2 Corinthians 2:10

To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also. You have asked through Titus that he may be forgiven, and I make the same request of you. So Theodoret explains these words. Cf. also chap. vii. 7. It is clear from ver. 7 that this forgiveness had not yet taken place, and the meaning therefore is: As, when you were gathered together and my spirit I excommunicated him (1 Corinthians 5), so now do I join with you in forgiving him, as you will forgive him at my exhortation.

Observe against Luther that this Epistle was written to the rulers of the Church, or rather to the Church itself, that it might exercise this power of absolving, not corporately, but by the prelates. Yet out of courtesy he wishes even the laity to co-operate in the absolution, and by their consent, prayers, desire, and compassion to forgive this scandal which had been given to them and the Church, and to remit the due canonical penance or punishment. Cf. 1 Corinthians 5:4. Hence he goes on to say, "For your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ." S. Paul here asserts that he forgave in the exercise of his power and jurisdiction as the vicar of Christ; and he orders his sentence to be publicly proclaimed in the Corinthian Church, by the bishop or some other officer, and implies that the Corinthians forgave merely through their prayers, consent, and execution of the sentence of absolution. S. Chrysostom lays this down clearly when he says: " As when he ordered the man to be cut off he did not allow that with them was any authority to forgive, since he said, 'I have judged to deliver such an one to Satan,' so again did he admit them into partnership with him when he said, 'When ye are gathered together to deliver him.' He was aiming at two ends, one that the sentence might be passed, and the other that it should not be carried out without them, lest he should seem to do them an injury by so acting. Neither does he pass sentence alone, lest the Apostle should seem to be isolated and to despise them."

If I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ. I forgave it, i.e., I determined to forgive it (ver. 7), and now by this letter and by the bearer, whether Titus or some other, I forgive it. This is a Hebraism, by which the past is put for the present.

It may be asked, What was it that the Apostle forgave? I reply 1. that this forgiveness consisted in giving absolution from excommunication, and at the same time, or rather still more, in giving full indulgence for the incest, i.e., remission of all the penalty due because of it. It is evident from 1 Cor. v. that the punishment inflicted was excommunication, and with it the penalty of ignominious exclusion from the Church, and the handing over of his body to be afflicted by Satan. Here, however, he absolves him from every chain by which he had been bound.

2. To forgive, properly speaking, refers to guilt or punishment. Of excommunication alone is it strictly said, "I absolve."

3. He re-admits him to grace, both on account of the zeal of the Corinthians and the contrition of the incestuous person, and relaxes his punishment and shame and rebuke, lest from too much sorrow he should despair. This indulgence is referred to by the word anything. Whatever part of the punishment you have asked may be forgiven him, I forgive him.

4. He remits the punishment not merely, as Calvin thinks, before the Church, but in God's judgment: this is expressed by the phrase in the person of Christ, otherwise there would not have been any indulgence or mercy shown here to the fornicator. It is better to be visited on earth with infamy and corporal punishment than before he tribunal of God to be handed over to the fire, either of purgatory of hell.

Hence S. Thomas and others rightly lay down that the Apostle and the Church give indulgences. So, in olden times, martyrs, when in prison, sent to the Bishops men who had lapsed, praying them to relax their punishment, as appears from Tertullian (ad Martyr. c. 1), Cyprian (Epp. 11, 21, 22); and the Council of Nice (c. xi. and xii.) grants to those that have lapsed that, according to the willingness with which they bore the punishment inflicted on them, might the Bishop give indulgence. Cf. Baronius, vol. i. p. 592. Observe that the reason for giving indulgence was the fear that the penitent might despair. Hence, formerly, indulgence was not given unless a good part of the penalty had been paid, and that lest the vigour of discipline and of satisfaction, which is the third part of repentance, should be relaxed. Cf. S. Cyprian (ad Martyr. lib. iii. Epp. 6). The Council Trent (sess. xxv.), in its decree on indulgences, orders that moderation should be shown in giving indulgences, according to the ancient practice of the Church, lest ecclesiastical discipline should, by excessive leniency, be rendered lax.

If I forgave anything. He speaks modestly of his generosity. Hence he adds that he did it in the Person of Christ.

In the person of Christ. This may be understood (1.) in the presence of Christ. So Theodoret and Vatablus. This rendering is eagerly adopted by Calvin and Beza, and read as if it meant, I forgive him ex animo, really and not feignedly. (2.) Properly it means, "I forgive him by the authority of Christ entrusted to me, who said, 'Whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'" So Theophylact renders it: "I forgive him just as if Christ had forgiven him: just as a regent acts with the authority of a king, and orders, passes laws, and pardons in his stead." As S. Paul, in 1 Cor. v., had excommunicated the fornicator in the name of Christ, so here, by the same authority, he sets him free, just as any one who might have been condemned by the regent could not be pardoned but by the regent himself.