2 Corinthians 13:14

14. This is the fullest and most instructive of the benedictions with which S. Paul concludes his Epistles; and for this very reason it has been adopted from very early times (Const. Apost. viii. 5, 12) as a form of blessing in the services of the Church. It is remarkable that the most complete form of benediction should be found at the close of what, with the possible exception of the Epistle to the Galatians, is the most severe portion of the writings of S. Paul. The only benediction which rivals this one in fulness is the one at the end of Ephesians. The common form, with slight verbal variations, is ἡ χάρις τ. κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μεθʼ ὑμῶν. Sometimes ἡμῶν is omitted (1 Corinthians 16:23; Philippians 4:23), sometimes Χριστοῦ (1 Corinthians 16:23; (?) Romans 16:20), as by B here. Sometimes πάντων (2 Thessalonians 3:18), sometimes τοῦ πνεύματος. (Galatians 6:18; Philippians 4:23; Philemon 1:25) is inserted before ὑμῶν. And it is this usual type of benediction which accounts for the order of the clauses here. The Apostle began to write the usual form, and then made it more full. Thus ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’ came to be placed first. The suggestion of Bengel, that ‘the grace of the Lord Jesus’ is mentioned first, because it is through the grace of Christ that we come to the love of the Father, is not needed. And would it not be equally true to say, that it is through the love of the Father that we have received the grace of Jesus Christ? In the absolute order ‘the love of God’ stands first (John 3:16); but in our apprehension ‘the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ’ stands first (Romans 5:8). We may conjecture that it was the condition of the Corinthian Church which prompted the more complete form of benediction. A Church which had been so full of strife and enmities and factions (2 Corinthians 11:20; 1 Corinthians 1:10-17) had a special need of the indwelling of the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.

It is with this verse, the text of which (with the possible exception of the word Χριστοῦ) is absolutely established, and which forms the solemn ending to one of the Epistles which criticism assigns with unshaken confidence to S. Paul, that the historical treatment of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity begins. These words were written, at the latest, within thirty years of the Ascension, and perhaps within twenty-six years of that event; and the writer expects those to whom he writes, who live far away from the earliest centres of Christian teaching, to understand and appreciate this form of benediction. Moreover, whether this benediction belongs to the letter written from Macedonia, or to an intermediate letter written from Ephesus, it was not sent from one of the earliest centres of Christian teaching. The writer was not in an atmosphere in which he might naturally use language that would be scarcely intelligible to imperfectly instructed Christians. And the verse is evidently not meant to convey instruction in doctrine: it assumes that the doctrine which it implies has already found a home in the hearts of those to whom the benediction is sent. From these facts it seems to be a legitimate inference, “that S. Paul and the Church of his day thought of the Supreme Source of spiritual blessing as not single but threefold—threefold in essence, and not merely in a manner of speech” (Sanday in Hastings’ DB. ii. p. 213). The facts show that even a very young Church is assumed to be familiar with this mode of thought; and they ought to caution us against a hasty assumption that the baptismal formula attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19 cannot really have been spoken by Him. Certainly S. Paul’s language here becomes more intelligible if it was known that Christ Himself had uttered such a charge. It should be added that in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 we have similar phenomena; ‘the same Spirit … the same Lord … the same God.’ (See Goudge, 1 Corinthians, pp. 29. ff.) Comp. Ephesians 4:4-6; ‘one Spirit … one Lord … one God and Father of all’: also Clem. Rom. Cor. xlvi. 3; ‘one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace’; and lviii. 2; ‘as God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit.’

Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου. The genitive in all three cases is probably subjective; the grace which is of the Lord, which comes from Him; the love which is of God; the fellowship which is of the Spirit. Comp. 2 Corinthians 1:2, and ἡ χάρις μου (2 Corinthians 12:9). Yet this is not certain: 2 Corinthians 8:9.

ἡ�. if this is the objective genitive, comp. Romans 5:8. But ὁ θεὸς τῆς� (2 Corinthians 13:11) makes it probable that this means the love which He inspires in the hearts of men. That is what the quarrelsome Corinthians need.

ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. The fellowship of the Holy Spirit, viz. “the true sense of membership which the One Spirit gives to the One Body” (J. A. Robinson in Hastings’ DB. i. p. 460): communicationem ergo eis optat, quae Corinthiorum schismata tollat (Corn. a Lapide). In all three cases the subjective genitive makes good sense, and in some makes the best sense. In Philippians 2:1 εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος may mean, ‘if there be any Spirit-given sense of fellowship’: but Lightfoot prefers ‘communion with the Spirit of love.’ The absence of the articles there makes the two passages not quite parallel. See on 2 Corinthians 6:14, and contrast the use of κοινωνία in 2 Corinthians 8:4; 2 Corinthians 9:13.

μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. As in 2 Thessalonians 3:18, the addition of πάντων is prompted by the preceding severity of tone respecting those who have given offence. “The benediction is invoked upon all, the slanderers and gainsayers, the seekers after worldly wisdom, the hearkeners to false doctrine, as well as the faithful and obedient disciples” (Lias).