Whereas then I was thus minded, did I use lightness? Or, the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that there should be with me, It is, and It is not?

“"When I therefore was thus minded, did I show fickleness?" Here in what follows, he directly does away with the charge arising out of his delay and absence. For what he says is of this nature. "I was minded to come unto you." "Wherefore then did I not come? Is it as light-minded and changeable?" for this is, "did I show fickleness?" By no means. But wherefore? "Because what things I purpose, I purpose not according to the flesh." What is, "not according to the flesh?" I purpose not "carnally." "That with me there should be the yea yea and the nay nay." But still even this is obscure. What is it then he says? The carnal man, that is, he that is rivetted to the present things and is continually occupied in them, and is without the sphere of the Spirit's influence, has power to go every where, and to wander whithersoever he will. But he that is the servant of the Spirit, and is led, and led about by Him, cannot everywhere be lord of his own purpose, having made it dependent upon the authority thence given; but it so fares with him as if a trusty servant, whose motions are always ruled by his lord's biddings and who has no power over himself nor is able to rest even a little, should make some promise to his fellow-servants, and then because his master would have it otherwise should fail to perform his promise. This then is what he means by, "I purpose not according to the flesh." I am not beyond the Spirit's governance, nor have liberty to go where I will. For I am subject to lordship and commands, the Comforter's, and by His decrees I am led, and led about. For this cause I was unable to come, for it was not the Spirit's will.”

“The Apostle, having won the good will of the Corinthians, next adds his excuse, and concerning this he does three things. First he sets forth his intention; second, under the form of a question, he sets out the accusation made against him by them, at the words when therefore this, etc.; third, he excuses himself, at the words but God is faithful. Concerning the first, it should be known that the Apostle, in a first letter (which we do not have) sent by him to the Corinthians, or through a messenger, had promised them that he would come to them first, before going into Macedonia, and through them would go into Macedonia, and again from there would return to Achaia, in which Corinth is, and from Achaia into Judea; but afterward, in the second letter, which we have as the first, he writes to them that he would go first into Macedonia, and afterward come to Corinth. Since therefore, according to this, it seems contrary to the first promise, the Apostle now excuses himself concerning this, setting forth first the promise itself as it was first made, and therefore he says and in this confidence, as if to say: you know my purity and my sincerity, and you are my witnesses, and my glory; therefore in this confidence, that is, trusting in this — since we hope to be glorified through one another — I wished to come to you first, that you might have a second grace, because a second visitation and confirmation in the faith is called a second grace with respect to the conversion which they first had through his ministry and preaching. And through you to pass into Macedonia, and again from Macedonia to come to you, and by you to be led on into Judea. This is the order of the first promise, but in the preceding letter the order is contrary, as has been said. Next he sets forth, under the form of a question, the accusation of this change, by which the Corinthians accused him, saying when therefore I had willed this, etc. Two things they imputed to him from this: fickleness, because he had changed his purpose — Ecclesiasticus 27:12: the fool is changed as the moon — and carnality, because it seemed to them that he had done this from some carnal and human affection. Hence he touches on these two, and first fickleness, and so he says did I use fickleness, if I did not do what I once willed? Far from it. Esther 16:9: nor should you think, if we command different things, that it comes from fickleness of mind. Psalm 34:18: in a weighty people, etc. Second he touches on carnality when he says or do the things which I think — whether to be done or to be left undone — do I think according to the flesh, that is, according to some carnal affection, so that with me there is yes and no, that is, affirmation and negation? Below, 10:2: they think that we walk according to the flesh. James 1:8: a man double-minded, etc. Having set out their accusation, he next excuses himself, saying but God is faithful, etc., and concerning this he does two things. First he intimates that he had not lied; second he shows the manner in which he was not lying, at the words but he who confirms, etc. That he had not lied, he excuses himself in two ways, namely from custom, and from cause. From custom indeed, because it ought not to be believed that someone easily lies who has never been found a liar; and according to this exposition, but God is faithful, etc., is taken in the force of an oath, as if to say: let God be my witness, that my word — namely of preaching — which was among you, is not in it yes and no, that is, there is no falsity in it. Deuteronomy 32:4: God faithful, and without any, etc. But if but God is faithful, etc., be taken for the truth of the divine promise, then the sense is: God is faithful, that is, he keeps his promises. Now he had promised to send to you preachers of truth, Jeremiah 3:15: I will give you shepherds according to heart, etc., and therefore, since I have been sent by him, our word which was, etc., as above. From cause he excuses himself, when he says for the Son of God. And this in two ways, namely the motive cause and the efficient cause, at the words but he who confirms, etc. Now the motive cause for not lying is this, that whoever takes up some office is naturally moved toward the things that are fitting to that office, and not toward the contrary. But it is evident that the apostolic office is to preach the truth; therefore he is not moved toward the contrary of truth, which is to lie. And concerning this he does three things. First he proves the truth of his own word through the word of Christ; second, the truth of Christ through the word of God, at the words for how many soever, etc.; third he concludes his intention, at the words therefore also through him, etc. He says therefore first: I say that our words ought to be reckoned true, and they are true, because we have preached Christ, in whom there was no falsity. And this is what he says, for the Son of God, Christ, who has been preached by us among you; by me, namely principally, and Silvanus, secondarily (this is Silas, of whom mention is made in Acts 18:5), and Timothy, of whom mention was made above. For these two were with the Apostle when he first converted them. In him, namely the Son of God, there was not yes and no, that is, falsity, nor did he do what was not fitting. But in him there was yes, that is, truth; for the true and being are convertible. John 14:6: I am the way, the truth, and the life. But because what he says might seem doubtful — that in Christ there was no falsity — he immediately proves this, adding for how many soever, etc. And he proves it in this way. It is evident that in that which is manifestative of the divine truth there cannot be falsity; the Son of God came to manifest the divine truth by fulfilling through himself the promises made by God; therefore in him there is no falsity. And this is what he says: in the Son of God there is not yes and no, but yes, because how many soever promises of God — namely, as have been made to men — in him, that is in Christ, are, that is, are verified and fulfilled in Christ. Romans 15:8: I say that Jesus Christ was a minister, etc. To confirm, etc. From these things, therefore, he concludes that since his words are true — because he preaches the Son of God, in whom is truth — therefore also through him, namely Christ, we say, amen to God, that is, true. Apocalypse 3:14: these things says the Amen, the faithful witness, etc. Isaiah 65:16: he who is blessed on the earth shall be blessed in God, amen, etc. And this truth we say to God, that is, to the honor of God, namely manifesting his truth and our glory, because our glory is your conversion. Or our glory, because our glory is to show forth and preach the word of God. Next, when he says but he who confirms, etc., the Apostle proves that he has not lied, through the efficient cause. For although a man, by free will, can use his tongue to speak either truth or falsehood, nevertheless God can confirm a man so firmly in truth that he speaks nothing but true things. If therefore God were to confirm someone in truth, it is manifest that he would not speak falsehood; but God confirms us in truth; therefore, etc. And therefore he says that it is God who confirms you with us in Christ, that is, in the true preaching of Christ, as if to say: if Christ were outside us, we could lie, but since he is with us, and we are in Christ, we do not lie. Psalm 74:4: I have confirmed its pillars, etc. We are therefore in Christ in two ways, namely through grace and through glory. Through grace indeed we are in him insofar as we have been anointed with the grace of the Holy Spirit, and have been made members of Christ, and joined to him. By which grace also Christ was anointed according as he is man. Psalm 44:8: God has anointed you, etc. And from the fullness of this anointing it overflowed onto all who are his, like the ointment on the head — namely on Christ — which descended, etc. And therefore he says that God has anointed us. He has anointed us, I say, as kings and priests. Apocalypse 5:10: you have made us to God, etc. 1 Peter 2:9: but you are a chosen race, etc. But the union which is through glory we do not have in reality, but in a certain hope, insofar as we have a firm hope of eternal life. And we have a twofold certitude of hope of attaining this union. One is through a sign, the other through a pledge. Through an evident sign, because of the faith. Hence he says he has sealed us with the sign of the faith of Christ. Likewise the sign of the cross. Ezekiel 9:4: mark thau, that is, the sign of the cross. Apocalypse 7:3: till we sign the servants of our God, etc. And this through the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9: if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, etc. And therefore it is a special and certain sign of attaining eternal life to be configured to Christ. Canticle of Canticles 8:6: set me as a seal, etc. Or he has sealed us with the sign of life. But through the pledge, the greatest, because of the Holy Spirit, and therefore he says he has given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts. Of which it is certain that no one can take it from us. But note, in a pledge two things are to be considered, namely that it produces the hope of having the thing, and that it is worth as much as the thing is worth, or more; and these two things are found in the Holy Spirit. For if we consider the substance of the Holy Spirit, thus the Holy Spirit is worth as much as eternal life, which is God himself, because he is worth as much as all three persons. But if the manner of having be considered, thus it produces hope, and not possession, of eternal life, because we do not yet perfectly have it in this life. And therefore we are not perfectly blessed, except when we shall have it perfectly in our homeland. Ephesians 1:13: you have been sealed with the Spirit. Next, when he says but I call God to witness, etc., he excuses himself concerning the fact that he did not come: and this through an oath, which is a greater thing. And concerning this he does three things. First he sets forth his excuse; second he answers a tacit question, at the words not that we dominate; third he explains what he says, at the words for by faith you stand. Now he excuses himself through a twofold oath. One of attestation, when he says but I call God to witness, the other of execration, when he says upon my soul, that is, against my soul. Romans 1:9: God is my witness, etc. As witness, I say, I call upon God, because I did not come again, that is, after the first time, or after I departed from you; and this I did, sparing you, namely because he knew them to be incorrigible. Hence, if he had gone then, either he would have punished them, and thus perhaps they would have withdrawn entirely from the faith; or he would not have punished them, and thus he would have given them occasion to sin the more. But because someone might say: why do you say sparing you? Are you not our lord? He therefore next removes this, saying not, I say, that we dominate over your faith, but are helpers, etc., as if to say: I do not say this as a lord, but as a fellow-helper. 1 Peter 5:3: not as lording it over the clergy, etc. A helper, I say, of your joy, or of your amendment. But why he says, of your faith, he next explains, saying for by faith you stand, that is, you stand in this grace of Christ through faith.”

“When I therefore was thus minded* did I use lightness t That is, when I proposed to come to you and did not. The Greek word for lightness is derived from the woid for a stag- In a like way we speak of the wisdom of the serpent, the innocence, of the dove; the stubbornness of the ass, the headiness of the elephant Or the things that I purpose , do I purpose according to the flesh t S. Paul did not form his determinations relying on human prudence and lightness, which readily change men’s designs, through worldly advantage or convenience, or the influence of superiors, nky, through the mere fickleness and changeability of natural inclination. So Ambrose. That with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay . I was not so unstable and purposeless as at one time to promise to come and at another to refuse, as boys often do. So Anselm”

“When I was therefore thus minded, did I use lightness?.... When I had thus determined to come to you, and had signified the same by writing, or messengers, did I use lightness in my resolutions and promises? did I act rashly, unadvisedly, and without consideration? did I promise certainly that I would come, without annexing any condition to it? did I not say, I would come to you shortly, if the Lord will? see Co1 4:19. Or the things that I purpose, do l purpose according to the flesh? do I consult myself? my own interest and advantage? do I seek the gratification of any carnal affection, as covetousness, ambition, or vain glory? &c. what sinister end could have been obtained, if I had come as I purposed, or is answered by my not coming? or when I have purposed anything, have I resolved upon it in my own strength? have I thought it lay in my own power to effect it? that with me there should be yea, yea, and nay, nay? as if I could make my "yea" continue "yea", and my "nay, nay?" when all actions are weighed by God, and all events are at his dispose; man appoints, and God disappoints; and who can help these things? or thus, has there appeared such contradictions in my words, and such inconstancy in my conduct, that my "yeas" are "nays", and my "nays yeas?" that I say one thing at one time, and another at another time, or both in the same breath? that I should say one thing, and mean another, on purpose to deceive, and change my mind and conduct without any reason?”

“use lightness--Was I guilty of levity? namely, by promising more than I performed. or . . . according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea, yea . . . nay, nay?--The "or" expresses a different alternative: Did I act with levity, or (on the other hand) do I purpose what I purpose like worldly (fleshly) men, so that my "yea" must at all costs be yea, and my "nay" nay [BENGEL, WINER, CALVIN], (Mat 14:7, Mat 14:9)? The repetition of the "yea" and "nay" hardly agrees with ALFORD'S view, "What I purpose do I purpose according to the changeable purposes of the fleshly (worldly) man, that there may be with me the yea yea, and the nay nay (that is, both affirmation and negation concerning the same thing)?" The repetition will thus stand for the single yea and nay, as in Mat 5:37; Jam 5:12. But the latter passage implies that the double "yea" here is not equivalent to the single "yea": BENGEL'S view, therefore, seems preferable.”