John Calvin Commentary 2 Corinthians 13

This will be the third. He goes on to reprove still further the insolence of those about whom he had been speaking. Some of them were living in profligacy and licentiousness, while others, carrying on contentions and strife among themselves, cared nothing for his reproof. For his discourse did not apply to the entire body of the church, but to certain diseased and half-rotten members of it.

Hence, he now uses sharpness with greater freedom, because he is dealing with particular individuals, not with the whole body of the people. And besides this, it was with persons of such a character that he perceived he would do them no good with kindness and mild remedies.

After having spent a year and a half among them (Acts 18:11), he had visited them a second time. Now he forewarns them that he will come to them a third time, and he says that his three comings to them will be in the place of three witnesses. He quotes the law regarding the authority of witnesses; not in the natural and literal sense, as it is called, but by accommodation, or analogy, applying it to his particular purpose.

“The declaration of the law,” he says, “is that we must rest on the testimony of two or three witnesses to put an end to disputes” (Deuteronomy 19:15).

For the word established means that a decision is pronounced regarding a matter, so that the strife may cease. “I, indeed, am but one individual, but coming a third time I will have the authority of three witnesses, or, my three comings will be in the place of three testimonies.” For the threefold effort that was made for their welfare and perseverance, tested on three different occasions, could with good reason be held equivalent to three persons.

I told you before, and foretell you. The friendly and agreeable admonitions that he had addressed to them so frequently had been of no advantage. He, accordingly, resorts to a more severe remedy, with which he had previously threatened them in words when present with them.

When we see him act with so much strictness, we need have no doubt that they were surprisingly unruly and obstinate; for it appears from his writings what mildness and unwearied patience he was otherwise prepared to manifest. However, just as it is the part of a good parent to forgive and bear with many things, so it is the part of a foolish parent, one who has no proper regard for the welfare of his children, to neglect to use severity when there is occasion for it, and to temper strictness with mildness.

We are well aware that nothing is more hurtful than excessive indulgence. Therefore, let us use mildness when we can safely do so—mildness that is dignified and properly regulated; let us act with greater severity when necessity requires.

1. It is asked, however, why the Apostle allowed himself to expose the particular faults of individuals so openly, as if pointing his finger at the very persons? I answer that he would never have done so if the sins had been hidden. But since they were manifest to all and widely known, thereby setting a harmful example, it was necessary that he should not spare the authors of a public scandal.

2. It is asked, what kind of chastisement he threatens to inflict on them, since he could hardly chastise them more severely in words? I have no doubt that he means he will inflict punishment on them by excommunication. For what is more to be feared than being cut off from the body of Christ, expelled from the kingdom of God, and delivered over to Satan for destruction, (1 Corinthians 5:5), unless you repent?

Since you seek a proof—a twofold meaning may be drawn from these words. The first is, “Since you wish to test me, whether I speak of myself, or whether Christ speaks by me;” and in this way Chrysostom and Ambrose explain it. I am rather inclined, however, to understand him as declaring that it does not so much concern himself as Christ when his authority is detracted from—that when his admonitions are despised, Christ’s patience is tested. “It is Christ who speaks by me; therefore, when you bring my doctrine under your lash, it is not so much me as him that you injure.”

Someone, however, will object as follows: “What! Will a man’s doctrine, then, be exempted from all investigation as soon as he boasts that he has Christ as his authority? And what false prophet will not make this boast? What distinction, then, will there be between truth and falsehood, and what, in that case, will become of that injunction: Try the spirits, whether they are of God?” (1 John 4:1).

Paul anticipates every objection of this nature when he says that Christ has worked effectively in them by his ministry. For these two clauses, Christ speaking in me, and, who is mighty in you, not weak, must be read in connection, in this sense: “Christ, by exercising his power toward you in my doctrine, has declared that he spoke by my mouth, so that you have no excuse on the ground of ignorance.”

We see that he does not merely boast in words, but actually proves that Christ speaks in him, and he convinces the Corinthians before requiring them to give him credit. Whoever, then, speaks in the Church, whatever title he claims for himself, it will be permissible to inquire about his doctrine until Christ has manifested himself in him; and thus, judgment will be formed not of Christ, but of the man.

When, however, it is apparent that it is the word of God that is advanced, what Paul says holds true—that it is God himself who is not believed. Moses spoke with the same confidence (Numbers 16:11).

What are we—I and Aaron? You are tempting God.

In like manner, Isaiah asks: Is it too small a thing that you grieve men,
unless you grieve my God also? (Isaiah 7:13).

For there is no more room for evasion when it has been made apparent that it is a minister of God who speaks and that he discharges his office faithfully.

I return to Paul.

Since the confirmation of his ministry had been so decisive among the Corinthians, because the Lord had shown himself openly, it is no wonder that he takes it so much amiss when he meets with resistance. Truly, on good grounds, he might throw back on them—as he does—the reproach that they were rebels against Christ.

For though he was crucified. He speaks with particular intention of Christ’s abasement, intending to suggest indirectly that nothing was despised in him except what they would also have been prepared to despise in Christ himself, since he emptied himself, even to the death of the cross (Philippians 2:8).

He shows, however, at the same time, how absurd it is to despise in Christ the abasement of the cross, since it is joined with the incomparable glory of his resurrection. “Should Christ be esteemed less by you because he showed signs of weakness in his death, as if his heavenly life, which he leads after his resurrection, were not a clear sign of his Divine power?” For as the term flesh here means Christ’s human nature, so the word God is taken here to denote his Divinity.

Here, however, a question arises: Did Christ experience such weakness as to be subjected by necessity against his will? For what we suffer through weakness, we suffer from constraint, and not from our own choice.

Since the Arians of old abused this pretext to effectively oppose the divinity of Christ, the orthodox Fathers explained that it was effected by appointment, because Christ desired it so, and not from his being forced by any necessity.

This answer is true, provided it is properly understood. Some, however, mistakenly extend the appointment to Christ’s human will—as if this were not the condition of his nature, but a permission contrary to his nature.

For example, they say, “His dying did not happen because his humanity was, properly speaking, liable to death, but by appointment, because he chose to die.” I grant, indeed, that he died because he chose to do so. But from where did this choice come, if not from this: that he had voluntarily clothed himself with a mortal nature?

If, however, we make Christ’s human nature so unlike ours, the main support of our faith is overturned. Let us, therefore, understand it in this way: Christ suffered by appointment, not by constraint, because, being in the form of God, he could have freed himself from this necessity. Nevertheless, he suffered through weakness because he emptied himself (Philippians 2:6).

We are weak in him. To be weak in Christ here means to be a sharer of Christ’s weakness. Thus he makes his own weakness glorious, because in it he is conformed to Christ, and he no longer shrinks back from the disgrace that he has in common with the Son of God. But, meanwhile, he says that he will live towards them after Christ’s example.

“I also,” he says, “will be a sharer of Christ’s life, after I have been freed from weakness.” To weakness he opposes life; accordingly, he understands by this term a condition that is flourishing and full of honor. The clause towards you may also be taken in connection with the power of God, but it is of no importance, as the meaning always remains the same: that the Corinthians, when they began to judge correctly, would have respectful and honorable views of the power of God, which was in Paul, and would no longer despise outward infirmity.

Try yourselves. He confirms what he had stated previously—that Christ’s power showed itself openly in his ministry. For he makes them the judges of this matter, provided they look within themselves, so to speak, and acknowledge what they had received from him. In the first place, since there is only one Christ, it must be that the same Christ dwells equally in minister and people.

Now, dwelling in the people, how will he deny himself in the minister? Furthermore, he had shown his power in Paul’s preaching in such a manner that it could no longer be doubtful or obscure to the Corinthians, unless they were altogether stupid. For, from where did they have faith? From where did they have Christ? From where, in short, did they have everything?

It is with good reason, therefore, that they are called to look into themselves, so that they may discover there what they despise as something unknown. Then only does a minister have a true and well-founded assurance for the approval of his doctrine, when he can appeal to the consciences of those whom he has taught, so that, if they have anything of Christ and of sincere piety, they are compelled to acknowledge his faithfulness. We now grasp Paul’s purpose.

This passage, however, deserves particular observation for two reasons. For, in the first place, it shows the relationship that exists between the faith of the people and the preaching of the minister—that the one is the mother that produces and brings forth, and the other is the daughter that should not forget her origin.

In the second place, it serves to prove the assurance of faith, concerning which the Sorbonnic sophists have made us stagger, indeed, have completely rooted out from the minds of men. They charge with rashness all who are persuaded that they are members of Christ and have Him remaining in them, for they tell us to be satisfied with a “moral conjecture,” as they call it—that is, with a mere opinion, so that our consciences constantly remain in suspense and in a state of perplexity.

But what does Paul say here? He declares that all are reprobates who doubt whether they profess Christ and are a part of His body. Let us, therefore, consider that alone to be right faith which leads us to rest securely in God’s favor, with no wavering opinion, but with a firm and steadfast assurance.

Unless by any means you are reprobates. In a way, he gives them their choice, whether they would rather be reprobates than give due testimony to his ministry; for he leaves them no alternative but either to show respect to his Apostleship or to admit that they are reprobates. For, unquestionably, their faith had been founded upon his doctrine, and they had no other Christ than they had received from him, and no other gospel than what they had embraced as delivered to them by him, so that it would be vain for them to attempt to separate any part of their salvation from his praise.