The interpretation timeline
2 Corinthians 3:5 Douay-Rheims

Not that we are sufficient to think any thing of ourselves, as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is from God.

A.D. 407 – 1871 7 witnesses 8 excerpts

Patristic

before A.D. 750
407
A.D.
John Chrysostom Patristic
A.D. 347–407
“See again, yet another corrective. For he possesses this virtue, humility I mean, in singular perfection. Wherefore whenever he saith any thing great of himself, he maketh all diligence to soften down extremely and by every means, what he has said. And so he does in this place also, saying, "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to account any thing as from ourselves:" that is, I said not, "We have confidence," as though part were ours and part God's; but I refer and ascribe the whole to Him.”
Source
“"Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to account any thing as from ourselves." See again, yet another corrective. For he possesses this virtue, humility I mean, in singular perfection. Wherefore whenever he saith any thing great of himself, he maketh all diligence to soften down extremely and by every means, what he has said. And so he does in this place also, saying, "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to account any thing as from ourselves:" that is, I said not, "We have confidence," as though part were ours and part God's; but I refer and ascribe the whole to Him. "For our sufficiency is from God; who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant." What means, "made us sufficient?" Made us able and fitting. And it is not a little thing to be the bearer to the world of such tables and letters, greater far than the former. Whence also he added, "Not of the letter, but of the spirit." See again another difference. What then? was not that Law spiritual? How then saith he, "We know that the Law is spiritual?" Spiritual indeed, but it bestowed not a spirit. For Moses bare not a spirit, but letters; but we have been entrusted with the giving of a spirit. Whence also in further completion of this [contrast,] he saith, "For the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." Yet these things he saith not absolutely; but in allusion to those who prided themselves upon the things of Judaism. And by "letter" here he meaneth the Law which punisheth them that transgress; but by "spirit" the grace which through Baptism giveth life to them who by sins were made dead. For having mentioned the difference arising from the nature of the tables, he doth not dwell upon it, but rapidly passing it by, bestows more labor upon this, which most enabled him to lay hold on his hearer from considerations of what was advantageous and easy; for, saith he, it is not laborious, and the gift it offers is greater. For if when discoursing of Christ, he puts especially forward those things which are of His lovingkindness, more than of our merit, and which are mutually connected, much greater necessity is there for his doing so when treating of the covenant. What then is the meaning of "the letter killeth?" He had said tables of stone and hearts of flesh: so far he seemed to mention no great difference. He added that the former [covenant] was written with letters or ink, but this with the Spirit. Neither did this rouse them thoroughly. He says at last what is indeed enough to give them wings; the one "killeth," the other "giveth life." And what doth this mean? In the Law, he that hath sin is punished; here, he that hath sins cometh and is baptized and is made righteous, and being made righteous, he liveth, being delivered from the death of sin. The Law, if it lay hold on a murderer, putteth him to death; the Gospel, if it lay hold on a murderer, enlighteneth, and giveth him life. And why do I instance a murderer? The Law laid hold on one that gathered sticks on a sabbath day, and stoned him. This is the meaning of, "the letter killeth." The Gospel takes hold on thousands of homicides and robbers, and baptizing delivereth them from their former vices. This is the meaning of, "the Spirit giveth life." The former maketh its captive dead from being alive, the latter rendereth the man it hath convicted alive from being dead. For, "come unto me, ye that labor and are heavy laden," and, He said not, "I will punish you," but, "I will give you rest." For in Baptism the sins are buried, the former things are blotted out, the man is made alive, the entire grace written upon his heart as it were a table. Consider then how high is the dignity of the Spirit, seeing that His tables are better than those former ones; seeing that even a greater thing is shown forth than the resurrection itself. For indeed, that state of death from which He delivers, is more irremediable than the former one: as much more so, as soul is of more value than the body: and this life is conferred by that, by that which the Spirit giveth. But if It be able to bestow this, much more then that which is less. For, that prophets wrought, but this they could not: for none can remit sins but God only; nor did the prophets bestow that life without the Spirit. But this is not the marvel only, that it giveth life, but that it enabled others also to do this. For He saith, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." Wherefore? Because without the Spirit it might not be? [Yes,] but God, as showing that It is of supreme authority, and of that Kingly Essence, and hath the same power [with Himself,] saith this too. Whence also He adds, "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."”
Source
430
A.D.
Augustine of Hippo Patristic
A.D. 354–430
“Therefore it rests not in human power but on God's, that we have the "power to be made the sons of God." They receive it from him who inspires in the human heart devout thoughts, through which it possesses "faith which works through love." For acquiring and retaining this good, and for progressing perseveringly in it to the end, "We are not sufficient to think anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God," in whose power are our heart and our thoughts.”
Source

Scholastic

c. 1100 – 1500
1272
A.D.
Thomas Aquinas Catholic
1225–1274
“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?"”

Post-Reformation

c. 1650 – 1900
1771
A.D.
John Gill Reformed
1697–1771
“Not that we are sufficient of ourselves,.... Though we are sufficient for this work to which God has called us, and have such trust and confidence that he has blessed and owned us, and done such great things by us; yet we do not ascribe anything to ourselves, to any power of ours, to any self-sufficiency in us: for "we are not sufficient of ourselves" neither for the work of the ministry, nor for the conversion of sinners, nor for faith and hope in God, nor for any spiritual work whatever; not even to think anything as of ourselves; any good thing, either for our own use and benefit, or for the advantage of others; we are not able of ourselves to meditate with judgment and affection upon the word of God, to study the Scriptures, to collect from them things fit for the ministry; and much less with freedom and boldness to speak of them to edification; and still less able to impress them upon the heart: for though you who are the epistle of Christ are ministered by us, yet not by any power and self-sufficiency of ours; but our sufficiency is of God; to think, to speak, and to act for his glory.”
Source
1832
A.D.
Adam Clarke Methodist
1762–1832
“Not that we are sufficient of ourselves - We do not arrogate to ourselves any power to enlighten the mind or change the heart, we are only instruments in the hand of God. Nor was it possible for us apostles to think, to invent, such a scheme of salvation as is the Gospel; and if we even had been equal to the invention, how could we have fulfilled such promises as this scheme of salvation abounds with? God alone could fulfill these promises, and he fulfils only those which he makes himself. All these promises have been amen-ratified and fulfilled to you who have believed on Christ Jesus according to our preaching; therefore, ye are God's workmanship and it is only by God's sufficiency that we have been able to do any thing. This I believe to be the apostle's meaning in this place, and that he speaks here merely of the Gospel scheme, and the inability of human wisdom to invent it; and the words λογισασθαι τι, which we translate to think any thing, signify, properly, to find any thing out by reasoning; and as the Gospel scheme of salvation is the subject in hand, to that subject the words are to be referred and limited. The words, however, contain also a general truth; we can neither think, act, nor be, without God. From him we have received all our powers, whether of body or of mind, and without him we can do nothing. But we may abuse both our power of thinking and acting; for the power to think, and the power to act, are widely different from the act of thinking, and the act of doing. God gives us the power or capacity to think and act, but he neither thinks nor acts for us. It is on this ground that we may abuse our powers, and think evil, and act wickedly; and it is on this ground that we are accountable for our thoughts, words, and deeds.”
Source
1849
A.D.
1774–1849
“To think any thing of ourselves, that may deserve a reward in heaven. — But Christ hath made us fit ministers of his New Testament by the Spirit: for the letter of the Old Testament killeth, but the Spirit of the New Testament giveth life. (Witham) — The letter. Not rightly understood, and taken without the spirit. (Challoner) — This verse, (6th) refers to that in the last chapter, where he says: And for these things who is so fit? Who is so capable of such a ministry? It is God alone who gives us strength, light and grace. I am far from giving a part only to God, and a part to myself. It all exclusively belongs to him. (St. Chrysostom)”
Source
1871
A.D.
1871
“The Greek is, "Not that we are (even yet after so long experience as ministers) sufficient to think anything OF ourselves as (coming) FROM ourselves; but our sufficiency is (derived) FROM God." "From" more definitely refers to the source out of which a thing comes; "of" is more general. to think--Greek, to "reason out" or "devise"; to attain to sound preaching by our reasonings [THEODORET]. The "we" refers here to ministers (Pe2 1:21). anything--even the least. We cannot expect too little from man, or too much from God.”
Source
Modern · 1953 →

The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.