John Calvin Commentary 2 Corinthians 3

Do we begin It appears that this objection was also raised against him—that he was excessively fond of publicizing his own accomplishments. This charge was also made by those who were grieved to find that the fame they eagerly desired was effectively obstructed because of his superior excellence.

In my opinion, they had already criticized the previous letter on this ground: that he indulged excessively in self-praise. To commend here means to boast foolishly and beyond measure, or at least to recount one’s own praises in a spirit of ambition. Paul’s slanderers had a plausible pretext—that it is a disgusting and hateful thing in itself for one to trumpet their own praises.

Paul, however, had an excuse on the ground of necessity, since he boasted only because he was compelled to do so. His purpose also raised him above all slander, as his only aim was that the honor of his apostleship might remain unimpaired for the edification of the Church. For if Christ’s honor had not been infringed upon, he would readily have allowed to pass unnoticed what tended to detract from his own reputation. Besides, he saw that it was very detrimental to the Corinthians that his authority was diminished among them. Therefore, in the first place, he addresses their slander, letting them know that he is not entirely unaware of the kind of talk that was current among them.

Have we need? The answer is suited (to use a common expression) more to the person than to the matter itself, although we will later find him saying as much as was required concerning the matter itself. For now, however, he rebukes their malice, since they were displeased if he at any time reluctantly—indeed, even when they themselves compelled him—mentioned the grace that God had bestowed upon him, while they themselves were begging everywhere for letters that were stuffed entirely with flattering commendations.

He says that he has no need of verbal commendation, as he is abundantly commended by his actions. On the other hand, he convicts them of a greedy desire for glory, since they endeavored to acquire favor through human approval. In this manner, he gracefully and appropriately refutes their slander.

However, we must not infer from this that it is absolutely and inherently wrong to receive recommendations, provided you use them for a good purpose. For Paul himself recommends many, and he would not have done this if it had been unlawful.

Two things, however, are required here:

1. First, that it not be a recommendation obtained through flattery, but an altogether unbiased testimony.
2. Secondly, that it not be given for the purpose of securing advancement for the individual, but simply that it may be the means of promoting the advancement of Christ’s kingdom.

For this reason, I have observed that Paul is mindful of those who had assailed him with slander.

You are our epistle. There is considerable ingenuity in his making his own glory depend on the well-being of the Corinthians. “As long as you remain Christians, I will have recommendation enough. For your faith speaks my praise, as being the seal of my apostleship” (1 Corinthians 9:2).

When he says—written in our hearts, this may be understood in reference to Silvanus and Timothy, and in that case the meaning will be: “We are not content with this praise, which we derive from the thing itself. The recommendations that others have fly about before the eyes of men, but this, which we have, has its seat in men’s consciences.” It may also be viewed as referring in part to the Corinthians, in this sense: “Those who obtain recommendations through entreaty do not have in their conscience what they carry about written on paper, and those who recommend others often do so more out of favor than from judgment. We, on the other hand, have the testimony of our apostleship, on this side and on that, engraved on men’s hearts.”

Which is known and read. It might also be read—“Which is known and acknowledged,” owing to the ambiguity of the word ἀναγινωσκεσαι, and I am inclined to think the latter might be more suitable. I was unwilling, however, to depart from the common rendering, unless constrained to do so. I only bring this to the reader's attention so that he may consider which of the two renderings is preferable. If we render it acknowledged, there will be an implied contrast between a letter that is sure and of unquestionable authority, and those that are counterfeit. And, unquestionably, what immediately follows tends to support the latter rendering, for he brings forward the Epistle of Christ in contrast with those that are forged and spurious.

You are the Epistle of Christ. Pursuing the metaphor, he says that the Epistle of which he speaks was written by Christ, since the faith of the Corinthians was his work. He says that it was ministered by him, as if meaning by this, that he had been in the place of ink and pen.

In short, he makes Christ the author and himself the instrument, so that slanderers may understand that they are dealing with Christ if they continue to speak maliciously against him. What follows is intended to increase the authority of that Epistle. The second clause, however, already refers to the comparison that is later drawn between the law and the gospel.

For he soon takes this as an opportunity, as we shall see, to enter upon a comparison of this nature. The antitheses employed here—ink and Spirit, stones and heart—give considerable weight to his statements, by way of amplification. For in drawing a contrast between ink and the Spirit of God, and between stones and heart, he expresses more than if he had simply mentioned the Spirit and the heart without drawing any comparison.

Not on tables of stone. He alludes to the promise that is recorded in Jeremiah 31:31 and Ezekiel 37:26 concerning the grace of the New Testament.

I will make—he says—a new covenant with them, not such as I had made with their fathers; but I will write my laws upon their hearts, and engrave them on their inward parts. Furthermore, I will take away the stony heart from the midst of you, and will give you a heart of flesh, that you may walk in my precepts (Ezekiel 36:26–27).

Paul says that this blessing was accomplished by means of his preaching. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that he is a faithful minister of the New Covenant—which is a legitimate testimony in favor of his apostleship. The epithet fleshly is not taken here in a bad sense but means soft and flexible, as it is contrasted with stony, that is, hard and stubborn, as is the heart of man by nature, until it has been subdued by the Spirit of God.

And such confidence. Since it was a magnificent commendation that Paul had pronounced in honor of himself and his apostleship, and so that he would not seem to speak of himself more confidently than was appropriate, he transfers the entire glory to God, from whom he acknowledges that he has received everything that he has. “By this boasting,” he says, “I extol God rather than myself, by whose grace I am what I am” (1 Corinthians 15:10). He adds, as he usually does, by Christ, because Christ is, so to speak, the channel through which all God’s benefits flow out to us.

Not that we are competent. When he thus disclaims all merit, it is not as if he humbled himself in merely pretended modesty; rather, he speaks what he truly thinks. Now we see that he leaves man nothing. For the smallest part of a good work, in a way, is thought.

In other words, it has neither the first part of the praise nor the second; and yet he does not allow us even this. Since it is less to think than to will, how foolishly do those act who claim for themselves a good will, when Paul does not leave them even the power of thinking anything!

Papists have been misled by the term sufficiency, which is used by the Old Interpreter. For they think to evade the point by acknowledging that man is not qualified to form good purposes, while at the same time they ascribe to him a sound understanding, which, with some assistance from God, can achieve something by itself. Paul, on the other hand, declares that man lacks not merely sufficiency of himself (αὐτάρκειαν), but also competency (ἱκανότητα), which would be equivalent to idoneitas (fitness), if such a term were used by Latin writers. He could not, therefore, more effectually strip man bare of everything good.