Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need (as some do) epistles of commendation to you, or from you?

“He anticipates and puts himself an objection which others would have urged against him, 'Thou vauntest thyself;' and this though he had before employed so strong a corrective in the expressions, "Who is sufficient for these things?" and, "of sincerity... speak we." Howbeit he is not satisfied with these. For such is his character. From appearing to say any thing great of himself he is far removed, and avoids it even to great superfluity and excess. And mark, I pray thee, by this instance also, the abundance of his wisdom. For a thing of woeful aspect, I mean tribulations, he so much exalted and showed to be bright and lustrous, that out of what he said the present objection rose up against him. And he expresses this again with vehemence in that place, and with more of encouragement. For here the words are those of love, "Need we, as do some, epistles of commendation?" but there what he says is full of a kind of pride even, necessarily and properly so, of pride, I say, and anger. "For we commend not ourselves again," saith he, "but speak as giving you occasion to glory;" and, "Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto you? For in the sight of God speak we in Christ. For I fear lest by any means when I come I should not find you such as I would, and should myself be found of you such as ye would not." For to prevent all appearance of a wish to flatter, as though he desired honor from them, he speaketh thus, "I fear lest by any means when I come I should not find you such as I would, and should myself be found of you such as ye would not." This however comes after many accusations; But in the beginning he speaketh not so, but more gently. And what is it he saith? He spoke of his trials and his perils, and that every where he is conducted as in procession by God in Christ, and that the whole world knoweth of these triumphs. Since then he has uttered great things of himself, he urges this objection against himself, "Are we beginning again to commend ourselves?" Now what he saith is this: Perchance some one will object, 'What is this, O Paul? Sayest thou these things of thyself, and exaltest thyself?' To do away then with this suspicion, he saith, We desire not this, that is, to boast and exalt ourselves; yea, so far are we from needing epistles of commendation to you that ye are to us instead of an epistle.”

“After the Apostle has set forth his excuse, in which he sought the goodwill of his hearers, here he consequently pursues his intention, namely treating of the ministers of the new testament. And concerning this he does two things. For first he commends the dignity of good ministers; but second he sets out at length the malice of evil ministers, and this from chapter 10 onward. Concerning the first he does two things. For first he commends the ministry of the new testament; second he commends the use of this ministry in others, exhorting them to it, at chapter 6: "but helping," etc. Concerning the first he commends this ministry of the new testament from three things. First from its dignity, in this chapter; second from its use, in chapter 4, at "therefore having," etc.; third from its reward, in chapter 5, at "for we know that if," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he removes a certain objection; second he commends the ministers of the new testament, at "who has also made us fit," etc. Concerning the first it must be known that the Apostle intends to commend the ministers of the new testament, of whom he himself was one. And therefore, lest the Corinthians should object to him that in this he wished to commend himself, he immediately excludes this, saying, "we begin again ourselves," etc. Where he does two things. First he raises a question; second he responds, at, namely, "or do we need," etc. His question is this: I say that we are not adulterating the word of God, as the pseudo, but from sincerity, as from God. But by saying this, do we begin again to commend ourselves, that is, do we say these things because we wish to seek our own glory and not God's? And he says "again," because in the first epistle he had commended himself enough, when he said: "as a wise master-builder," etc. Therefore we do not say this in order to seek our own glory, but God's. Prov. 27:2: "let a stranger praise you," etc. But he responds to this question when he says, "or do we need," etc. And he shows that he does not gladly commend himself. And concerning this he does two things. First he shows that he does not need the commendation of men; second, that he does not even require this from them, at "but such confidence," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that he does not need their commendation for his own glory; second he assigns the cause of this, at "you are our epistle," etc. He says therefore: I say that we do not begin to commend ourselves, because we do not need commendation. And this is what he says: "or do we need," we true ministers, as certain ones, namely the pseudo, letters of commendation, that is, praises sent, to you, from others, or from you, sent to others? But against this, in Col. 4:10 it is said: "Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received a command," etc. Also, the legates of the Pope always carry letters of commendation. Therefore it is not evil. I respond. It must be said that to receive letters of this kind from famous persons, so that only through them are they commended and honored, until they themselves come into notice from their own good works, this is not evil; this the legates of the Pope do. But the Apostle was already so known and commended among these people through his own works, that he did not need letters of commendation. And therefore, immediately assigning the cause of this, he adds: "you are our epistle." As if he were to say: I have good letters, I do not need others. And therefore concerning this he does two things. For first he shows what this letter is that he has; second he explains this same thing, at "manifested," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows what that letter is; second he shows it to be sufficient for his own commendation, at "written," etc. He says therefore thus: "you are our epistle," that is, the epistle through which our dignity is manifested, by which we are commended, so that we do not need other letters. Above, chapter 2: "you are our glory." Gal. 4:19: "my little children, whom I am again in labor for," etc. But is this letter sufficient? Yes, because "written," etc. Where he touches on two things that cause the sufficiency of letters of this kind. One is that it be understood and known by him for whom it is sent, otherwise he would still be seeking it, unless he knew that he had it. And as to this he says, "written in our hearts," because we always hold you in memory, having a special care for you. Phil. 1:7: "because I hold you," etc. The second is that he to whom it is sent should read and know it, otherwise he would not care about its commendation. And as to this he says, "which is known and read by all men." It is known, I say, because you have been instructed and converted through us. But it is read, because by our example others also imitate you. Hab. 2:2: "write the vision, and make it plain upon tablets, that he who reads it may run." But how this epistle is known, he explains, saying "manifested," etc. And concerning this he does three things. First he explains whose this letter is; second, how it is written; and third, in what. But whose it is, he shows thus, that it is Christ's. And therefore he says, "manifested, that you are of Christ," that is, formed and led by Christ, namely principally and authoritatively. Matt. 23:8: "one is your master." But by us secondarily and instrumentally. And therefore he says, "ministered by us." 1 Cor. 4:1: "let a man so regard us," etc. 1 Cor. 3:4: "what then is Cephas," etc. But how it is written, he shows, that it is not with ink, that is, not mixed with errors, as the pseudo-apostles; not changeable and imperfect, like the old law, which brought no one to perfection, Heb. 7:19. For ink is black, by which error is understood, and erasable, by which changeableness is understood. It is not, I say, written with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, that is, with the Holy Spirit, by whom you live, and by whose teaching you have been instructed. Eph. 1:13: "in whom you have been sealed." But where it is written he suggests, adding, "not on tablets of stone," as the old law, so as to exclude hardness, as if he were to say: not in hearts of stone having hardness, like the Jews. Acts 7:51: "stiff-necked," etc. But "on the fleshly tablets of the heart," that is, in hearts wide from charity, and fleshly, that is, soft from an affection of fulfilling and understanding. Ezek. 36:26: "I will take away from you the heart of stone," etc. "But such confidence," etc. The Apostle above excused himself, that he did not seek his own glory because he did not need it; but here he proves that he himself does not seek his own glory, indeed he does not attribute all the good that he does to himself, but to God. And concerning this he does two things. For first he attributes all the good that he has and does to God; second he assigns the cause of this, at "not that we are sufficient," etc. He says therefore first: I say that we do not need letters of commendation, and that you are our epistle, ministered by us. Nor do we even seek our own glory, but Christ's. And "such confidence," that is, of saying such things, "we have toward God," that is, we refer it to God. Or a confidence tending toward God, from whose strength I say this, because he himself works in me. Which confidence indeed we have "through Christ," through whom we have access to the Father, as it is said in Rom. 5:2, who has united us to God. Jer. 17:7: "blessed is the man," etc. And because united to God through Christ, I have this confidence. Ps. 11:6: "I will act with confidence," etc. But the cause of this confidence is that whatever I do, even the very beginning of the work, I attribute to God. And therefore he says, "not that we are sufficient to think," let alone to say, or to fulfill. For in any process of a work, first there is assent, which comes about through thinking, then a bringing together through the word, and afterward fulfillment through the deed; hence it follows that thus no one has even the thinking from himself, but from God; for there is no doubt that not only the perfection of a good work is from God, but also its beginning. Phil. 1:6: "who has begun a good work in you," etc. And this is against the Pelagians, who say that the beginning of a good work is from us, but the perfection is from God. Isa. 26:12: "all our works," etc. But from this, lest he should seem to take away the freedom of the will, he says "from us, as it were from ourselves," as if he were to say: I can indeed do something, which belongs to free will, but this, which I do, is not from me, but from God, who confers this very power; so that thus he both defends the freedom of man when he says "from us," that is, from our part, and commends the divine grace, when he says "as it were," namely that it proceeds from ourselves, but is from God. The Philosopher also holds this, that man can never do a certain good by free will, without the help of God. And his reasoning is this, that in those things which we do, that must be sought for the sake of which we do them. But it is not possible to proceed to infinity, but one must arrive at something first, namely at counsel. So therefore I do good, because counsel toward this is present in me, and this is from God. Hence he says that the counsel of good is from someone who is above man, moving him to act well. And this is God, who moves both men and all things that act, to their actions, but in different ways. For since a motion of this kind is something received in the thing moved, it is necessary that this come about according to the manner of its own nature, that is, of the thing moved. And therefore he moves all things according to their natures. Those things, therefore, whose nature it is to be of free will, having dominion over their own actions, he moves freely to their operations, as rational and intellectual creatures. But other things not freely, but according to the manner of their nature. But although we are not sufficient to think anything from ourselves, as it were from ourselves, nevertheless we have some sufficiency, by which, namely, we can will the good and begin to believe, and this is from God. 1 Cor. 4:7: "what do you have, that you have not received?"”

“Do we begin again to commend ourselves f At the end of the last chapter the Apostle had seemed to praise himself and seek the favour of the Corinthians, hence he meets here any suspicion of vain-glory. Or need we . . . epistles of commendation to you ... or from you ? From you , />., written by you to commend me to others”

“In these verses, I. The apostle makes an apology for seeming to commend himself. He thought it convenient to protest his sincerity to them, because there were some at Corinth who endeavoured to blast his reputation; yet he was not desirous of vain-glory. And he tells them, 1. That he neither needed nor desired any verbal commendation to them, nor letters testimonial from them, as some others did, meaning the false apostles or teachers, Co2 3:1. His ministry among them had, without controversy, been truly great and honourable, how little soever his person was in reality, or how contemptible soever some would have him thought to be. 2. The Corinthians themselves were his real commendation, and a good testimonial for him, that God was with him of a truth, that he was sent of God: You are our epistle, Co2 3:2. This was the testimonial he most delighted in, and what was most dear to him - they were written in his heart; and this he could appeal to upon occasion, for it was, or might be, known and read of all men. Note, There is nothing more delightful to faithful ministers, nor more to their commendation, than the success of their ministry, evidenced in the hearts and lives of those among whom they labour. II. The apostle is careful not to assume too much to himself, but to ascribe all the praise to God. Therefore, 1. He says they were the epistle of Christ, Co2 3:3. The apostle and others were but instruments, Christ was the author of all the good that was in them. The law of Christ was written in their hearts, and the love of Christ shed abroad in their hearts. This epistle was not written with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; nor was it written in tables of stone, as the law of God given to Moses, but on the heart; and that heart not a stony one, but a heart of flesh, upon the fleshy (not fleshly, as fleshliness denotes sensuality) tables of the heart, that is, upon hearts that are softened and renewed by divine grace, according to that gracious promise, I will take away the stony heart, and I will give you a heart of flesh, Eze 36:26. This was the good hope the apostle had concerning these Corinthians (Co2 3:4) that their hearts were like the ark of the covenant, containing the tables of the law and the gospel, written with the finger, that is, by the Spirit, of the living God. 2. He utterly disclaims the taking of any praise to themselves, and ascribes all the glory to God: "We are not sufficient of ourselves, Co2 3:5. We could never have made such good impressions on your hearts, nor upon our own. Such are our weakness and inability that we cannot of ourselves think a good thought, much less raise any good thoughts or affections in other men. All our sufficiency is of God; to him therefore are owing all the praise and glory of that good which is done, and from him we must receive grace and strength to do more." This is true concerning ministers and all Christians; the best are no more than what the grace of God makes them. Our hands are not sufficient for us, but our sufficiency is of God; and his grace is sufficient for us, to furnish us for every good word and work.”

“Do we begin again to commend ourselves?.... The apostle having asserted that he and his fellow ministers always triumphed in Christ, and made manifest the savour of his knowledge in every place; were a sweet savour of Christ to God, did not corrupt the word of God, as some did, but sincerely and faithfully preached Christ; some might insinuate from hence, that he was guilty of arrogance and vain glory; wherefore to remove such a charge, or prevent its being brought, he asks, "do we begin again to commend ourselves?" we do not; what we say, we say honestly, sincerely, in the simplicity of our hearts, without any view to our own glory and applause among men, or for any worldly profit and advantage, or to ingratiate ourselves into your affections; we have no such views: some read these words without an interrogation, "we do begin again to commend ourselves"; as we have done already, in this and the former epistles; and as it is but just and right that we should vindicate our characters, support our good name and reputation, and secure and maintain our credit, which some would maliciously deprive us of: though we have no need, as some others, of epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you; our persons, characters, and usefulness are too well known, to require commendatory letters front others to you, or from you to others. The false apostles are here struck at, whose practice it was to get letters of commendation from place to place; which they carried about and made use of for their temporal advantage, having nothing truly good and excellent in them to recommend them to others. The apostle does not hereby condemn letters of recommendation, which in proper cases may be very lawfully given, and a good use be made of them; only that he and other Gospel ministers were so well known, as to stand in no need of them.”

“Do we begin again to commend ourselves - By speaking thus of our sincerity, Divine mission, etc., is it with a design to conciliate your esteem, or ingratiate ourselves in your affections? By no means. Or need we - epistles of commendation - Are we so destitute of ministerial abilities and Divine influence that we need, in order to be received in different Churches, to have letters of recommendation? Certainly not. God causes us to triumph through Christ in every place; and your conversion is such an evident seal to our ministry as leaves no doubt that God is with us. Letters of commendation - Were frequent in the primitive Church; and were also in use in the apostolic Church, as we learn from this place. But these were, in all probability, not used by the apostles; their helpers, successors, and those who had not the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, needed such letters and they were necessary to prevent the Churches from being imposed on by false teachers. But when apostles came, they brought their own testimonials, the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit.”

“The apostle had been obliged, in different parts of his first epistle, to say some things to his own advantage, in order to maintain the dignity of his ministry against false teachers, who had endeavoured to lessen his authority. He is again obliged to shew the excellency of his ministry, and the superiority of the gospel over the law of Moses. (Theodoret) — We have not need, he says, of commendatory letters, like those false teachers: we have only to say that we founded the Church of Corinth, and we shall be sufficiently known. Your religion, your piety, and your virtues are renowned in the whole world. (ver. 2.) This is our letter: we have no need to speak: the effects speak for themselves. But still this is not our doing; for we are not sufficient to think any thing of ourselves. (ver. 5.) This letter is not of our writing; we could only do the same as Moses in the old law, prepare the tables, (ministered by us) it was God himself that wrote the ten commandments, and it is God himself that has written this our letter, by implanting his faith in your hearts. (Calmet)”