17 When I therefore was thus determined, did I show fickleness? Or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be the "Yes, yes" and the "No, no?"
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
Did I use fickleness? There are two things, more especially, that prevent the purposes of men from being carried into effect, or their promises from being faithfully performed. The one is that they make changes upon them almost every hour, and the other is that they are too rash in forming their plans. It is a sign of changeableness to purpose or promise what you almost immediately afterwards regret. With that fault Paul declares he had not been chargeable. "I have not," says he, "through fickleness drawn back from the promise that I made." He declares also that he had been on his guard against rashness and misdirected confidence; for such is the way in which I explain the expression -- purpose according to the flesh For it is, as I have stated, the common practice of men, as though they were not dependent on God's providence, and were not subject to his will, to determine rashly and presumptuously what they will do. Now God, with the view of punishing this presumption, defeats their plans, so as to prevent them from having a prosperous issue, and in many instances holds up themselves to ridicule. The expression, it is true, according to the flesh, might be extended farther, so as to include all wicked schemes, and such as are not directed to a right end, as for example such as are dictated by ambition, avarice, or any other depraved affection. Paul, however, in my opinion, did not intend here to refer to any thing of that nature, but merely to reprove that rashness which is but too customary on the part of man, and in daily use in the forming of plans. To purpose, therefore, according to the flesh, is not owning God as our ruler, but, instead of this, being impelled by a rash presumption, which is afterwards justly derided by God, and punished. The apostle, with the view of clearing himself from these faults, proposes a question, as if in the person of his opponents. Hence it is probable, as I have already said, that some unfavorable report had been put in circulation by wicked persons. That with me there should be yea, yea Some connect this statement with what goes before, and explain it thus: "As if it were in my power to perform whatever I purpose, as men determine that they will do whatever comes into their mind, and order their ways, as Solomon speaks, (Proverbs 16:1,) while they cannot so much as govern their tongue." And, undoubtedly, the words seem to imply this much -- that what has been once affirmed must remain fixed, and what has been once denied must never be done. So James in his Epistle (James 5:12) says, Let your yea be yea, and your nay nay, lest ye fall into dissimulation. Farther, the context would in this way suit exceedingly well as to what goes before. For to purpose according to the flesh is this -- when we wish that, without any exception, our determinations shall be like oracles. [1] This interpretation, However, does not accord with what immediately follows -- God is faithful, etc., where Paul makes use of the same form of expression, when he has it in view to intimate, that he had not been unfaithful in his preaching. Now it were absurd, if almost in the same verse he reckoned it as a fault that his yea should be yea, and his nay nay, and yet at the same time laid claim to it as his highest praise. I am aware of what could be said in reply, if any one were disposed to sport himself with subtleties, but I have no relish for anything that is not solid. I have, therefore, no doubt, that in these words Paul designed to reprove fickleness, although they may seem to be susceptible of another meaning, for the purpose of clearing himself from that calumny -- that he was accustomed to promise in words what he failed to perform in deeds. [2] Thus the reiterating of the affirmation and negation will not have the same meaning as in Matthew 5:37 and in James, but will bear this meaning -- "that yea should with me be in this instance yea, and on the other hand, when it pleases me, nay, nay " At the same time it is possible that it may have crept in through the ignorance of transcribers, as the old translation does not redouble the words, [3] However this may be, we ought not to be very solicitous as to the words, provided we are in possession of the apostle's intention, which, as I have said, clearly appears from what follows. [4]
1 - "Que nos deliberations et conseils soyent comme oracles et reuelations Diuines;" -- "That our purposes and plans shall be like oracles and Divine revelations."
2 - "He (the apostle) anticipates and repels a reproach of ilaphria, or lightness of purpose,' in that change of mind, as if he was a yea and nay man,' (Shaksp.), on whose word no secure reliance could be placed. In the next verse he calls God to witness that his word to them was not, both yea and nay;' and in the beginning of the following chapter, he explains to them, that it was for their sakes that he abstained from executing his first intention." -- Penn. -- Ed.
3 - The rendering of the Vulgate is as follows: "Ut sit apud me est et non;" -- "That with me there should be yea and nay." This reading -- to nai kai to ou, (yea and nay), is found in one Greek MS., as stated by Semler. Wiclif, (1380,) following the Vulgate, reads -- "that at me, be it is and it is not." -- Ed.
4 - "It was a proverbial manner among the Jews (see Wet.) of characterizing a man of strict probity and good faith, by saying, his yes is yes, and his no is no' -- that is, you may depend upon his word; as he declares, so it is; and as he promises, so he will do. Our Lord is therefore to be considered here (Matthew 5:37) not as prescribing the precise terms wherein we are to affirm or deny; in which case it would have suited better the simplicity of his style to say barely nai kai ou (yea and nay,) without doubling the words; but as enjoining such an habitual and inflexible regard to truth, as would render swearing unnecessary. That this manner of converting these adverbs into nouns, is in the idiom of the sacred penmen, we have another instance, (2-Corinthians 1:20,) For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen.' (en auto to nai kai en auto to amen) -- that is, certain and infallible truths. It is indeed a common idiom of the Greek tongue, to turn by means of the article any of the parts of speech into a noun." -- Campbell on the Gospels, volume 2. -- Ed.
When I therefore was thus minded - When I formed this purpose; when I willed this, and expressed this intention.
Did I use lightness? - The word ἐλαφρια elaphria (from ἐλαφρός elaphros) means properly lightness in weight. Here it is used in reference to the mind; and in a sense similar to our word levity, as denoting lightness of temper or conduct; inconstancy, changeableness, or fickleness. This charge had been probably made that he had made the promise without any due consideration, or without any real purpose of performing, it; or that he had made it in a trifling and thoughtless manner. By the interrogative form here, he sharply denies that it was a purpose formed in a light and trifling manner.
Do I purpose according to the flesh - In such a manner, as may suit my own convenience and carnal interest. Do I form plans adapted only to promote my own ease and gratification, and to be abandoned when they are attended with inconvenience? The phrase "according to the flesh" here seems to mean "in such a way as to promote my own ease and gratification; in a manner such as the people of the world form; such as would be formed under the influence of earthly passions and desires, and to be forsaken when those plans would interfere with such gratifications." Paul denies in a positive manner that he formed such plans; and they should have known enough of his manner of life to be assured that that was not the nature of the schemes which he had devised? Probably no man ever lived who formed his plans of life less for the gratification of the flesh than Paul.
That with me there should be yea, yea, and nay, nay? - There has been a great variety in the interpretation of this passage; see Bloomfield, Critical Digest in loco. The meaning seems to be, "that there should be such inconstancy and uncertainty in my counsels and actions, that no one could depend on me, or know what they had to expect from me." Bloomfield supposes that the phrase is a proverbial one, and denotes a headstrong, self-willed spirit which will either do things, or not do them as pleases, without giving any reasons. He supposes that the repetition of the words "yea and nay" is designed to denote positiveness of assertion - such positiveness as is commonly shown by such persons, as in the phrases, "what I have written I have written," "what I have done I have done." It seems more probable, however, that the phrase is designed to denote the ready compliance which an inconstant and unsettled man is accustomed to make with the wishes of others; his expressing a ready assent to what they propose; falling in with their views; readily making promises; and instantly, through some whim, or caprice, or wish of others, saying "yea, nay," to the same thing; that is, changing his mind, and altering his purpose without any good reason, or in accordance with any fixed principle or settled rule of action. Paul says that this was not his character. He did not affirm a thing at one time and deny it at another; he did not promise to do a thing one moment and refuse to do it the next.
Did I use lightness? - When I formed this purpose, was it without due consideration? and did I abandon it through fickleness of mind?
That with me there should be yea, etc. - That I should act as carnal men, who change their purposes, and falsify their engagements, according as may seem best to their secular interest?
(9) When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the (p) flesh, that with me there should be (q) yea yea, and nay nay?
(9) He dismisses their slander and false report by denying it, and first of all in that different ones went about to persuade the Corinthians, that in the preaching of the Gospel, Paul agreed not to himself: for this was the matter and the case.
(p) As men do who will rashly promise anything, and change their purpose constantly.
(q) That I should say and not say a thing?
When I was therefore thus minded, did I use lightness?.... When I had thus determined to come to you, and had signified the same by writing, or messengers, did I use lightness in my resolutions and promises? did I act rashly, unadvisedly, and without consideration? did I promise certainly that I would come, without annexing any condition to it? did I not say, I would come to you shortly, if the Lord will? see 1-Corinthians 4:19.
Or the things that I purpose, do l purpose according to the flesh? do I consult myself? my own interest and advantage? do I seek the gratification of any carnal affection, as covetousness, ambition, or vain glory? &c. what sinister end could have been obtained, if I had come as I purposed, or is answered by my not coming? or when I have purposed anything, have I resolved upon it in my own strength? have I thought it lay in my own power to effect it?
that with me there should be yea, yea, and nay, nay? as if I could make my "yea" continue "yea", and my "nay, nay?" when all actions are weighed by God, and all events are at his dispose; man appoints, and God disappoints; and who can help these things? or thus, has there appeared such contradictions in my words, and such inconstancy in my conduct, that my "yeas" are "nays", and my "nays yeas?" that I say one thing at one time, and another at another time, or both in the same breath? that I should say one thing, and mean another, on purpose to deceive, and change my mind and conduct without any reason?
use lightness--Was I guilty of levity? namely, by promising more than I performed.
or . . . according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea, yea . . . nay, nay?--The "or" expresses a different alternative: Did I act with levity, or (on the other hand) do I purpose what I purpose like worldly (fleshly) men, so that my "yea" must at all costs be yea, and my "nay" nay [BENGEL, WINER, CALVIN], (Matthew 14:7, Matthew 14:9)? The repetition of the "yea" and "nay" hardly agrees with ALFORD'S view, "What I purpose do I purpose according to the changeable purposes of the fleshly (worldly) man, that there may be with me the yea yea, and the nay nay (that is, both affirmation and negation concerning the same thing)?" The repetition will thus stand for the single yea and nay, as in Matthew 5:37; James 5:12. But the latter passage implies that the double "yea" here is not equivalent to the single "yea": BENGEL'S view, therefore, seems preferable.
Did I use levity - Did I lightly change my purpose? Do I purpose according to the flesh - Are my purposes grounded on carnal or worldly considerations? So that there should be with me yea and nay - Sometimes one, sometimes the other; that is, variableness and inconstancy.
*More commentary available at chapter level.