have felt the deepest concern on account of his conduct.

That I may not overcharge you all - That I may not bear hard (ἐπιβαρῶ epibarō) on you all; that I may not accuse you all of having caused me grief. The sense is, “Grief has been produced. I, in common with the church, have been pained, and deeply pained, with the conduct of the individual referred to; and with that of his abettors and friends. But I would not charge the whole church with it; or seem to bear hard on them, or overcharge them with lack of zeal for their purity, or unwillingness to remove the evil.” They had shown their willingness to correct the evil by promptly removing the offender when he had directed it. The sense of this verse should be connected with the verse that follows; and the idea is, that they had promptly administered sufficient discipline, and that they were not now to be charged severely with having neglected it. Even while Paul said he had been pained and grieved, he had seen occasion not to bear hard on the whole church, but to be ready to commend them for their promptness in removing the cause of the offence.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

And if any one (he means the same incestuous man) hath caused grief, or caused me to grieve, he hath not grieved me, that is, not me only, but all the virtuous Christians at Corinth: but in part, that I may not charge you all with this fault. The sense seems to be, but in part, that is, it was only one man, and some that joined with him, by showing themselves unconcerned for his scandalous crime, so that I do not blame the rest: or as it was but in part, that is, it was only a passing trouble for a little time, since by admonitions and severities, he soon repented. (Witham) --- When last I wrote to you, I was in great anguish on account of the crime of the incestuous man; but my grief was moderated by the consideration of the behaviour of the rest of the Church of Corinth, which had remained steadfast in faith and virtue. (St. Gregory and St. Augustine) --- It is not the whole Church of Corinth that has caused me this grief, but only one of you: I say this, that you may not believe that I wished to charge you all with this crime. (Grotius)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

The particle if doth not here signify any doubting or uncertainty (for the incestuous person, of whom the apostle here, and in the following verses, speaks, had certainly caused grief both to the apostle, and also the church whereof he was a member). It is as much as although; or the apostle speaketh in this form, because by his repentance his grief was much allayed. But how doth the apostle say, that he had grieved him

but in part? Some think he saith so, because the apostle’s grief for his sin was now turned into joy by his repentance: others think, that those words, in part, signify that it was not the whole church that had grieved him, but only a part of it, viz. this incestuous person, and those who took part with him. Others say, the apostle saith, in part, to let us know, that it was not a grief to him only, but to them also. The last would bid very fair for the sense of the place, if the apostle had not in his First Epistle, 1Co 5:2, said that they were puffed up, and had not mourned. So as I judge the second more like to be the sense of the apostle; viz. that it was not the whole church that had grieved him, but a part of it only: and therefore the next words are added, that

I may not overcharge you all, that is, that I might not load you all with that imputation, as if you were all involved in it.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 5-11. The results of his letter in their treatment of the incestuous offender.

But if any have caused grief. The word "pain" or "grief" which has been so prominent in the last verses, naturally reminds St. Paul of the person whose misdoings had caused all this trouble. The "any" is in the singular. He hath not grieved me, but in part, etc. Of the various ways of taking this verse, the most tenable seems to be this: "If any one has caused pain, he has not pained me but partly (not to weigh down too heavily) all of you. St. Paul is denying that the feelings with which he hat(written his severe letter were due to mere personal sorrow or indignation. In writing he felt for the wrong done to them, to the whole Corinthian Church, at least as much as for the smart of his own grief and disappointment. The word "partly" is introduced, as St. Chrysostom says, to soften the expression, "he has grieved you all." It will then mean "to a certain extent." The words, "that I may not overcharge," or rather, as in the Revised Version, "that I press not too heavily," assign the reason for the modifying clause, "in part." When St. Paul says that this man"s conduct had even to any extent grieved the whole community, his words may seem to conflict with 1Co_5:2; but he is thinking, not of the immediate condonation of the offender there alluded to, but of the agony of subsequent repentance which his letter had awoke in the whole (or practically the whole) community. (2Co_7:11) The phrase, "that I press not too heavily," refers then to the offender: "I will not say outright that he has grieved not me, but all of you, because I do not wish to bear too hard on him". (comp. 1Th_2:9; 2Th_3:8) "but I will say that he has grieved you and me alike to some extent." The phrase, "in part," occurs also in Rom_11:25.

Vers. 5-11.

Restoring the backslider.

I CHURCH DISCIPLINE SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED BY THE CHURCH. "This punishment which was inflicted by the many" (ver. 6). Not by an individual, be he the pope himself, nor by priests or clergy, but by the whole body of the individual Church or a majority of its members. A Christian has a right to be judged by his peers.

II CHURCH DISCIPLINE SHOULD EVER HAVE IN VIEW RESTORATION. Its object is not to punish the offender so much as to do him good, and at the same time to preserve the Church"s purity. Church discipline should not be regarded as a final act towards the backslider, but with it should ever be associated prayers and hope that the severance may be brief. The Church rejects that she may accept; she casts out that she may receive back again. So Church discipline should never be of a character to hinder repentance or to render restoration impossible.

III CHURCH DISCIPLINE SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED WITH GREAT DISCRETION,

1. On the one hand, it may be too slight and not produce suitable effects.

2. On the other, it may be so excessive as to drive the offender to despair.

3. In either case Satan will gain an advantage (ver. 11), which he is everseeking and has often found when the Church or its leaders have attempted the delicate task of discipline. The Church"s discipline of persecution and intolerance has served the devil"s purposes admirably in many a dark century. And the Church"s discipline of indifference and false charity has done similar service in many a century boasting of its light and breadth of thought and liberty.

IV PENITENCE ON THE PART OF AN OFFENDER IS A STRONG ARGUMENT FOR PROMPT RESTORATION TO FELLOWSHIP. The duty of restoration is not so fully recognized as it might be. Often it is the predilection of the powers that be, rather than the condition of the offender, which determines whether he shall be restored or not. But when the honour of the Church has been vindicated, and the offender is undoubtedly contrite, the way of duty is clear. A Church which will not restore then, deserves to be excommunicated itself,

V RESTORATION IS NOT TO BE TO TOLERATION, BUT TO LOVE. The love is to exist whilst the discipline is being inflicted. It is to manifest itself" unreservedly when discipline is removed. Many are restored to suspicion, coldness, contempt a restoration which paves the way for a more fatal fall. If God forgives some professing Christians as they forgive others (and this is their frequent prayer), their share of the Divine forgiveness is likely to be a very slender one. H.

Vers. 5-11.

The Church"s dealings with unworthy members.

main defence of the apostle against the charge of fickleness in the nonfulfilment of his promise was that he had abstained from going to Corinth in order to spare them the sharp rebuke lag must have administered had he gone thither. A great crime had been committed; the Church had been compromised, more especially as some of the Corinthians had defended the iniquity on the ground of liberty, and St. Paul had stayed away after giving his advice, that not he, but they themselves, might do the work of punishment. He gave sentence that the wicked person should be put away, but he wished them to execute the sentence. For it was a matter of greater importance to St. Paul that the Corinthians should feel rightly the necessity of punishment, than merely that the offender should be punished." We notice

I THE SINNER WITHIN THE CHURCH GRIEVES THE WHOLE CHURCH. If one member suffer, all the members suffer with him; and if one member sin, the whole Church ought to, feel grieved and distressed by the sin. St. Paul argues that, if a Church fails to clear itself of complicity with the wrong of its members, the guilt of such wrong attaches to it as well as to him. No man within Christ"s Church can be alone in his sin, for we are "members one of another." The judgment of the Church may be the means of winning the penitence of the erring member.

II THE SINNER WHEN PENITENT SHOULD FIND THE LOVE AND FORGIVENESS OF THE WHOLE CHURCH. In relation to him there should be harmonious and united Church action. Yet, in actual fact, the wrong doing of individuals too often creates party feeling. Some take the side of the wrong doer and prevent the full exercise of Church discipline.

III SUCH FORGIVENESS OF THE CHURCH MAY EXPRESS GOD"S FORGIVENESS. It is only becoming, and only efficient, as following upon God"s forgiveness. And it has its special use in being the earthly assurance of the Divine forgiveness and acceptance. The Church can give no absolution; it can only find expression for the absolution which God has already granted to the penitent, and add its forgiveness of the wrong so far as it disturbed Church relations. In the proper expression of Church feeling towards moral offenders, the Apostle Paul, as a recognized Church leader, herein sets an efficient example. He is as jealous for the Church"s honour and mercifulness as he is for the restoration of the penitent offender. R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He hath grieved me but in part - Who still rejoice over the greater part of you. Otherwise I might burden you all.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The case of the notorious sinner:

v. 5. But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part, that I may not overcharge you all.

v. 6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many,

v. 7. so that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.

v. 8. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him,

v. 9. For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things.

v. 10. To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also; for if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ,

v. 11. lest Satan should get an advantage of us; for we are not ignorant of his devices.

This paragraph is a model of loving, pastoral tact and delicacy. There can be but little doubt that Paul is referring to the incestuous person concerning whom he wrote so sharply in the first epistle, chap. 5:1-5. And yet he writes: But if anyone has caused sorrow. He names neither the offense nor the offender, preferring to suppress the matter which had been adjusted so satisfactorily with the least possible sensation. For the offender, in causing sorrow, did not grieve him,—Paul was not the direct object of the offense,-but to some extent (lest I press too heavily upon him) you all. The apostle had felt the sin only inasmuch as it harmed the Corinthian congregation and thus grieved the entire Church of God. He does not intend to lay a greater burden upon the repentant sinner than the circumstances absolutely require. And least of all does Paul intend to continue bearing a grievance now that the sorrow of the congregation has been converted into joy by the sinner’s repentance.

And therefore the apostle adds the kindly admonition: Sufficient to such a one is this penalty, his punishment, on the part of the majority. Evidently the directions given by the apostle as to the manner of dealing with the incestuous man had been carried out, the majority of the members being willing to follow the words of their teacher. Whether, however, the man had actually been excluded from the Christian congregation or had accepted the reproof of the congregation, cannot be determined. At any rate, he had been disciplined severely, he had, in some form, borne the penalty, the punishment of his sin, and was still in disgrace. So Paul calls a halt; enough has been done; the object has been attained. The time for severity is past, leniency and kindness must now be employed: So that, on the contrary, you ought rather to be kind to him and comfort him, lest with excessive sorrow such a one be swallowed. As soon as a full and free confession of sins has been made on the part of the offender, all harshness should be forgotten and nothing but comforting kindness be in evidence. For, unless this is the case, the guilty one may be driven to despair and the entire object of the disciplinary measures be frustrated. Unless the repentant sinner is given the full and unequivocal assurance of divine grace and pardon, he may give up all hope of salvation and all efforts to obtain eternal life, and turn from the Gospel with a heart forever embittered against Christ and the Christian Church. The more sorrowful and downcast a conscience is because it feels the wrath of God and the power of Satan in its state of excommunication, the more glowing should the proclamation of the grace of God in Christ Jesus be made, "Therefore the pastors should indeed emphatically and severely scold and rebuke those that have fallen; but when they notice that they grieve over their sins and want to lead a better life, they should, in turn, comfort and help them, making their sins as small and light as they possibly can, namely, in this way, that the mercy of God, who spared not His own Son, but gave Him for us all, is greater than all sin, in order that those that have fallen do not sink down into overmuch sorrow."

It is in this spirit that Paul writes: Therefore I exhort you to make good [your] love toward him. By a formal decision the guilty person should now be restored to the communion of the Church; in this way their love to the brother should assert itself; as the power to bind had been used by the congregation, the power to loose likewise should be applied. And the apostle backs up his appeal in a very skillful manner: For to this end I also wrote, that I might know the proof of you, whether you are obedient in regard to all things. In giving them the instructions of the first epistle, his object had been to make a test of them, whether they would willingly accept his apostolic authority and act accordingly. Now that the purpose of the disciplinary measures had been fully realized, not a trace of vindictiveness would dare remain, and they would surely carry out also the present instructions with equally obedient cheerfulness, they would prove as loyal as he expected them to be.

In order to make them feel that he was united with them in their public act of forgiveness, Paul adds: But to whom you forgive anything, I also; for also I, what I have forgiven (if I have forgiven anything), for your sakes before the face of Christ, lest we be taken advantage of by Satan; for his devices are not unknown to us. The congregation’s willingness to forgive as also the consolation of the repentant sinner are here strengthened by the apostle. The members of the Corinthian church should rest assured that they are using their power, the Office of the Keys, properly in following his instructions, for his own forgiveness in this case is spoken. And they could remember for all times that he would not presume upon an authority over them, he would not exercise lordship over them in such matters. In the form of a principle he states his position that he, in case forgiveness was in order, would concur with them in the absolution. For their sakes and in the presence, in the sight, of Christ, the Redeemer of the world, he would forgive the repentant sinner. And in order not to contradict himself, v. 5, he adds, in a parenthetical sentence: If we assume, granted that I have forgiven anything. It is so necessary to use all evangelical lenience on account of the many snares of the devil, who would be sure to take advantage of the situation by making an earnest attempt to capture the guilty person. Despair would lead him straight into the arms of the devil, the apostle writes, and he had some experience and knowledge of this matter; he was acquainted with the designs of the adversary of men’s souls. Far from yielding the repentant offender as a welcome victim to the wiles of Satan, he wanted to use every precaution to foil his advances and frustrate his devices. Note: This same spirit of loving mercy should characterize every pastor and every congregation with reference to every repentant sinner, no matter how great the original offense may have been.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As if the apostle had said, This incestuous person, who hath caused so much grief to me by his sin, has caused no little grief to you also, to the sounder part of you, even to all, but those who were partakers with him in his sin: he hath grieved me, but in part only; you, as well as myself, have been grieved by him, and afflicted for him.

Not only the ministers, but members of the church, are affected with, and afflicted for, the scandal of professor’s sins. St. Paul grieved but in part for the incestuous person’s sin, the sounder part of the church mourned with him.

Or, secondly, He hath grieved me, but in part, that I may not overcharge you. It is as much as if he had said, "The grief and sorrow which I have had for the sin and scandal of this notorious offender, I am far, very far, from charging upon the whole church; I dare not load you all with that imputation, as if you were involved in the guilt of it."

’Tis not only injurious, but very unjust, to cast the dirt of professors’ sin upon the face of their profession, or to charge the guilt of a particular person’s miscarriages upon the whole church or Christian society to which he doth belong. As religion justifies no man’s faults, so no man’s faults should condemn religion.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But if any [thus delicately does the apostle introduce this sinner] hath caused sorrow, he hath caused sorrow, not to me, but in part (that I press not too heavily) to you all . [As I have said, I did not write to cause you sorrow. But if the incestuous person has caused you sorrow, he has caused sorrow not to me, but to a large part of you. I will not weigh him down with a greater burden of guilt by saying to whom else he has caused sorrow. The apostle is not to be understood too literally. This sinner had added to the sorrows which he has just mentioned (verse 4). But the apostle's sorrow was so small compared with the great grief of the Corinthian church as to not be worth mentioning. Comp. Luk_23:28 ]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5–8. If any have caused grief. The reference in this indirect way is to the incestuous person named in 1 Cor. 5:1. It was not Paul, only in part, that this man had injured and grieved, but the whole church. Overcharge you all. Lay too heavy charges on you.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

in some measure

"to some extent"

not to put it too harshly

Possible meanings are 1) "I do not want to say it too severely" or 2) "I do not want to exaggerate."

This punishment of that person by the majority is enough

This can be stated in active form. The word "punishment" can be translated using a verb. AT: "The way that the majority has punished that person is enough" (See: Active or Passive and Abstract Nouns)

is enough

"is sufficient"

he is not overwhelmed by too much sorrow

This means to have a strong emotional response of too much sorrow. This can be stated in active form. AT: "too much sorrow does not overwhelm him" (See: Active or Passive)

translationWords

punish

forgive

comfort

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

5–11. Having vindicated himself with regard to the charge of levity (2Co 1:15 to 2Co 2:4), he now goes on to vindicate his treatment of the grievous offender. It used to be assumed that this referred to the incestuous person, whom the Apostle sentenced to excommunication (1Co 5:1-8); and this passage fits that one well in some respects. But there are difficulties which seem to be insuperable. (1) It is scarcely credible that S. Paul should speak of so heinous an offence as that of 1Co 5:1 in the gentle way in which he speaks here. This is vehemently urged by Tertullian (De Pudic. XIII.), and it is hard to find an answer. (2) If this passage refers to it, its heinousness was even greater than appears from 1Co 5:1. For 2Co 7:12 refers to the same case as this passage; and if this and 1Co 5:1 refer to the same case, then the incestuous man married his father’s wife while his father was still living. In 2Co 7:12, if τοῦ ἀδικήσαντος is the incestuous person, τοῦ ἀδικηθέντος must be the lawful husband of the woman; and the latter is spoken of as alive when S. Paul wrote. Could the Apostle write as he does here of such an offender as that? (3) Would he speak of such a sin from the point of view of injuring an individual? In 1 Corinthians 5 it is the pollution of the whole Church which appals him. For these reasons the time-honoured and attractive reference of this passage to the incestuous person must be abandoned, and both this and 2Co 7:8-12 must be interpreted of an offender about whom we know no more than is told us in this letter (see A. Robertson in Hastings’ DB. i. p. 493, and Sanday in Cheyne’s Enc. Bib. I. 902). He may have been a ringleader in the revolt against the Apostle’s authority; and in that case ὁ ἀδικηθείς may be either S. Paul himself or (less probably) Timothy. Or he may have been the one who was in the wrong in some outrageous quarrel, about which nothing is said. Everything is uncertain, except that (1) in some particulars this passage fits the incestuous person very badly, and that (2) the case is treated with the utmost gentleness and reserve. No names are mentioned, and no needless particulars are given; and hence our perplexity. S. Paul says just enough to make the Corinthians understand, and then leaves τὸ πρᾶγμα (2Co 7:11).

5. Εἰ δέ τις λελύπηκεν, οὐκ ἐμὲ λελύπηκεν. But if any hath caused sorrow, he hath caused sorrow, not to me. The repetition of λύπη and λυπέω must be preserved in translation here, as that of θλίψις and θλίβω, παράκλησις and παρακαλέω in 2Co 1:4-8. Εἰ does not imply that there is doubt; it is a gentle way of putting it: comp. 2Co 2:10, 2Co 7:14, 2Co 10:7.

As regards the construction of what follows there is much difference of opinion There are four renderings. (1) He hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all (A.V.). This has the support of Tertullian and Luther, but it cannot be right. The ἀλλά (comp. Mar 10:40) and ἀπὸ μέρους are decisive against it; for ἀλλά does not mean ‘except,’ and ἀπὸ μέρους means ‘some out of many’ (2Co 1:14). Moreover the Apostle does not urge that he personally has been hurt, whether partly or wholly. It is for him not a personal matter at all. (2) He hath caused sorrow not to me, but partly (that I may not press too heavily on all) to you. This is better. It gives the right meaning to ἀλλά, and it makes ἀπὸ μέρους qualify, not the Apostle, but the Corinthians. But it divides the sentence awkwardly, and it spoils the antithesis between ἐμέ and πάντας ὑμᾶς, which is very marked, ἑμέ being placed first, and πάντας ὑμᾶς last, in emphatic opposition. This rendering would require, ἴνα μὴ πάντας ἐπιβαρῶ. (3) Has he not caused sorrow to me? nevertheless for a time (that I may not press too heavily on you all) sufficient to such a one &c. This is perverse ingenuity. It may be mentioned, but it does not need discussion. (4) He hath caused sorrow, not to me, but in part (that I press not too heavily) to you all (R.V.). This is almost certainly right. The offender has not so much pained the Apostle, as he has practically (not to be too severe) pained all the Corinthians. S. Paul sets himself out of the case altogether: it is a question between the offender and the Corinthian Church. But the Apostle will not say absolutely that every member of it has been pained, and he inserts ἀπὸ μέρους to cover exceptions. The ἀπὸ μέρους does not mean that all of them had been pained to some extent, but that practically all had been pained. The whole Church was distressed, although some did not sympathize. If any accusative be understood after ἐπιβαρῶ, it is the offender, who is not mentioned out of delicacy. Comp. the classical ἵνα μηδὲν φορτικὸν λέγω.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5-11.] Digressive reference to the case of the incestuous person, whom the Apostle orders now to be forgiven, and reinstated. From the λύπη of the former verses, to him who was one of the principal occasions of that grief, the transition is easy.

5.] δέ, transitional. Now if any one hath occasioned sorrow (a delicate way of pointing out the one who had occasioned it), he hath grieved, not me (not,—‘not only me,’ which destroys the meaning,—‘I am not the aggrieved person, but you’), but, [in part (i.e.] more or less, partially:’ ref.), that I be not too heavy on him (refers to ἀπὸ μέρους, which qualifies the blame cast on the offender), all of you. The above punctuation and rendering is adopted by Chrys. (ἵνα μὴ βαρήσω ἐκεῖνον τὸν πορνεύσαντα, p. 459), Beza, Calvin (but not in his text), al., with Meyer, De Wette. But Theodoret, Vulg., Luther, Bengel, Wetst., al., join ἐπιβαρῶ πάντας ὑμ., thus: ‘he hath not grieved me (alone and principally) but only in part (having grieved you also), that I may not lay the fault on all of you,’ which I should in this case do, by making myself the only person aggrieved, and classing you with the offender. But this can hardly be; ἀλλά must be εἰ μή.

Another way is adopted by Mosheim, Billroth, and Olsh.,—to join πάντας with ἵνα μὴ ἐπιβ.,—‘but in part,—that I burden not all,—you:’—ἐπιβαρῶ being variously understood, either (1) of including you in the blame of the offender, or (2) as Olsh., of extending to them all the burden of this sorrow;—he supposes it to be ironically spoken; their highest praise would have been that all had been troubled. But as Meyer remarks, irony is entirely out of place in this part of the Epistle. The meanings are well discussed in Stanley.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5-11. This paragraph about the great offender is not really a digression (Meyer), and the fact that we should have a good sequence of thought if it were omitted does not prove it to be a digression. It is part, and not on unimportant part, of St Paul’s vindication of himself. The Corinthians’ chief grievance was his sending them a severe letter instead of coming to them for the long and happy visit indicated in 1Co 16:5-7. But there was also the treatment of the ringleader against Apostolic authority. The majority censured him in a way which some thought inadequate. The Apostle assures them that the action of the Church in condemning the offender satisfies the requirements, all the more so as the person condemned is very penitent. He assures them that he is more than ready to join in their formal restoration of the man to favour; and there is now no bar to his coming.

We are ignorant as to the exact nature of the penalty which was inflicted by the majority, but apparently it was not that which St Paul was believed to require. Possibly it was that suggested in 1Co 5:11, τῷ τοιούτῳ μηδὲ συνεσθίειν, as also in 2Th 3:14, μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι αὐτῷ, ἵνα ἐντραπῇ, where we have the important addition, καὶ μὴ ὡς ἐχθρὸν ἡγεῖσθε, ἀλλὰ νονυετεῖτε ὡς ἀδελφόν. In accordance with this addition, the Apostle now pleads earnestly for a generous forgiveness. Punishment had been inflicted in order to rescue him from perdition by inducing him to repent; and he had repented. If punishment were continued, it might drive him to perdition by making him desperate.

We are ignorant also as to who this offender was and as to what was the exact nature of his offence. But “it should no longer require to be proved that this offender is not the incestuous person of 1Co 5:1, but some one who had wronged Paul himself” (Moffatt, Int. to the Literature of the N.T., p. 122). This theory is still advocated by Zahn (1909), McFadyen (1911), and others, and therefore it is necessary to point out once more how untenable it is. Tertullian’s vigorous argument almost suffices without any others (De Pudic. 13). After quoting this passage (5-11) he asks whether the Apostle could possibly have written in this effusively indulgent way about a man who had been guilty of fornication aggravated by incest, and this without one word of severity about the past or warning about the future.* We must remember that, if the offender here is the incestuous person of 1Co 5:1, then the incest was of a specially monstrous character, for the sinful union was contracted in the lifetime of the man’s father. This passage and 7:12 refer to the same case, and there, if ὁ ἀδικήσας is the incestuous son, ὁ ἀδικηθέις must be the woman’s injured husband, who was still alive when St Paul wrote.† This adds immense force to Tertullian’s question. Moreover, it is unlikely that St Paul would view such a sin simply as an injury inflicted by one man on another. When he treats of incest in 1 Cor., it is the infection of the whole Church upon which he enlarges (v. 6, 7, 11, 13). Lastly, it is incredible that St Paul would say (v. 9) that he had insisted upon the punishment of so grievous a sin, merely to test the Corinthians, whether they were ready to obey him in all things.

If ὁ ἀδικηθείς is the Apostle himself, the language used here and in 7:12 is quite natural. This man had grossly wronged St Paul, but the particulars are unknown to us.* Of such an offender St Paul might reasonably say that he had demanded his punishment to test the loyalty of his converts. This man had insulted and defied him. The personal affront St Paul could treat as nothing, but he could not allow his authority to be defied. The man must be punished, and punished by the community; that would test their loyalty. If this was done, the amount of punishment was of comparatively small importance; and when the man had expressed contrition, prolongation of his punishment would do more harm than good. On this interpretation, everything falls into its place. From a feeling of delicacy, St Paul uses indefinite language; it sufficed to tell the Corinthians what he meant, but it does not suffice to tell us.†

5. Εἰ δέ τις. The indefiniteness begins at once. ‘But if any one has caused sorrow, it is not to me that he has caused it.’ The personal element is brushed on one side at once; the injury to the Church, whose members are members of Christ, is what matters. The argument that we have here a τις and a τοιοῦτος (v. 6) and Σατανᾶς (v. 11), and that in 1Co_5. we have also a τις (v. 1) and a τοιοῦτος (v. 5) and Σατανᾶς (v. 5), and that therefore this passage refers to the same case as that, is very shallow. In every sinful πρᾶγμα (7:11) there is a τις and a τοιοῦτος, with Satan at work also. The use of τοιοῦτος in the two places is different. In the other case St Paul refuses to stain his letter with the name of such a transgressor, and perhaps intimates that any one who transgresses in a like manner will receive the like punishment. In this case, he refrains from naming him out of consideration for the offender’s feelings, whose case he states hypothetically; ‘if there is such a person’: in v. 10, 7:14, 10:7 we have a similar use of εἰ. So also there is difference in the way in which Satan is introduced in each case. There he was made the instrument of chastisement; here he is to be guarded against as a crafty enemy.

ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ μέρους (ἵνα μὴ ἐπιβαρῶ) πάντας ὑμᾶς. This is the best arrangement of a sentence which has suffered by being dictated; ‘He hath caused sorrow, not to me, but in part (that I press not too heavily) to you all.’ So RV and others. He does not wish to be severe, but it is really the whole Corinthian Church that has been troubled by this man’s ἀδικία. A qualifying ἀπὸ μέρους is inserted, because there were a few who were not distressed by the scandalous treatment of the Apostle.

It is possible, with Mosheim, Olshausen, and others, to include πάντας in the parenthesis and make it the acc. after ἐπιβαρῶ, ‘that I press not too heavily upon all.’ But this gives a weak position to πάντας, and leaves ὑμᾶς awkwardly alone after the parenthesis. If πάντας is taken with ὑμᾶς we have a pointed and almost necessary antithesis to ἐμέ, ‘not me but all of you.’

The AV rendering, ‘He hath not grieved me but in part: that I may not overcharge you all,’ follows Tertullian, Vulgate, Luther and others, but it cannot stand, for ἀλλά does not mean ‘except’ (Mar 10:40), and St Paul is not urging that he has been distressed even ‘in part’; he is dismissing the personal affront altogether. It is not quite certain whether ἀπὸ μέρους means that not quite all the Corinthians had been distressed, or that all of them had been distressed to some extent; but the former is much more probable as being more true, and this is an additional objection to the rendering in AV. B. Weiss understands ἀπὸ μέρους as limiting the action of the λελυπηκώς: the offender was only partly the cause of the Corinthians’; grief; the other part was caused by the Apostle’s severe letter. Hofmann gives ἀπὸ μέρους the highly improbable meaning of ‘for a time,’ and with perverted ingenuity makes the first part of the verse interrogative; ‘If any one has caused sorrow, is it not to me that he has caused it?’ The answer to this question is, ‘Yes; nevertheless, for a time (that I may not press too heavily on you all) sufficient to such a one, etc.’ This is a very clumsy construction, and—what is far more serious—it destroys the tact and delicacy of the Apostle’s appeal by laying the whole emphasis on the personal injury to himself—the thing about which he desires to say as little as possible. *

In Biblical Greek, ἐπιβαρεῖν is peculiar to Paul, who always uses it in a metaphorical sense (1Th 2:9; 2Th 3:8) and with the acc. Appian has it several times, always with the dat. (examples in Wetstein); and it is found in inscriptions. Cf. καταβαρεῖν, 12:16. On the whole verse see Stanley and Alford.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Any. Referring to the incestuous person.

Not to me. Not that Paul did not grieve over the offender; but he desires to emphasize the fact that the injury caused by the sin was not to him personally, but to the Church.

But in part, that I may not overcharge you all [αλλα απο μερους ινα μη επιβαρω παντας υμας] . For overcharge, Rev., press too heavily, in order to bring out more distinctly the idea of the verb, laying a burden [βαρος] upon. Overcharge, however, is not incorrect, though possibly ambiguous in the light of the various uses of charge. Charge is from the Latin carrus a wagon. Compare the low Latin carricare to load a wagon, and carica a freight - ship. Hence charge is a load; compare the interchange of charge and load applied to the contents of a gun. So cargo, and caricature, which is an exaggerated or overloaded drawing. Hence expense, cost, commission, accusation, all implying a burden, either of pecuniary or of other responsibility, or of guilt. In part does not refer to Paul, as if he had said, "You have not grieved me alone and principally, but in part, since my sorrow is shared by the Church." With in part is to be construed, parenthetically, that I press not too heavily, that is, on the offender : the whole clause being intended to mitigate the charge against the offender of having wounded the whole Church. Thus you all depends upon he hath caused sorrow, not upon that I press not too heavily upon. Render, as Rev., He hath caused sorrow, not to me, but in part (that I press not too heavily) to you all.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.