1Cor 9:1-6, 2Cor 11:22-33, Gal 1:11-12 | Barnes | STEP | 1st Corinthians CHAPTER 9 THE apostle had, in , mentioned his willingness to deny himself, if he might be the means of benefiting others. On this principle he had acted; and on this he purposed to act, The mention of this principle of action seems to have led him to a further illustration of it in his own case, and in the illustration to meet an objection that had been urged against him at Corinth; and the scope of this chapter seems to have been not only to give an illustration of this principle, ( ,) but to show that this principle on which he acted would account for his conduct when with them, and would meet all the objections which had been made against his apostleship. These objections seem to have been, (1) that he had not seen Jesus Christ; and, therefore, could not be an apostle, . (2.) That he did not live like the other apostles, that he was unmarried, was a solitary man, and a wanderer, and was unlike the other apostles in his mode of life, not indulging as apostles might do in the ordinary comforts of life, . (3.) That he and Barnabas were compelled to labour for their support, and were conscious , therefore, that they had no pretensions to the apostolic office, . And, (4.) that the fact that he was unsupplied; that he did not apply to Christians for his maintenance; that he did not urge this as a right , showed that he was conscious that he had no claims to the apostolic character and rank. To all this he replies in this chapter; and the main drift and design of his reply is to show that he acted on the principle suggested in , that of denying himself; and consequently, that though he had a right to maintenance, yet that the fact that he did not urge that right was no proof that he was not sent from God, but was rather a proof of his being actuated by the high and holy principles which ought to influence those who were called to this office. In urging this reply, he shows: (1.) That he had seen Jesus Christ, and had this qualification for the office of an apostle, . (2.) That he had the power like others to partake of the common enjoyments of life, and that his not doing it was no proof that he was not an apostle, . (3.) That he was not prohibited from entering the domestic relations as others had done, but had the right to enjoy the same privileges if he chose; and that his not doing it was no proof that he was not an apostle, but was an instance of his denying himself for the good of others, . (4.) That he was not under a necessity of labouring with his own hands, but that he might have required support as others did; that his labouring was only another instance of his readiness to deny himself to promote the welfare of others, . This sentiment he illustrates through the remainder of the chapter, by showing that he had a right to support in the work of the apostle:- ship, and that his not insisting on it was an instance of his being willing to deny himself that he might do good to others; that he did not urge this right, because to do that might injure the cause, ( ;) and that whether he received support or not, he was bound to preach the gospel. In this he shows (a.) that God gave him the right to support if he chose to exercise it, ( ;) (b.) that it was equitable that he should be supported, ( ;) (c.) that the Lord had ordained this as a general law, that they which preached the gospel should live by it, ( ;) (d.) that he had not chosen to avail himself of it because it might do injury, ( ;) (e.) that necessity was laid upon him at all events to preach the gospel, ( ;) (f.) that if he did this without an earthly reward, he would be rewarded in heaven in a distinguished manner, ( ;) (g.) that he had made it the grand principle of his life, not to make money, but to save souls, and that he had sought this by a course of continued self-denial, ( ;) (h.) that all this was done for the sake of the gospel, ( ;) and (i.) that he had a grand and glorious object in view, which required him, after the manner of the Athletae, to keep his body under, to practise self-denial, to be temperate, to forego many comforts of which he might otherwise have partaken, and that the grandeur and glory of this object was enough to justify all his self-denial, and to make all his sacrifices pleasant, . Thus the whole chapter is an incidental discussion of the subject of his apostleship, in illustration of the sentiment advanced in , that he was willing to practise self-denial for the good of others; and is one of the most elevated, heavenly, and beautiful discussions in the New Testament; and contains one of the most ennobling descriptions of the virtue of self-denial, and of the principles which should actuate the Christian ministry, anywhere to be found. All classic writings would be searched in vain, and all records of profane history, for an instance of such pure and elevated principle as is presented in this chapter. Verse 1. Am I not an apostle ? This was the point to be settled; and it is probable that some at Corinth had denied that he could be an apostle, since it was requisite, in order to that, to have seen the Lord Jesus; and since it was supposed that Paul had not been a witness of his life, doctrines, and death. Am I not free ? Am I not a free man; have I not the liberty which all Christians possess, and especially which all the apostles possess? The liberty referred to here is doubtless the privilege or right of abstaining from labour; of enjoying, as others did, the domestic relations of life: and of a support as a public minister and apostle. Probably some had objected to his claims of apostleship that he had not used this right, and that he was conscious that he had no claim to it. By this mode of interrogation, he strongly implies that he was a freeman, and that he had this right. Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord ? Here it is implied, and seems to be admitted by Paul, that in order to be an apostle it was necessary to have seen the Saviour. This is often declared expressly. . The reason of this was, that the apostles were appointed to be WITNESS of the life, doctrines, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and that in their being witnesses consisted the PECULIARITY of the apostolic office. That this was the case is abundantly manifest from ; . Hence it was essential, in order that any one should be such a witness, and an apostle, that he should have seen the Lord Jesus. In the case of Paul, therefore, who was called to this office after the death and resurrection of the Saviour, and who had not therefore had an opportunity of seeing and hearing him when living, this was provided for by the fact that the Lord Jesus showed himself to him after his death and ascension, in order that he might have this qualification for the apostolic office, . To the fact of his having been thus in a miraculous manner qualified for the apostolic office, Paul frequently appeals, and always with the same view, that it was necessary to have seen the Lord Jesus to qualify one for this office, . It follows from this, therefore, that no one was an apostle in the strict and proper sense who had not seen the Lord Jesus. And it follows, also, that the apostles could have no successors in that which constituted the PECULIARITY of their office; and that the office must have commenced and ended with them. Are not ye my work in the Lord ? Have you not been converted by my labours, or under my ministry; and are you not a proof that the Lord, when I have been claiming to be an apostle, has owned me as an apostle , and blessed me in this work? God would not give his sanction to an impostor, and a false pretender; and as Paul had laboured there as an apostle, this was an argument that he had been truly commissioned of God. A minister may appeal to the blessing of God on his labours in proof that he is sent of him. And one of the best of all arguments that a man is sent from God exists where multitudes of souls are converted from sin, and turned to holiness, by his labours. What better credentials than this can a man need, that he is in the employ of God? What more consoling to his own mind? What more satisfactory to the world? (a) "not seen" (b) "my work"

1 Corinthians 9:1-6

1st Corinthians CHAPTER 9

THE apostle had, in 1Cor 8:13, mentioned his willingness to deny himself, if he might be the means of benefiting others. On this principle he had acted; and on this he purposed to act, The mention of this principle of action seems to have led him to a further illustration of it in his own case, and in the illustration to meet an objection that had been urged against him at Corinth; and the scope of this chapter seems to have been not only to give an illustration of this principle, (1Cor 9:27,) but to show that this principle on which he acted would account for his conduct when with them, and would meet all the objections which had been made against his apostleship. These objections seem to have been,

(1) that he had not seen Jesus Christ; and, therefore, could not be an apostle, 1Cor 9:1.

(2.) That he did not live like the other apostles, that he was unmarried, was a solitary man, and a wanderer, and was unlike the other apostles in his mode of life, not indulging as apostles might do in the ordinary comforts of life, 1Cor 9:4,6.

(3.) That he and Barnabas were compelled to labour for their support, and were conscious, therefore, that they had no pretensions to the apostolic office, 1Cor 9:6. And,

(4.) that the fact that he was unsupplied; that he did not apply to Christians for his maintenance; that he did not urge this as a right, showed that he was conscious that he had no claims to the apostolic character and rank.

To all this he replies in this chapter; and the main drift and design of his reply is to show that he acted on the principle suggested in 1Cor 8:13, that of denying himself; and consequently, that though he had a right to maintenance, yet that the fact that he did not urge that right was no proof that he was not sent from God, but was rather a proof of his being actuated by the high and holy principles which ought to influence those who were called to this office. In urging this reply, he shows:

(1.) That he had seen Jesus Christ, and had this qualification for the office of an apostle, 1Cor 9:1.

(2.) That he had the power like others to partake of the common enjoyments of life, and that his not doing it was no proof that he was not an apostle, 1Cor 9:4.

(3.) That he was not prohibited from entering the domestic relations as others had done, but had the right to enjoy the same privileges if he chose; and that his not doing it was no proof that he was not an apostle, but was an instance of his denying himself for the good of others, 1Cor 9:5.

(4.) That he was not under a necessity of labouring with his own hands, but that he might have required support as others did; that his labouring was only another instance of his readiness to deny himself to promote the welfare of others, 1Cor 9:6.

This sentiment he illustrates through the remainder of the chapter, by showing that he had a right to support in the work of the apostle:- ship, and that his not insisting on it was an instance of his being willing to deny himself that he might do good to others; that he did not urge this right, because to do that might injure the cause, (1Cor 9:12,16;) and that whether he received support or not, he was bound to preach the gospel. In this he shows

(a.) that God gave him the right to support if he chose to exercise it, (1Cor 9:7-10,13;)

(b.) that it was equitable that he should be supported, (1Cor 9:11;)

(c.) that the Lord had ordained this as a general law, that they which preached the gospel should live by it, (1Cor 9:14;)

(d.) that he had not chosen to avail himself of it because it might do injury, (1Cor 9:12,16;)

(e.) that necessity was laid upon him at all events to preach the gospel, (1Cor 9:16;)

(f.) that if he did this without an earthly reward, he would be rewarded in heaven in a distinguished manner, (1Cor 9:17,18;)

(g.) that he had made it the grand principle of his life, not to make money, but to save souls, and that he had sought this by a course of continued self-denial, (1Cor 9:19-22;)

(h.) that all this was done for the sake of the gospel, (1Cor 9:23;) and

(i.) that he had a grand and glorious object in view, which required him, after the manner of the Athletae, to keep his body under, to practise self-denial, to be temperate, to forego many comforts of which he might otherwise have partaken, and that the grandeur and glory of this object was enough to justify all his self-denial, and to make all his sacrifices pleasant, 1Cor 9:24-27.

Thus the whole chapter is an incidental discussion of the subject of his apostleship, in illustration of the sentiment advanced in 1Cor 8:13, that he was willing to practise self-denial for the good of others; and is one of the most elevated, heavenly, and beautiful discussions in the New Testament; and contains one of the most ennobling descriptions of the virtue of self-denial, and of the principles which should actuate the Christian ministry, anywhere to be found. All classic writings would be searched in vain, and all records of profane history, for an instance of such pure and elevated principle as is presented in this chapter.

Verse 1. Am I not an apostle? This was the point to be settled; and it is probable that some at Corinth had denied that he could be an apostle, since it was requisite, in order to that, to have seen the Lord Jesus; and since it was supposed that Paul had not been a witness of his life, doctrines, and death.

Am I not free? Am I not a free man; have I not the liberty which all Christians possess, and especially which all the apostles possess? The liberty referred to here is doubtless the privilege or right of abstaining from labour; of enjoying, as others did, the domestic relations of life: and of a support as a public minister and apostle. Probably some had objected to his claims of apostleship that he had not used this right, and that he was conscious that he had no claim to it. By this mode of interrogation, he strongly implies that he was a freeman, and that he had this right.

Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Here it is implied, and seems to be admitted by Paul, that in order to be an apostle it was necessary to have seen the Saviour. This is often declared expressly. Acts 1:21,22. The reason of this was, that the apostles were appointed to be WITNESS of the life, doctrines, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and that in their being witnesses consisted the PECULIARITY of the apostolic office. That this was the case is abundantly manifest from Mt 28:18,19, Lk 24:48, Acts 1:21,22, 2:32; Acts 10:39-41. Hence it was essential, in order that any one should be such a witness, and an apostle, that he should have seen the Lord Jesus. In the case of Paul, therefore, who was called to this office after the death and resurrection of the Saviour, and who had not therefore had an opportunity of seeing and hearing him when living, this was provided for by the fact that the Lord Jesus showed himself to him after his death and ascension, in order that he might have this qualification for the apostolic office, Acts 9:3-5,17. To the fact of his having been thus in a miraculous manner qualified for the apostolic office, Paul frequently appeals, and always with the same view, that it was necessary to have seen the Lord Jesus to qualify one for this office, Acts 22:14,15, 26:16, 1Cor 15:8. It follows from this, therefore, that no one was an apostle in the strict and proper sense who had not seen the Lord Jesus. And it follows, also, that the apostles could have no successors in that which constituted the PECULIARITY of their office; and that the office must have commenced and ended with them.

Are not ye my work in the Lord? Have you not been converted by my labours, or under my ministry; and are you not a proof that the Lord, when I have been claiming to be an apostle, has owned me as an apostle, and blessed me in this work? God would not give his sanction to an impostor, and a false pretender; and as Paul had laboured there as an apostle, this was an argument that he had been truly commissioned of God. A minister may appeal to the blessing of God on his labours in proof that he is sent of him. And one of the best of all arguments that a man is sent from God exists where multitudes of souls are converted from sin, and turned to holiness, by his labours. What better credentials than this can a man need, that he is in the employ of God? What more consoling to his own mind? What more satisfactory to the world?

(a) "not seen" Acts 9:3,17 (b) "my work" 1Cor 4:15 Verse 2. If I be not an apostle unto others. "If I have not given evidence to others of my apostolic mission; of my being sent by the Lord Jesus, yet I have to you. Assuredly you, among whom I have laboured so long and so successfully, should not doubt that I am sent from the Lord. You have been well acquainted with me; you have witnessed my endowments, you have seen my success, and you have had abundant evidence that I have been sent on this great work. It is therefore strange in you to doubt my apostolic commission; and it is unkind in you so to construe my declining to accept your contributions and aid for my support, as if I were conscious that I was not entitled to that."

For the seal of mine apostleship; Your conversion is the demonstration that I am an apostle. Paul uses strong language. He does not mean to say that their conversion furnished some evidence that he was an apostle; but that it was absolute proof, and irrefragable demonstration, that he was an apostle. A seal is that which is affixed to a deed, or other instrument, to make it firm, secure, and indisputable. It is the proof or demonstration of the validity of the conveyance, or of the writing. Jn 3:33; Jn 6:27. The sense here is, therefore, that the conversion of the Corinthians was a certain demonstration that he was an apostle, and should be so regarded by them, and treated by them. It was such a proof,

(1.) because Paul claimed to be an apostle while among them, and God blessed and owned this claim.

(2.) Their conversion could not have been accomplished by man. It was the work of God. It was the evidence then which God gave to Paul and to them, that he was with him, and had sent him.

(3.) They knew him, had seen him, heard him, were acquainted with his doctrines and manner of life, and could bear testimony to what he was, and what he taught. We may remark, that the conversion of sinners is the best evidence to a minister that he is sent of God. The Divine blessing on his labours should cheer his heart, and lead him to believe that God has sent and that he approves him. And every minister should so live and labour, should so deny himself, that he may be able to appeal to the people among whom he labours, that he is a minister of the Lord Jesus. Verse 3. Mine answer. Greek, εμηαπολογια My apology; my defence. The same word occurs in Acts 22:1, 25:16, 2Cor 7:11, Php 1:7,17, 2Ti 4:16 1Pet 3:15. Actst 22:1. Here it means his answer or defence against those who sat in judgment on his claims to be an apostle.

To them that do examine me. To those who inquire of me; or who censure and condemn me as not having any claims to the apostolic office. The word used here (ανακρινω) is properly a forensic term, and is usually applied to judges in courts; to those who sit in judgment, and investigate and decide in litigated cases brought before them, Lk 23:14, Acts 4:9, 12:19, 24:8. The apostle here may possibly allude to the arrogance and pride of those who presumed to sit as judges on his qualification for the apostolic office. It is not meant that this answer had been given by Paul before this, but that this was the defence which he had to offer.

Is this. This which follows; the statements which are made in the following verses. In these statements (1Cor 9:4-6, etc.) he seems to have designed to take up their objections to his apostolic claims one by one, and to show that they were of no force. Verse 4. Have we not power, εξουσιαν. Have we not the right. The word power here is evidently used in the sense of right, (comp. Jn 1:12, margin;) and the apostle means to say that though they had not exercised this right by demanding a maintenance, yet it was not because they were conscious that they had no such right, but because they chose to forego it for wise and important purposes.

To eat and to drink. To be maintained at the expense of those among whom we labour. Have we not a right to demand that they shall yield us a proper support? By the interrogative form of the statement, Paul intends more strongly to affirm that they had such a right. The interrogative mode is often adopted to express the strongest affirmation. The objection here urged seems to have been this: "You, Paul and Barnabas, labour with your own hands, Acts 18:3. Other religious teachers lay claim to maintenance, and are supported without personal labour. This is the case with pagan and Jewish priests, and with Christian teachers among us. You must be conscious, therefore, that you are not apostles, and that you have no claim or right to support. To this the answer of Paul is, "We admit that we labour with our own hands. But your inference does not follow. It is not because we have not a right to such support, and it is not because we are conscious that we have no such claim, but it is for a higher purpose. It is because it will do good if we should not urge this right, and enforce this claim." That they had such a right, Paul proves at length in the subsequent part of the chapter. Verse 5. Have we not power? Have we not a right? The objection here seems to have been, that Paul and Barnabas were unmarried, or at least that they travelled without wives. The objectors urged that others had wives, and that they took them with them, and expected provision to be made for them as well as for themselves. They therefore showed that they felt that they had a claim to support for their families, and that they were conscious that they were sent of God. But Paul and Barnabas had no families. And the objectors inferred that they were conscious that they had no claim to the apostleship, and no right to support. To this Paul replies as before, that they had a right to do as others did, but they chose not to do it for other reasons than that they were conscious that they had no such right.

To lead about. To have in attendance with us; to conduct from place to place; and to have them maintained at the expense of the churches amongst which we labour.

A sister, a wife. Margin, "or woman." This phrase has much perplexed commentators. But the simple meaning seems to be, "A wife who should be a Christian and regarded as sustaining the relation of a Christian sister." Probably Paul meant to advert to the fact that the wives of the apostles were and should be Christians; and that it was a matter of course, that if an apostle led about a wife she would be a Christian; or that he would marry no other. Comp. 1Cor 7:11.

As well as other apostles. It is evident from this that the apostles generally were married. The phrase used here is οιλοιποιαποστολοι, (the remaining apostles, or the other apostles.) And if they were married, it is right and proper for ministers to marry now, whatever the papist may say to the contrary. It is safer to follow the example of the apostles than the opinions of the papal church. The reasons why the apostles had wives with them on their journeys may have been various, They may have been either to give instruction and counsel to those of their own sex to whom the apostles could not have access, or to minister to the wants of their husbands as they travelled. It is to be remembered that they travelled among heathens; they had no acquaintance and no friends there; they therefore took with them their female friends and wives to minister to them, and sustain them in sickness, trial, etc. Paul says that he and Barnabas had a right to do this; but they had not used this right because they chose rather to make the gospel without charge, (1Cor 9:18,) and that thus they judged they could do more good. It follows from this,

(1.) that it is right for ministers to marry, and that the papal doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy is contrary to apostolic example.

(2.) It is right for missionaries to marry, and to take their wives with them to heathen lands. The apostles were missionaries, and spent their lives in heathen nations, as missionaries do now, and there may be as good reasons for missionaries, marrying now as there were then.

(3.) Yet there are men, like Paul, who can do more good without being married. There are circumstances, like his, where it is not advisable that they should marry, and there can be no doubt that Paul regarded the unmarried state for a missionary as preferable and advisable. Probably the same is to be said of most missionaries at the present day, that they could do more good if unmarried, than they can if burdened with the cares of families.

And as the brethren of the Lord. The brothers of the Lord Jesus--James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas, Mt 13:55. It seems from this, that although at first they did not believe in him, (Jn 7:5,) and had regarded him as disgraced, (Mk 3:21,) yet that they had subsequently become converted, and were employed as ministers and evangelists. It is evident also from this statement, that they were married, and were attended with their wives in their travels.

And Cephas. Peter. Jn 1:42. This proves,

(1.) as well as the declaration in Mt 8:14, that Peter had been married.

(2.) That he had a wife after he became an apostle, and while engaged in the work of the ministry.

(3.) That his wife accompanied him in his travels.

(4.) That it is right and proper for ministers and missionaries to be married now. Is it not strange that the pretended successor of Peter, the pope of Rome, should forbid marriage, when Peter himself was married? Is it not a proof how little the papacy regards the Bible, and the example and authority of those from whom it pretends to derive its power? And is it not strange that this doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy, which has been the source of abomination, impurity, and licentiousness everywhere, should have been sustained and countenanced at all by the Christian world? And is it not strange that this, with all the other corrupt doctrines of the papacy, should be attempted to be imposed on the enlightened people of the United States, [or of Great Britain,] as a part of the religion of Christ?

(*) "wife" "woman" Verse 6. Or I only and Barnabas. Paul and Barnabas had wrought together as tent-makers at Corinth, Acts 18:3. From this fact it had been inferred that they knew that they had no claim to a support.

Power to forbear working? To abstain from labour, and to receive support as others do. The question implies a strong affirmation that they had such power. The sense is, "Why should I and Barnabas be regarded as having no right to support? Have we been less faithful than others? Have we done less? Have we given fewer evidences that we are sent by the Lord, or that God approves us in our work? Have we been less successful? Why, then, should we be singled out--and why should it be supposed that we are obliged to labour for our support? Is there no other conceivable reason why we should support ourselves than a consciousness that we have no right to support from the people with whom we labour? It is evident from 1Cor 9:12, that Barnabas as well as Paul relinquished his right to a support, and laboured to maintain himself. And it is manifest from the whole passage, that there was some peculiar "spleen" (Doddridge) against these two ministers of the gospel. What it was we know not. It might have arisen from the enmity and opposition of Judaizing teachers, who were offended at their zeal and success among the Gentiles, and who could find no other cause of complaint against them than that they chose to support themselves, and not live in idleness, or to tax the church for their support. That must have been a bad cause which was sustained by such an argument.

(a) "we power" 2Thes 3:8,9

2 Corinthians 11:22-33

Verse 22. Are they Hebrews? This proves that the persons who had made the difficulty in Corinth were those who were of Hebrew extraction, though it may be that they had been born in Greece, and had been educated in the Grecian philosophy and art of rhetoric. It is also clear that they prided themselves on being Jews--on having a connexion with the people and land from whence the religion which the Corinthian church now professed had emanated. Indications are apparent everywhere in the New Testament of the superiority which the Jewish converts to Christianity claimed over those converted from among the heathen. Their boast would probably be that they were the descendants of the patriarchs; that the land of the prophets was theirs; that they spake the language in which the oracles of God were given; that the true religion had proceeded from them, etc.

So am I. I have as high claims as any of them to distinction on this head. Paul had all their advantages of birth. He was an Israelite; of the honoured tribe of Benjamin; a Pharisee; circumcised at the usual time, Php 3:5 and educated in the best manner at the feet of one of their most eminent teachers, Acts 22:3.

Are they Israelites? Another name, signifying substantially the same thing. The only difference is, that the word "Hebrew" signified, properly, one who was from beyond (, from , to pass, to pass over--hence applied to Abraham, because he had come from a foreign land; and the word denoted, properly, a foreigner--a man from the land or country beyond, ) the Euphrates. The name Israelite denoted, properly, one descended from Israel or Jacob; and the difference between them was, that the name Israelite, being a patronymic derived from one of the founders of their nation, was in use among themselves; the name Hebrew was applied by the Canaanite to them as having come from beyond the river, and was the current name among foreign tribes and nations. See Gesenius' Lexicon on the word () Hebrew. Paul, in the passage before us, means to say that he had as good a claim to the honour of being a native-born descendant of Israel as could be urged by any of them.

Are they the seed of Abraham? Do they boast that they are descended from Abraham. This, with all the Jews, was regarded as a distinguished honour, (see Mt 3:9, Jn 8:39;) and no doubt the false teachers in Corinth boasted of it as eminently qualifying them to engage in the work of the ministry.

So am I. Paul had the same qualification. He was a Jew also by birth. He was of the tribe of Benjamin, Php 3:5. Verse 23. Are they ministers of Christ? Though Jews by birth, yet they claimed to be the ministers of the Messiah.

I speak as a fool. As if he had said, "Bear in mind, in what I am now about to say, that he who speaks is accused of being a feel in boasting. Let it not be deemed improper that I should act in this character; and since you regard me as such, let me speak like a fool." His frequent reminding them of this charge was eminently fitted to humble them that they had ever made it, especially when they were reminded by an enumeration of his trials of the character of the one against whom the charge was brought.

I am more. Paul was not disposed to deny that they were true ministers of Christ. But he had higher claims to the office than they had. He had been called to it in a more remarkable manner, and he had shown, by his labours and trials, that he had more of the true spirit of a minister of the Lord Jesus than they had. He therefore goes into detail, to show what he had endured in endeavouring to diffuse the knowledge of the Saviour--trials which he had borne probably while they had been dwelling in comparative ease, and in a comfortable manner, free from suffering and persecution.

In labours more abundant. In the kind of labour necessary in propagating the gospel. Probably he had now been engaged in the work a much longer time than they had, and had been far more indefatigable in it.

In stripes. In receiving stripes; that is, I have been more frequently scourged, 2Cor 11:24. This was a proof of his being a minister of Christ, because eminent devotedness to him, at that time, of necessity subjected a man to frequent scourging. The ministry is one of the very few places--perhaps it stands alone in this--where it is proof of peculiar qualification for office that's man has been treated with all manner of contumely, and has even been often publicly whipped. What other office admits such a qualification as this?

Above measure. Exceedingly; far exceeding them. He had received far more than they had; and he judged, therefore, that this was one evidence that he had been called to the ministry.

In prisons more frequent. Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, mentions only one imprisonment of Paul before the time when this epistle was written. That was at Philippi, with Silas, Acts 16:23; seq. But we are to remember that many things were omitted by Luke. He does not profess to give an account of all that happened to Paul; and an omission is not a contradiction. For anything that Luke says, Paul may have been imprisoned often. He mentions his having been in prison once; he does not deny that he had been in prison many times besides. 2Cor 11:24.

In deaths oft. That is, exposed to death; or suffering pain equal to death. 2Cor 1:9. No one familiar with the history of Paul can doubt that he was often in danger of death.

(*) "fool" "as one foolish" (a) "more abundant" 1Cor 15:10 (b) "above measure" Acts 9:16, 20:23, 21:11 (c) "deaths oft" 1Cor 15:30-32 (+) "oft" "often" Verse 24. Of the Jews, etc. On this verse and the following verse it is of importance to make a few remarks preliminary to the explanation of the phrases.

(1.) It is admitted that the particulars here referred to cannot be extracted out of the Acts of the Apostles. A few can be identified, but there are many more trims referred to here than are specified there.

(2.) This proves that this epistle was not framed from the history, but that they are written independently of one another.--Paley.

(3.) Yet they are not inconsistent one with the other. For there is no article in the enumeration here which is contradicted by the history; and the history, though silent with respect to many of these transactions, has left space enough to suppose that they may have occurred.

(a.) There is no contradiction between the accounts. Where it is said by Paul that he was thrice beaten with rods, though in the Acts but one beating is mentioned, yet there is no contradiction. It is only the omission to record all that occurred to Paul. But had the history, says Paley, contained an account of four beatings with rods, while Paul mentions here but three, there would have been a contradiction. And so of the other particulars.

(b.) Though the Acts of the Apostles be silent concerning many of the instances referred to, yet that silence may be accounted for on the plan and design of the history. The date of the epistle synchronizes with the beginning of the twentieth chapter of the Acts. The part, therefore, which precedes the twentieth chapter, is the only place in which can be found any notice of the transactions to which Paul here refers. And it is evident from the Acts that the author of that history was not with Paul until his departure from Troas, as related in Acts 16:10. Acts 16:10. From that time Luke attended Paul in his travels. From that period to the time when this epistle was written, occupies but four chapters of the history; and it is here, if anywhere, that we are to look for the minute account of the life of Paul. But here much may have occurred to Paul before Luke joined him. And as it was the design of Luke to give an account of Paul mainly after he joined him, it is not to be wondered at that many things may have been omitted of his previous life.

(c.) The period of time after the conversion of Paul to the time when Luke joined him at Troas is very succinctly given. That period embraced sixteen years, and is comprised in a few chapters. Yet in that time Paul was constantly travelling. He went to Arabia, returned to Damascus, went to Jerusalem, and then to Tarsus; and from Tarsus to Antioch, and thence to Cyprus, and then through Asia Minor, etc. In this time he must have made many voyages, and been exposed to many perils. Yet all this is comprised in a few chapters, and a considerable portion of them is occupied with an account of public discourses. In that period of sixteen years, therefore, there was ample opportunity for all the occurrences which are here referred to by Paul. See Paley's Horae Paulinae on 2 Cor., No. ix.

(d.) I may add, that from the account which follows the time when Luke joined him at Troas, (from Acts 16:10,) it is altogether probable that he had endured much before. After that time there is mention of just such transactions of scourging, stoning, etc., as are here specified, and it is altogether probable that he had been called to suffer them before. When Paul says "of the Jews," etc., he refers to this because this was a Jewish mode of punishment. It was usual with them to inflict but thirty-nine blows. The Gentiles were not limited by law in the number which they inflicted.

Five times. This was doubtless in their synagogues, and before their courts of justice. They had not the power of capital punishment, but they had the power of inflicting minor punishments. And though the instances are not specified by Luke in the Acts, yet the statement here by Paul has every degree of probability. We know that he often preached in their synagogues, (Acts 9:20, 13:5,14,15, 14:1, 17:17, 18:4); and nothing is more probable than that they would be enraged against him, and would vent their malice in every way possible. They regarded him as an apostate, and a ringleader of the Nazarenes, and they would not fail to inflict on him the severest punishment which they were permitted to.

Forty stripes save one. The word stripes does not occur in the original, but is necessarily understood. The law of Moses (De 25:3;) expressly limited the number of stripes that might be inflicted to forty. In no case might this number be exceeded. This was a humane provision, and one that was not found among the heathen, who inflicted any number of blows at discretion. Unhappily, it is not observed among professedly Christian nations where the practice of whipping prevails; and particularly in slave countries, where the master inflicts any number of blows at his pleasure. In practice among the Hebrews, the number of blows inflicted was, in fact, limited to thirty-nine, lest, by any accident in counting, the criminal should receive more than the number prescribed in the law. There was another reason still for limiting it to thirty-nine. They usually made use of a scourge with three thongs, and this was struck thirteen times. That it was usual to inflict but thirty-nine lashes is apparent from Josephus, Ant. book iv. chap. viii. & 21.

(d) "save once" De 25:3 Verse 25. Thrice was I beaten with rods. In the Acts of the Apostles there is mention made of his being beaten in this manner but once before the time when this epistle was written. That occurred at Philippi, Acts 16:22,23. But there is no reason to doubt that it was more frequently done. This was a frequent mode of punishment among the ancient nations; and as Paul was often persecuted, he would be naturally subjected to this shameful punishment.

Once was I stoned. This was the usual mode of punishment among the Jews for blasphemy. The instance referred to here occurred at Lystra, Acts 14:19. Paley (Horae Paulinae) has remarked that this, when confronted with the history, furnished the nearest approach to a contradiction, without a contradiction being actually incurred, that he ever had met with. The history (Acts 14:19) contains but one account of his being actually stoned. But prior to this, (Acts 14:5,) it mentions that "an assault was made both of the Gentiles, and also of the Jews with their rulers, to use them despitefully and to stone them, but they were aware of it, and fled to Lystra and Derbe." "Now," Paley remarks, "had the assault been completed; had the history related that a stone was thrown, as it relates that preparations were made both by Jews and Gentiles to stone Paul and his companions; or even had the account of this transaction stopped without going on to inform us that Paul and his companions were aware of their danger and fled, a contradiction between the history and the epistle would have ensued. Truth is necessarily consistent; but it is scarcely possible that independent accounts, not having truth to guide them, should thus advance to the very brink of contradiction without falling into it."

Thrice I suffered shipwreck. On what occasions, or where, is now unknown, as these instances are not referred to in the Acts of the Apostles. The instance of shipwreck recorded there, (Acts 27,) which occurred when on his way to Rome, happened after this epistle was written, and should not be supposed to be one of the instances referred to here. Paul made many voyages in going from Jerusalem to Tarsus, and to Antioch, and to various parts of Asia Minor, and to Cyprus; and shipwrecks in those seas were by no means such unusual occurrences as to render this account improbable.

A night and a day, etc. The word here used (νυχθημερον) denotes a complete natural day, or twenty-four hours.

In the deep. To what this refers we do not now certainly know. It is probable, however, that Paul refers to some period when, having been shipwrecked, he was saved by supporting himself on a plank or fragment of the vessel until he obtained relief. Such a situation is one of great peril, and he mentions it, therefore, among the trials which he had endured. The supposition of some commentators, that he spent his time on some rock in the deep; or of others, that this means some deep dungeon; or of others, that he was swallowed by a whale, like Jonah, shows the extent to which the fancy is often indulged in interpreting the Bible.

(e) "with rods" Acts 16:22 (f) "stoned" Acts 14:19 (g) "night and a day" Acts 27 Verse 26. In journeyings often. Of course subject to the fatigue, toil, and danger which such a mode of life involves.

In perils of waters. In danger of losing my life at sea, or by floods, or by crossing streams.

Of robbers. Many of the countries, especially Arabia, through which he travelled, were then infested, as they are now, with robbers. It is not impossible or improbable that he was often attacked, and his life endangered. It is still unsafe to travel in many of the places through which he travelled.

By mine own countrymen. The Jews. They often scourged him; laid wait for him; and were ready to put him to death. They had deep enmity against him as an apostate, and he was in constant danger of being put to death by them.

By the heathen. By those who had not the true religion. Several instances of his danger from this quarter are mentioned in the Acts.

In the city. In cities, as in Derbe, Lystra, Philippi, Jerusalem, Ephesus, etc.

In the wilderness. In the desert, where he would be exposed to ambushes, or to wild beasts, or to hunger and want. Instances of this are not recorded in the Acts, but no one can doubt that they occurred. The idea here is, that he had met with constant danger wherever he was, whether in the busy haunts of men, or in the solitude and loneliness of the desert.

In the sea. 2Cor 11:25.

Among false brethren. This was the crowning danger and trial to Paul, as it is to all others. A man can better bear danger by land and water, among robbers and in deserts, than he can bear to have his confidence abused, and to be subjected to the action and the arts of spies upon his conduct. Who these were he has not informed us. He mentions it as the chief trial to which he had been exposed, that he had met those who pretended to be his friends, and who yet had sought every possible opportunity to expose and destroy him. Perhaps he has here a delicate reference to the danger which he apprehended from the false brethren in the church at Corinth.

(a) "by mine own countrymen" Acts 14:5 Verse 27. In weariness. Resulting from travelling, exposure, labour, and want. The word κοπω (from κοπτω, to beat, to cut) means, properly, wailing and grief, accompanied with beating the breast. Hence the word means toil, labour, wearisome effort.

And painfulness. This word (μοχθω) is a stronger term than the former. It implies painful effort; labour producing sorrow; and, in the New Testament, is uniformly connected with the word rendered "weariness," (1Thes 2:9; 2Thes 3:8,) rendered in both those places "travail."

In watchings often. In loss of sleep, arising from abundant toils and from danger. 2Cor 6:5.

In hunger and thirst. From travelling among strangers, and being dependent on them and on his own personal labours. 1Cor 4:11.

In fastings often. Either voluntary or involuntary. 2Cor 6:5.

In cold and nakedness. 1Cor 4:11.

(b) "watchings often" Acts 20:31 (c) "hunger and thirst" 1Cor 4:11 Verse 28. Beside those things that are without. In addition to these external trials, these trials pertaining' to the body, I have mental trials and anxieties resulting from the necessary care of all the churches. But on the meaning of these words, commentators are not agreed. Rosenmuller supposes that the phrase means, "Besides those things that come from other sources, "that I may omit other things.". Beza, Erasmus, Bloomfield, and some others, suppose that the passage means those things out of the regular routine of his office. Doddridge, "Besides foreign affairs." Probably the sense is, "Apart from the things beside," (χωριςτωνπαρεκτος;) not to mention other matters; or, if other matters should be laid aside, there is this continually rushing anxiety arising from the care of all the churches. That is, this would be enough in itself. Laying aside all that arises from hunger, thirst, cold, etc., this continual care occupies my mind, and weighs upon my heart.

That which cometh upon me daily. There is great force in the original here. The phrase rendered "that which cometh upon me" means, properly, "that which rushes upon me." The word (επισυστασις means, properly, a concourse, a crowd, hence a tumult; and the idea here is, that these cares rushed upon him, or pressed upon him like a crowd of men or a mob that bore all before it. This is one of Paul's most energetic expressions, and denotes the incessant anxiety of mind to which he was subject.

The care of all the churches. The care of the numerous churches which he had established, and which needed his constant supervision. They were young; many of them were feeble; many were made up of heterogeneous materials; many composed of Jews and Gentiles mingled together, with conflicting prejudices, habits, preferences; many of them were composed of those who had been gathered from the lowest ranks of life; and questions would be constantly occurring, relating to their order and discipline, in which Paul would feel a deep interest, and which would naturally be referred to him for decision. Besides this, they had many trials. They were persecuted, and would suffer much. In their sufferings Paul would feel deep sympathy, and would desire, as far as possible, to afford them relief. In addition to the churches which he had planted, he would feel an interest in all others; and doubtless many cases would be referred to him, as an eminent apostle, for counsel and advice. No wonder that all this came rushing on him like a tumultuous assembly ready to overpower him.

(d) "care of all the churches" Acts 15:36-41 Verse 29. Who is weak, etc. I sympathize with all. I feel where others feel, and their sorrows excite deep sympathetic emotions in my bosom. Like a tender and compassionate friend I am affected when I see others in circumstances of distress. The word weak here may refer to any want of strength, any infirmity or feebleness arising either from body or mind. It may include all who were feeble by persecution or by disease; or it may refer to the weak in faith and doubtful about their duty, (1Cor 9:22,) and to those who were burdened with mental sorrows. The idea is, that Paul had a deep sympathy in all who needed such sympathy from any cause. And the statement here shows the depth of feeling of this great apostle; and shows what should be the feeling of every pastor. Rom 12:15.

And I am not weak? I share his feelings, and sympathize with him. If he suffers, I suffer. Bloomfield supposes that Paul means, that in the case of those who were weak in the faith he accommodated himself to their weakness, and thus became all things to all men. 1Cor 9:22. But it seems to me probable that he uses the phrase here in a more general sense, as denoting that he sympathized with those who were weak and feeble in all their circumstances.

Who is offended. σκανδαλιζεται. Who is scandalized. The word means, properly, to cause to stumble and fall; hence to be a stumbling-block to any one; to give or cause offence to any one. The idea here seems to be, "Who is liable to be led astray; who has temptations and trials that are likely to lead him to sin or to cause him to fall, and I do not burn with impatience to restore him, or with indignation against the tempter?" In all such cases Paul deeply sympathized with them, and was prompt to aid them.

And I burn not? That is, with anger or with great agitation of mind at learning that any one had fallen into sin. This may either mean that he would burn with indignation against those who had led them into sin, or be deeply excited in view of the disgrace which would be thus brought on the Christian cause. In either case it means that his mind would be in a glow of emotion; he would feel deeply; he could not look upon such things with indifference, or without being deeply agitated. With all he sympathized; and the condition of all, whether in a state of feeble faith, or feeble body, or falling into sin, excited the deepest emotions in his mind. The truth here taught is, that Paul felt a deep sympathy for all others who bore the Christian name, and this sympathy for others greatly increased the cares and toils of the apostolic office which he sustained. But having given this exposition, candour compels me to acknowledge that the whole verse may mean, "Who is feeble in the faith in regard to certain observances and rites and customs, (1Cor 9:22,) and I do not also evince the same? I do not rouse their prejudices, or wound their feelings, or alarm them. On the other hand, who is scandalized, or led into sin by the example of others in regard to such custom; who is led by the example of others into transgression, and I do not burn with indignation?" In either case, however, the general sense is, that he sympathized with all others.

(e) "is weak" 1Cor 9:22 (*) "offended" "stumbleth" Verse 30. If I must needs glory. It is unpleasant for me to boast, but circumstances have compelled me. But since I am compelled, I will not boast of my rank, or talents, but of that which is regarded by some as an infirmity.

Mine infirmities. Greek, "the things of my weakness." The word here used is derived from the same word which is rendered "weak" in 2Cor 11:29. He intends doubtless to refer here to what had preceded in his enumeration of the trials which he had endured. He had spoken of sufferings. He had endured much. He had also spoken of that tenderness of feeling which prompted him to sympathize so deeply when others suffered. He admitted that he often wept, and trembled, and glowed with strong feelings on occasions which perhaps to many would not seem to call for such strong emotions, and which they might be disposed to set down as a weakness or infirmity. This might especially be the case among the Greeks, where many philosophers, as the Stoics, were disposed to regard all sympathetic feeling, and all sensitiveness to suffering, as an infirmity. But Paul admitted that he was disposed to glory in this alone. He gloried that he had suffered so much; that he had endured so many trials on account of Christianity; and that he had a mind that was capable of feeling for others, and of entering into their sorrows and trials. Well might he do this; for there is no more lovely feature in the mind of a virtuous man, and there is no more lovely influence of Christianity than this, that it teaches us to "bear a brother's woes," and to sympathize in all the sorrows and joys of others. Philosophy and infidelity may be dissocial, cheerless, cold; but it is not so with Christianity. Philosophy may snap asunder all the cords which bind us to the living world; but Christianity strengthens these cords. Cold and cheerless atheism and scepticism may teach us to look with unconcern on a suffering world; but it is the glory of Christianity that it teaches us to feel an interest in the weal or woe of the obscurest man that lives, to rejoice in his joy and to weep in his sorrows.

(a) "will glory" 2Cor 12:5,9,10 Verse 31. The God and Father, etc. Paul was accustomed to make solemn appeals to God for the truth of what he said, especially when it was likely to be called in question. See 2Cor 11:10. Comp. Rom 9:1. The solemn appeal which he here makes to God is made in view of what he had just said of his sufferings, not of what follows--for there was nothing in the occurrence at Damascus that demanded so solemn an appeal to God. The reason of this asseveration is, probably, that the transactions to which he had referred were known to but few, and perhaps not all of them to even his best friends; that his trials and calamities had been so numerous and extraordinary that his enemies would say that they were improbable, and that all this had been the mere fruit of exaggeration; and as he had no witnesses to appeal to for the truth of what he said, he makes a solemn appeal to the ever-blessed God. This appeal is made with great reverence. It is not rash, or bold, and is by no means irreverent or profane, he appeals to God as the Father of the Redeemer whom he so much. venerated and loved, and as himself blessed for evermore. If all appeals to: God were made on as important occasions as this, and with the same profound veneration and reverence, such appeals would never be improper, and we should never be shocked, as we are often now, when men appeal to God. This passage proves that an appeal to God on great occasions is not improper; it proves also that it should be done with profound veneration.

(b) "God and Father" Gal 1:3 (c) "which is blessed" Rom 9:5 (d) "that I lie not" 1Thes 2:5 Verse 32. In Damascus. This circumstance is mentioned as an additional trial. It is evidently mentioned as an instance of peril which had escaped his recollection in the rapid account of his dangers enumerated in the previous verses. It is designed to show what imminent danger he was in, and how narrowly he escaped with his life. On the situation of Damascus, Acts 9:2. The transaction here referred to is also related by Luke, (Acts 9:24,25,) though without mentioning the name of the king, or referring to the fact that the governor kept the city with a garrison.

The governor. Greek, οεθναρχης, the ethnarch; properly a ruler of the people, a prefect, a ruler, a chief. Who he was is unknown, though he was evidently some officer under the king. It is not improbable that he was a Jew, or at any rate he was one who could be influenced by the Jews, and who was doubtless excited by the Jews to guard the city, and if possible to take Paul as a malefactor. Luke informs us (Acts 9:23,24) that the Jews took counsel against Paul to kill him, and that they watched the gates night and day to effect their object. They doubtless represented Paul as an apostate, and as aiming to overthrow their religion. He had come with an important commission to Damascus, and had failed to execute it; he had become the open friend of those whom he came to destroy; and they doubtless claimed of the civil authorities of Damascus that he should be given up and taken to Jerusalem for trial. It was not difficult, therefore, to secure the co-operation, of the governor of the city in the case, and there is no improbability in the statement.

Under Aretas the king. There were three kings of this name who are particularly mentioned by ancient writers. The first is mentioned in 2 Mac. v. 8, as the "king of the Arabians." He lived about one hundred and seventy years before Christ, and of course could not be the one referred to here. The second is mentioned in Josephus, Ant., b. xiii., chap. xv., & 2. He is first, mentioned as having reigned in Coelo-Syria, but as being called to the government of Damascus by those who dwelt there, on account of the hatred which they bore to Ptolemy Meneus. Whiston remarks in a note on Josephus, that this was the first king of the Arabians who took Damascus and reigned there, and that this name afterwards became common to such Arabian kings as reigned at Damascus and at Petra. See Josephus, Ant., b. xvi., chap. ix., . 4. Of course this king reigned some time before the transaction here referred to by Paul. A third king of this name, says Rosenmuller, is the one mentioned here. He was the father-in-law of Herod Antipas. He made war with his son-in-law Herod, because he had repudiated his daughter, the wife of Herod. This he had done in order to marry his brother Philip's wife. Mt 14:3. On this account, Aretas made war with Herod; and in order to resist him, Herod applied to Tiberius the Roman emperor for. aid. Vitellius was sent by Tiberius to subdue Aretas, and to bring him dead or alive to Rome. But before Vitellius had embarked in the enterprise, Tiberius died, and thus Aretas was saved from ruin. It is supposed that in this state of things, when thus waging war with Herod, he made an incursion to Syria and seized upon Damascus, where he was reigning when Paul went there; or if not reigning there personally, he had appointed an ethnarch or governor, who administered the affairs of the city in his place.

Kept the city, etc. Luke (Acts 9:24) says that they watched the gates day and. night to kill him. This was probably the Jews. Meantime the ethnarch guarded the city, to prevent his escape. The Jews would have killed him at once; the ethnarch wished to apprehend him and bring him to trial. In either case Paul had much to fear, and he therefore embraced the only way of escape.

With a garrison. The word which is used here in the original (φρουρεω) means simply to watch; to guard; to keep. Our translation would seem to imply that there was a body of men stationed in order to guard the city. The true idea is, that there were men who were appointed to guard the gates, of the city, and to keep watch lest he should escape them. Damascus was surrounded, as all ancient cities were, with high walls, and it did not occur to them that he could escape in any other way than by the gates.

(e) "the governor" Acts 9:24,25 Verse 33. And through a window. That is, through a little door or aperture in the wall; perhaps something like an embrasure, that might have been large enough to allow a man to pass through it. Luke says (Acts 9:25) that they let him down "by the wall." But there is no inconsistency. They doubtless first passed him through the embrasure or loop-hole in the wall, and then let him down gently by the side of it. Luke does not say it was over the top of the wall, but merely that he descended by the wall. It is not probable that an embrasure or opening would be near the bottom, and consequently there would be a considerable distance for him to descend by the side of the wall after he had passed through the window. Bloomfield, however, supposes that the phrase employed by Luke, and rendered "by the wall," means properly "through the wall." But I prefer the former interpretation.

In a basket. The word here used (σαργανη) means anything braided or twisted; hence a rope-basket, a net-work of cords, or a wicker hamper. It might have been such an one as was used for catching fish, or it might have been made for the occasion. The word used by Luke (Acts 9:25) is σπυρις-a word usually meaning a basket for storing grain, provisions, etc. Where Paul went immediately after he had escaped them, he does not here say. From Gal 1:17, it appears that he went into Arabia, where he spent some time, and then returned to Damascus, and after three years he went up to Jerusalem. It would not have been safe to have gone to Jerusalem at once; and he therefore waited for the passions of the Jews to have time to cool, before he ventured himself again in their hands.

Remarks on 2nd Corinthians Chapter 11

(1.) There may be circumstances, but they are rare, in which it may be proper to speak of our own attainments, and of our own doings, 2Cor 11:1. Boasting is in general nothing but folly--the fruit of pride; but there may be situations when to state what we have done may be necessary to the vindication of our own character, and may tend to honour God. Then we should do it--not to trumpet forth our own fame, but to glorify God, and to advance his cause. Occasions occur but rarely, however, in which it is proper to speak in this manner of ourselves.

(2.) The church should be pure. It is the bride of the Redeemer; the "Lamb's wife," 2Cor 11:2. It is soon to be presented to Christ, soon to be admitted to his presence. How holy should be that church which sustains such a relation! How anxious to be worthy to appear before the Son of God!

(3.) All the individual members of that church should be holy, 2Cor 11:2. They, as individuals, are soon to be presented in heaven as the fruit of the labours of the Son of God, and as entitled to his eternal love. How pure should be the lips that are soon to speak his praise in heaven! How pure the eyes that are soon to behold his glory! how holy the feet that are soon to tread his courts in the heavenly world!

(4.) There is great danger of being corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ, 2Cor 11:3. Satan desires to destroy us; and his great object is readily accomplished if he can seduce Christians from simple devotedness to the Redeemer; if he can secure corruption in doctrine or in the manner of worship, and can produce conformity in dress and in-the style of living to this world. Formerly, he excited persecution; but in that he was foiled. The more the church was persecuted, the more it grew. Then he changed his ground. What he could not do by persecution he sought to do by corrupting the church; and in this he has been by far more successful. This can be done slowly, but certainly; effectually, but without exciting suspicion. And it matters not to Satan whether the church is crippled by persecution, or its zeal destroyed by false doctrine and by conformity to the world. His aim is secured; and the power of the church destroyed. The form in which he now assails the church is by attempting to seduce it from simple and hearty attachment to the Saviour. And, oh, in how many instances is he successful!

(5.) Our religion has cost much suffering, We have in this chapter a detail of extraordinary trials and sorrows in establishing it; and we have reason to be thankful, in some degree, that the enemies of Paul made it necessary for him to boast in this manner. We have thus some most interesting details of facts of which otherwise we should have been ignorant; and we see that the life of Paul was a life of continual self-denial and toil. By sea and land; at home and abroad; among his own countrymen and strangers, he was subjected to continued privations and persecution. So it has been always in regard to the establishment of the gospel. It began its career in the sufferings of its great Author, and the foundation of the church was laid in his blood. It progressed amidst sufferings; for all the apostles, except John, it is supposed, were martyrs. It continued to advance amidst sufferings--for ten fiery persecutions raged throughout the Roman empire, and thousands died in consequence of their professed, attachment to the Saviour. It has been always propagated in heathen lands by self-denials and sacrifices, for the life of a missionary is that of sacrifice and toil. How many such men as David Brainerd and Henry Martyn have sacrificed their lives in order to extend the true religion around the world!

(6.) All that we enjoy is the fruit of the sufferings, toils, and sacrifices of others. We have not one Christian privilege or hope which has not cost the life of many a martyr. How thankful should we be to God that he was pleased to raise up men who would be willing thus to suffer, and that he sustained and kept them until their work was accomplished!

(7.) We may infer the sincerity of the men engaged in propagating the Christian religion. What had Paul to gain in the sorrows which he endured? Why did he not remain in his own land, and reap the honours which were then fully within his grasp? The answer is an easy one. It was because he believed that Christianity was true; and believing that, he believed that it was of importance to make it known to the world. Paul did not endure these sorrows, and encounter these perils, for the sake of pleasure, honour, or gain. No man who reads this chapter can doubt that he was sincere, and that he was an honest man.

(8.) The Christian religion is therefore true. Not because the first preachers were sincere--for the advocates of error are often sincere, and are willing to suffer much, or even to die as martyrs; but because this was a case when their sincerity proved the facts in regard to the truth of Christianity. It was not sincerity in regard to opinions merely, it was in regard to facts. They not only believed that the Messiah had come, and died, and risen again, but they saw him-- saw him when he lived; saw him die; saw him after he was risen; and it was in relation to these facts that they were sincere. But how could they be deceived here? Men may be deceived in their opinions; but how could John, e.g., be deceived in affirming that he was intimately acquainted--the bosom friend--with Jesus of Nazareth; that he saw him die; and that he had conversed with him after he had died? In this he could not be mistaken; and sooner than deny this, John would have spent his whole life in a cave in Patmos, or have died on the cross or at the stake. But if John saw all this, then the Christian religion is true.

(9.) We should be willing to suffer now. If Paul and the other apostles were willing to endure so much, why should not we be? If they were willing to deny themselves so much in order that the gospel should be spread among the nations, why should not we be? It is now just as important that it should be spread as it was then; and the church should be just as willing to sacrifice its comforts to make the gospel known as it was in the days of Paul. We may add, also, that if there was the same devotedness to Christ evinced by all Christians now which is described in this chapter; if there was the same zeal and self-denial, the time would not be far distant when the gospel would be spread all around the world. May the time soon come when all Christians shall have the same self-denial as Paul; and especially when all who enter the ministry shall be WILLING to forsake country and home, and to encounter peril in the city and the wilderness, on the sea and the land--to meet cold, and nakedness, hunger, thirst, persecution, and death in any way--in order that they may make known the name of the Saviour to a lost world!

Galatians 1:11-12

Verse 11. But I certify you. I make known to you; or, I declare to you. See 1Cor 15:1. Doubtless this had been known to them before, but he now assures them of it, and goes into an extended illustration to show them that he had not received his authority from man to preach the gospel. To state and prove this is the main design of this chapter.

Is not after man. Greek, not according to man. See Gal 1:1. That is, he was not appointed by man, nor had he any human instructor to make known to him what the gospel was. He had neither received it from man, nor had it been debased or adulterated by any human admixtures. He had received it directly from the Lord Jesus.

(*) "certify" "declare to" Verse 12. For I neither received it of man. This is very probably said in reply to his opponents, who had maintained that Paul had derived his knowledge of the gospel from other men, as he had not been personally known to the Lord Jesus, or been of the number of those whom he called to be his apostles. In reply to this, he says, that he did not receive his gospel in any way from man.

Neither was I taught it. That is, by man. He was not taught it by any written account of it, or by the instruction of man in any way. The only plausible objection to this statement which could be urged would be the fact that Paul had an interview with Ananias Acts 9:17 before his baptism, and that he would probably receive instructions from him. But to this it may be replied,

(1.) that there is no evidence that Ananias went into an explanation of the nature of the Christian religion in his interview with Paul;

(2.) Paul had before this been taught what Christianity was by his interview with the Lord Jesus on the way to Damascus, Acts 9:5, 26:14-18;

(3.) the purpose for which Ananias was sent to him in Damascus was that he might receive his sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, Acts 9:17. Whatever instructions he may have received through Ananias, it is still true that his call was directly from the Lord Jesus, and his information of the nature of Christianity from his revelation.

But by the revelation of Jesus Christ. On his way to Damascus, and subsequently in the temple, Acts 22:17-21. Doubtless he received communications at various times from the Lord Jesus with regard to the nature of the gospel and his duty, The sense here is, that he was not indebted to men for his knowledge of the gospel, but had derived it entirely from the Saviour.

(a) "I neither received" 1Cor 15:1-3 (b) "revelation" Eph 3:3