Charles Ellicott Commentary 2 Corinthians 7:2

"Open your hearts to us: we wronged no man, we corrupted no man, we took advantage of no man." — 2 Corinthians 7:2 (ASV)

Receive us; we have wronged no man.—Better, Make room for us; we wronged no man: with the same change of tense in the verbs that follow. There is an almost infinite pathos in that entreaty, uttered, we may well believe, as from the very depths of the soul—“Make room for us.” The undercurrent of thought flows on.

He had complained of their being restricted in their affections, had urged that they would enlarge their hearts towards him, as his heart was enlarged towards them. He has moved on in his thoughts—his thoughts turning now to the party of license, with whom he had pleaded so earnestly in 1 Corinthians 8–10—to the terrible, unspeakable contaminations to which they were exposing themselves by their companionship with idolaters. He now, almost, as it were, with sobs, pleads once more: “You can find a place for such as these in your heart. Have you no place for me?”

In the words we wronged no man we find a reference to charges of greed and self-interested motives that had been whispered against him, and to which he refers again in 2 Corinthians 8:20; 2 Corinthians 12:18. Perhaps, also, he contrasts himself with others, who did wrong and defrauded (1 Corinthians 6:8).

We have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man.—The word for “corrupt” is the same as that translated “defile” in 1 Corinthians 3:17, and is used with clear reference to sensual impurity in 2 Peter 2:12; Jude 1:10; Revelation 19:2. The word for “defrauded” is not the same as that in 1 Corinthians 6:8, and though meaning literally “to make a gain,” or “seek a gain,” had, with its cognate nouns, acquired a darker shade of meaning.

The verb is used in clear connection with impurity in 1 Thessalonians 4:3–6 (see the note on this passage). The nouns often appear in closest association with those that indicate that form of evil (1 Corinthians 5:10–11; Ephesians 5:5; 2 Peter 2:14; Romans 1:29; Colossians 3:5).

Mere greed for gain is commonly described by another word, which we translate the love of money (Luke 16:14; 1 Timothy 6:10; 2 Timothy 3:2). Therefore, there seems to be sufficient reason for connecting this verb also with the same class of sins. It would seem as if the word had colloquially acquired a secondary meaning and was used to describe those who sought gain by ministering to the vice of others—who became, as it were, purveyors of impurity.

The words, so understood, give us a momentary glimpse into a depth of evil from which we would willingly turn our eyes. But they leave no room for doubt that, in the boundless pruriency of such a city as Corinth, even such things as these had been said of the Apostle in the cynical jests of the paganising party of license.

They tolerated such things themselves. They welcomed those who practiced them to their friendship (1 Corinthians 5:11). They whispered, we may well believe, of private interviews in lonely lodgings, of public gatherings at night of men and women, and of the kiss of peace. They insinuated that, after all, he was even someone like themselves.

Similarly, the good reputation of a disciple of St. Paul's was attacked by Martial, not apparently with malignity, but only in the wantonness of jest (See Excursus on the Later Years of St. Paul's Life, at the end of the Acts of the Apostles). Similar charges were leveled at the reputation of Athanasius (Sozomen, Hist. 2.25) and of Hooker (Walton's Life).

So, generally, it was the ever-recurring calumny of the heathen against the Christians that their Agapae, or Feasts of Love, were scenes of the foulest license. It is obvious that there is much in the popular outcry against confession that shares, more or less, the same character.

Against charges of this nature St. Paul utters his indignant denial: "No," he virtually says; "you find a place in your affections for those who do such things: can you not find a place also for us who are free from them?" The sense which some have given to the word “corrupt,” as referring only to doctrinal corruptions, is clearly out of the question.