(2) Occasion and Purpose. The intelligence brought by Titus concerning the church at Co rinth was on the whole favorable. The censures of the former epistle had produced in their minds a godly sorrow, had awakened in them a regard to the proper discipline of the church, and had led to the exclusion from their fellowship of the in cestuous person. This had so wrought on the mind of the latter that he had repented of his evil courses, and showed such contrition that the Apostle now pities him, and exhorts the church to restore him to their communion (2 Cor. :6-it ; vii :8, sq.). A cordial response had also been given to the appeal that had been made on behalf of the saints in Palestine (ix :2). But with all these pleasing symptoms there were some of a painful kind. The spirit of strife had evidently abated in a marked degree. But some who were perhaps from the first unfavorably disposed towards him came forward now boldly denying his authority on the alleged ground that he was not an apostle. This along with other news, brought him by Titus led the Apostle to compose his second epistle, in which the language of commendation and love is mingled with that of censure, and even of threatening.
(3) Contents. This epistle may he divided into three sections. In the first, ( t-iii), the Apostle chiefly dwells on the effects produced by his first epistle and the matters therewith connected. In the second (iv.-ix.) he discourses on the sub stance and effects of the religion which he pro claimed. and turns from this to an appeal on be half of the claims of the poor saints on their lib erality. And in the third (x-xiii) he vindicates his own dignity and authority as an apostleagainst the parties by whom these were opposed.
(4) Date and Place of Composition. But when did Paul write this letter and where? What has been already said fixes the date and place of writing as Ephesus and the slimmer of 58. Wiese ler propounded the theory that the whole epistle was not composed at the same time. The differ
ence of the matter and style between chapters i-vi and vii-xiii led him to suppose that the first of these two parts was written before the arrival of Titus and the second after the Apostle had heard his report. The difference between the two parts of the epistle, however, is not so great as to %vat rant such a difference o; time in their composi tion. it is sufficiently accounted for, as Godet shows, by the supposition that the Apostle's mind reverts in the first part to the thoughts occurring to him before the arrival of Titus and in the sec ond, to those subsequent to that event. Upon the basis of the difference of content between chapters i-ix and chapters x-xiii, sonic recent critics (flails rath, Illeidcrer, and Sclumedel) have based still another view of the origin and relation of these two parts of the letter. They allege that the last four chapters were written before the first nine. Still another theory propounded, is that Paul's two let ters to the Corinthians were originally three, the first comprising eight fragments of the first epis tles, and written in the winter of 56-57; the second consisting of six fragments of the first epistle and four of the second, and written at Easter, 57; and the third consisting of the first seven chapters of the second epistle, written in the summer of 58. It is hardly necessary to do more than mention these views as they have found no advocates out side the circle of their propounders.
3. Helps on the Epistles to the Corin thians. Among the best commentaries on these epistles, in English, are J. A. Beet's on both. Also A. P. Stanley's on both, besides those in the com mentaries on the whole New Testament by Meyer, Alford, the Expositor's, etc. On First Corinthians separately, Godet's, T. C. Edwards', and C. J. Ellicott's, are especially valuable ; also Marcus Dods' (in the Expositor's Bible). On Second Corinthians, James Dennev's (in the Expositor's Bible) stands alone. W. L. A. and A. C. Z.