Strabo (c. 63 BC-AD 22) completed his Geography c. 7 BC, and included in this work is a description of early Corinth as it was before its destruction in 146 BC. Some questions have been raised concerning the accuracy of his statements about cult-prostitution; cf. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, p. 12; Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, pp. 55–56.
Suggested dates range from the second to the fifth century AD.
Lang, Cure and Cult, pp. 1–31.
It is possible that this Erastus is to be identified with the one named in an inscription discovered in 1929 to the east of the stage building of the theatre in Corinth which reads: ‘Erastus for his aedileship laid (the pavement) as his own expense’. While this identification has been questioned by some, it still remains as a significant possibility. Cf. discussion in Kruse, Romans, pp. 585–587.
So also Bruce, pp. 23–25, 164–170; Barrett, pp. 3–11; Furnish, pp. 26–46; Martin, p. xl.
Cf. e.g. Allo, pp. lii–liii; Lietzmann, pp. 139–140; Tasker, pp. 30–35; Hughes, pp. xxiii–xxxv; Kümmel, Introduction, pp. 287–293; Bates, ‘Integrity’, pp. 56–59; Stephenson, ‘Defence’, pp. 82–97.
So e.g. Plummer, pp. xvii–xix; Strachan, pp. xxxix–xl.
So e.g. Bultmann, pp. 16–18; Schmithals, Gnosticism, pp. 87–110. The latter detects the remains of six letters: (A) 2 Cor. 6:14 – 7:1; 1 Cor. 6:12–20; 9:24 – 10:22; 11:2–34; 15; 16:13–24, (B) 1 Cor. 1:1 – 6:11; 7:1 – 9:23; 10:23 – 11:1; 12:1 – 14:40; 16:1–12, (C) 2:14 – 6:13; 7:2–4, (D) 10:1 – 13:13, (E) 9:1–15, (F) 1:1 – 2:13; 7:5–16; 8:1–24.
E.g. Strachan, p. xv; Schmithals, Gnosticism, p. 95.
E.g. Schmithals, Gnosticism, pp. 95–96.
So e.g. Hughes, pp. xxvii–xxx.
So e.g. Plummer, pp. xxvii–xxxvi; Strachan, p. xix; Bultmann, p. 18; Wendland, p. 8; Schmithals, Gnosticism, p. 96.
Bruce, p. 169; Barrett, p. 9; Furnish, pp. 30–41; Martin, p. xl; Thrall, p. 20.
Cf. e.g. Weiss, Earliest Christianity 2, p. 353, who regards ch. 8 as the later addition, and Bornkamm, ‘History’, p. 260; Schmithals, Gnosticism, pp. 97–98; Bultmann, p. 18, who regard ch. 9 as having been added subsequently.
Lambrecht, ‘Paul’s Boasting’, pp. 352–368, provides a detailed discussion and evaluation of reasons put forward in support of the view that ch. 9 was a separate letter, but concludes that this was not so.
So e.g. Allo, pp. 52–53; Lietzmann, pp. 139–140; Tasker, pp. 30–35; Hughes, pp. 33–35; Kümmel, Introduction, pp. 287–293; Bates, ‘Integrity’, pp. 56–59; Stephenson, ‘Defence’, pp. 82–97; Barnett, pp. 17–23; Harris, pp. 42–51; Schmeller, pp. 19–38; Seifrid, pp. xxvii – xxix.
Bruce, pp. 166–172; Barrett, pp. 9–10, 21; Furnish, pp. 30–41; Martin, p. 40; Thrall, pp. 5–13.
Cf. Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, pp. 19–20.
Cf. Zeller, pp. 49–52.
Weiss, Earliest Christianity, p. 349; Bultmann, p. 18.
Bornkamm, ‘History’, pp. 259–260; Wendland, p. 9; Schmithals, Gnosticism, pp. 98–100.
Plummer, p. 67; Tasker, pp. 56–57; Kümmel, Introduction, p. 291; Harris, pp. 12, 242; Thrall, pp. 21–22. Allo, p. 45, broadens the base of thanksgiving to include not only relief of anxiety when Titus arrived, but also the reminder of the universal triumph of the gospel evoked by the mention of Macedonia in 2:13 and thereby of the faithful Christians in that part of the world.
Chrysostom, comment on 2 Cor. 2:13 in Homily V on 2 Corinthians.
Harris, p. 12; Thrall, p. 22; Bachmann, Korinther, pp. 126–127, cited by Thrall, ‘Second Thanksgiving’, p. 105.
Hughes, pp. 76–77; Thrall, p. 22.
Zahn, Introduction, p. 343, n. 1, cited by Thrall, ‘Second Thanksgiving’, p. 106.
Barrett, p. 97.
Thrall, ‘Second Thanksgiving’, pp. 111–119.
Cf. e.g. Bultmann, p. 180. Harris, pp. 15–25, summarizes the presumed ‘non-Pauline’ features of 6:14 – 7:1 before pointing out those features of the passage that are clearly Pauline and concluding that it stems from Paul’s hand.
Wendland, p. 212; Weiss, Earliest Christianity, p. 356; Strachan, pp. xv, 3–4; Schmithals, Gnosticism, pp. 94–95.
Allo, pp. 189–193.
Plummer, pp. 23–24; Lietzmann, p. 129; Allo, pp. 53, 193–194; Tasker, pp. 29–30; Hughes, pp. 241–244; Barrett, pp. 23–25; Harris, pp. 14–25; Thrall, pp. 25–36; Barnett, pp. 23–24.
Lietzmann, p. 129.
Hughes, p. 244.
Barrett, p. 194.
Plummer, p. 25; Harris, p. 497.
Dahl, ‘Fragment’, p. 69.
Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, pp. 130–140, questions this dating, arguing against the reliability of the testimony of Orosius who alone explicitly dates the expulsion of Jews from Rome as the ninth year of Claudius’ reign (i.e. AD 49), a testimony contained in a book written in AD 418. He does so on the grounds that Orosius cites the earlier testimony of Suetonius (Claudius, 25) and there is nothing in Suetonius’ writings to support that dating. Murphy-O’Connor himself argues for an AD 41 dating of Claudius’ edict, but this implies inaccuracy on Luke’s part who indicates that Paul’s arrival in Corinth (to be dated c. AD 50) occurred shortly after Aquila and Priscilla’s arrival there, having being expelled from Italy by the edict of Claudius.
Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, pp. 146–150.
For a detailed discussion of the chronology of Paul’s relations with the Corinthian church, see Harris, pp. 101–105; Barnett, pp. 14–55; Thrall, pp. 74–77.
Cf. e.g. Calvin, p. 29; Alford, Greek New Testament, 2, p. 637; Denney, pp. 1–6; Hughes, pp. 59–65.
Alford, Greek New Testament, 2, p. 53; Denney, pp. 3–5; Hughes, pp. 50–51.
So e.g. Barrett, p. 7.
Seifrid, p. 75.
This is a widely held opinion, supported by e.g. Plummer, pp. 54–55; Strachan, p. 70; Bruce, p. 185; Bultmann, pp. 47–48; Furnish, p. 168.
Thrall, pp. 68–69.
Cf. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, pp. 44–57.
So, recently, Harris, pp. 85–87; Barnett, p. 35.
Barrett, pp. 29–30, argues that Paul’s opponents were ‘Jews of Palestinian origin, who exercised a Judaizing influence’, who for strategic reasons when in Corinth adopted certain Hellenistic characteristics.
Barrett, ‘Paul’s Opponents’, pp. 60–86. Cf. Harris, pp. 75–76; Martin, pp. 338–339.
So also e.g. Barnett, p. 33; Furnish, p. 49.
Cf. Briones, ‘Mutual Brokers’, pp. 536–556.
Cf. Yves Lafond, ‘Achaeans, Achaea’, in Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly: Antiquity (Brill Online, 2014).
See O. Schmitz, G. Stählin, ‘Parakaleō, paraklēsis’, TDNT 5, pp. 773–799.
Denney, Death of Christ, p. 82.
So e.g. Best, One Body, pp. 131–136.
Kruse, Foundations for Ministry, pp. 111–114.
Hemer, ‘A Note’, pp. 103–107, argues that ‘there is no ground in contemporary usage for seeing a judicial metaphor here’. Rather, apokrima is best understood as an ‘answer’ given by God to a petition made by the apostle.
Denney, p. 28.
Tertullian, ‘On the Resurrection of the Flesh’, ANF 3, p. 582.
Yates, ‘Paul’s Affliction’, pp. 241–245. See also Wood, ‘Death’, pp. 151–155.
Cf. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca, pp. 84–102; C. Maurer, ‘Synoida/syneidēsis’, TDNT 6, pp. 898–919.
Thrall, ‘SYNEIDĒSIS ’, pp. 118–125.
An alternative reading has ‘holiness’ (hagiotēti) instead of ‘integrity’ (haplotēti); in either case the overall sense is the same.
Chrysostom says, ‘the pleasure would be double because it would come both from his writings and from his presence’ (Bray, p. 200). Hafemann (p. 84) adopts an active interpretation of the benefit, suggesting it refers to two opportunities the Corinthians would have to contribute to the collection. Fee, ‘CHARIS’, pp. 533–538, suggests that the benefit (charis) Paul refers to in v. 15 should be taken in an active sense, indicating that the extra benefit the Corinthians were to have would be two opportunities to show ‘kindness’ to their apostle by helping him first on his way to Macedonia, and then on his journey to Judea.
Wenham, ‘2 Corinthians 1:17, 18’, pp. 271–279, suggests the expression was well known among early Christians, and the Corinthians claimed that Paul was behaving as if Jesus’ words legitimized his saying one thing and doing another in respect of his travel plans. Paul responded that he was not guilty of distorting the meaning of Jesus’ words to justify his vacillation.
Some commentators (e.g. Plummer, pp. 34–35) construe this verse not as an assertion with an oath, but as a straightforward statement: ‘God is faithful in that our word to you has not been Yes and No.’ In this case, it becomes an assertion that Paul’s reliability rests upon God’s faithfulness. However, the majority of scholars (e.g. Lietzmann, p. 103; Furnish, p. 135; Thrall, p. 144) rightly recognize the presence of an oath formula here. Where Paul uses the expression God is faithful as part of a simple statement, it is not followed by a hoti clause (Furnish, p. 135).
The word arrabōn is found only three times in the New Testament, and only in Paul’s letters (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:14). Cf. Kwon, ‘Arrabōn’, pp. 525–541, who argues cogently against the view that arrabōn means ‘deposit’ in the sense of a part-payment now, the balance of which will be paid later.
Some scholars argue that the four expressions introduced by Paul in vv. 21–22 reflect the terminology of early Christian baptismal liturgies. Whether they had baptismal connotations in Paul’s day is debatable, but not out of the question, especially in the light of the fact that there was not in the New Testament the separation between the rite of baptism, belief and reception of the Spirit that some see today. Cf. Acts 2:38; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13. Cf. also Dunn, Baptism, pp. 131–134.
Cf. Novenson, ‘God Is Witness’, pp. 355–375.
Most commentators identify the ‘one’ of the second part of the verse with the ‘you’ of the first part. This is done either by regarding the ‘one’ as a representative Corinthian, or, as in the case of the translators of the NIV, by simply replacing the ‘one’ with ‘you’.
When Paul says I wrote, he uses the aorist tense of the verb (egrapsa), which the NIV treats as a simple past tense and therefore refers to the ‘severe letter’ written previously. However, it is possible to treat egrapsa as an epistolary aorist referring to the letter Paul was currently writing. In this case, the test of the Corinthians’ obedience would not be the disciplining of the offender referred to in verses 2–6, but to his reinstatement called for in verses 7–11. Cf. Stegman, ‘Egrapsa’, pp. 50–67.
Barrett (p. 99) argues that the imagery is drawn rather from the world of sacrifice (the smell of the burnt offerings or incense ascending to the nostrils of the deity). He draws attention to the words, we are an aroma of Christ ‘to God’ (tō theō)’ in 2:15, arguing that the ‘aroma’ is intended primarily for God, not human beings. However, as Furnish (p. 177) points out, the aroma in the present context is thought of primarily as something affecting human beings, not God. Also, the words tō theō could be translated ‘for God’, thus yielding a translation: ‘we are an aroma of Christ for God’, i.e. an aroma for God ‘among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing’.
Another possible approach to the interpretation of these verses is suggested by Manson, ‘Suggestion’, pp. 155–162, who cites rabbinic sources in which the Torah acts as both an elixir of life (for Israel) and a deadly poison (for Gentile nations). It is against this background that Paul speaks of Christ as an aroma which has similarly diverse effects on those who believe or disbelieve the gospel.
Egan, ‘Lexical Evidence’, pp. 34–62.
For a detailed discussion, see Hafemann, Suffering, pp. 12–179.
Harris (p. 259) argues that the sense of self-commendation in 4:2; 6:4 is positive – boasting in the Lord (indicated by the non-emphatic synistanein heauton), whereas in 5:12; 10:18 it is pejorative (indicated by the emphatic heauton synistanein).
Cf. Barrett, pp. 96, 108; Bultmann, p. 71; Martin, pp. 44, 51; Thrall, pp. 223–224.
Cf. BDAG s.v.
That is, if they did not avail themselves of the forgiveness offered through the prescribed sacrifices, sacrifices which pointed forward to the sacrificial death of Christ that inaugurated the new covenant and alone made forgiveness possible.
Cf. Rosner, Paul and the Law, pp. 159–205.
The word used is telos, which can mean ‘end’ either in the sense of ‘terminus’ or in the sense of ‘goal’. Some scholars argue for the latter, saying the glory reflected on the face of Moses was the glory of the (pre-existent) Christ, the goal of the old dispensation. But the flow of Paul’s thought here demands the former, as recognized by most commentators.
Baker, ‘Moses’ Face’, pp. 1–15.
The phrase were made dull translates epōrōthē, an aorist passive form of the verb (pōroō) often translated ‘were hardened’, where the implied subject is God (cf. Rom. 9:13–18), although that does not lessen human responsibility (cf. Rom. 10:21).
Augustine says, ‘It is not the Old Testament that is done away with in Christ but the concealing veil, so that it may be understood through Christ. That is, as it were, laid bare, which without Christ is hidden and obscure’ (Bray, p. 222).
Calvin (p. 48) interprets ean epistrepsē pros kyrion periaireitai to kalymma to mean ‘whenever he [Moses] turns to the Lord the veil is taken away’.
van Unnik, ‘Unveiled Face’, p. 161, provides evidence that in early rabbinic texts ‘“to cover the face” is a sign of shame and mourning; “to uncover the head” means confidence and freedom’.
Harris (p. 320) notes the similarities between 4:1–6 and 2:14–17 and suggests both passages constitute a defence of the integrity of Paul’s ministry vis-à-vis his critics:
4:2 Nor do we distort the word of God | 2:17 we do not peddle the word of God for profit |
4:2 in the sight of God | 2:17 before God |
4:3 to those who are perishing | 2:15 among… those who are perishing |
4:5 we preach | 2:17 we speak |
4:6 the knowledge of God’s glory | 2:14 the knowledge of him |
The verb translated lose heart (enkakeō) is found in four other places in Paul’s letters (4:16; Gal. 6:9; Eph. 3:13; 2 Thess. 3:13) and once in Luke 18:1. In each case, the context indicates that the translation lose heart is appropriate. This being the case, alternative translations such as ‘behave badly’, appropriate in some extra-biblical texts, should not be adopted here.
Chrysostom comments, ‘Some were “walking in craftiness.” They had a reputation for taking nothing, but in fact they took it and kept it secret. They had the seeming character of saints and apostles but were full of innumerable secret wickednesses. Paul takes nothing and calls on the Corinthians as his witnesses. Likewise he does nothing wicked and asks them to testify to the truth of what he is saying’ (Bray, p. 227).
LSJ s.v. lists as a possible meaning: ‘adulterate incense, wine, etc.’.
In John’s Gospel Christ’s death is also a manifestation of his glory (cf. John 12:23–33).
Calvin (pp. 55–56) comments, ‘When Christ is called the image of the invisible God the reference is not merely to His essence, because He is, as they say, co-essential with the Father, but rather to His relationship to us because He represents the Father to us… He is the image of God to us because He reveals to us things in His Father that would otherwise remain hidden.’
There is an alternative and better-attested reading in the Greek manuscripts which reads: ‘For it is the God who said, “a light shall shine out of darkness”.’ In this form it could allude to the prophecy concerning the land of Zebulun and Naphtali in Isa. 9:2: ‘The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of deep darkness a light has dawned.’ This text is taken up and applied to the ministry of Christ in Matt. 4:15–16 and Luke 1:79.
Early Church Fathers differed in their interpretation of the spirit of faith. Augustine regards it as a reference to the human spirit of faith (Bray, pp. 234–235). Chrysostom regards it as a reference to the Holy Spirit’s work in both the prophets and apostles (Bray, p. 234; so too Hafemann, p. 187). Campbell, ‘2 Corinthians 4:13’, pp. 337–356, argues that Paul is referring to the Spirit of Christ. Cf. also Stegman, ‘Episteusa’, pp. 725–745.
The view that Paul is speaking about resurrection life experienced by believers now, rather than eschatological resurrection, is unlikely, especially in the light of the parallels between 2 Cor. 4:13–14 and 1 Thess. 4:14. Cf. Plevnik, ‘Destination’, pp. 83–95.
This is an example of what grammarians describe as a third-class conditional sentence (ean + subjunctive in the protasis, with virtually any form of the verb in the apodosis). Such conditional sentences are employed to express an assumption that given the future condition in the protasis is true, what is expressed in the apodosis will follow. In the case of 5:1, what Paul is saying is that if the earthly tent we now live in should in the future be destroyed, then we will have a building from God… not built by human hands.
Cf. Harris, pp. 371–372; Barnett, pp. 257–258; Thrall, pp. 363–367; so too, Chrysostom and Origen (Bray, p. 239).
Ellis, ‘II Corinthians v.1–10’, pp. 211–224, argues that being found naked here does not refer to existence as a disembodied spirit, but is to be understood ethically, referring to the shame of exposure before the judgment seat of Christ. So too Hafemann (p. 212).
An alternate view is that Paul’s not wanting to be unclothed was his aversion to death itself, rather than the disembodied state that might follow.
Contra Hafemann (pp. 216–217) who argues that because Paul says this in the midst of his discussion of eternal resurrection life, salvation itself is in view here.
Thrall (p. 405) offers a very different exegesis of this verse. She notes that en prosōpō kauchōmenous (translated in the NIV as take pride in what is seen), when translated literally, reads: ‘boasting in face’, and suggests that those who opposed Paul boasted about the glorious face of Moses (cf. 3:7) and contrasted that with the lack of outward glory of Paul’s ministry.
This is the way hyper is construed here by both BDAG, s.v. and H. Riesenfeld, ‘hyper’, TDNT 8, pp. 509–510.
Danby, Mishnah, p. 6.
As rendered by the NIV (and most other English translations), this constitutes an exhortation directed to Paul’s Corinthian audience. Translated literally, the original Greek (deometha hyper Christou, katallagēte tō theō) reads: ‘We implore on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.’ The verb deometha (‘implore’) has no direct object. This has led some exegetes to argue that Paul is not addressing his exhortation to his Corinthian audience. However, katallagēte (‘be reconciled’) is a second-person plural imperative indicating that the exhortation is directed to them.
Cf. Oden, Classic Christianity, p. 395.
Chrysostom comments, ‘Any one of these things is intolerable, but taken together, think what kind of soul is needed to endure them’ (Bray, p.257).
The present passive participle here rendered known is epiginōskomenoi from the verb epiginōskō which Paul uses in 1 Cor. 16:18, where he speaks of fellow workers who deserve recognition.
See e.g. Seneca, On Benefits, VII.ii.5–6.
The Hebrew text of Lev. 19:19 on which our English versions are based contains a prohibition, not of yoking, but of breeding different species of animals.
The NIV has reversed the order of Paul’s affirmation of friendship as it is found in the original (eis to synapothanein kai syzēn: ‘to die together and live together’) to render it live or die with you. While the word order of the original is unusual, it is not unknown (cf. 2 Sam. 15:21 LXX).
Subsequent events, reflected in chs. 10–13, suggest that either Titus’ report, or Paul’s response to it, was prematurely optimistic.
Paul’s expression of confidence here stands in stark contrast to the way he addresses the same people in chs. 10–13 (cf. esp. 11:3–4, 19–20), and this is one of the main factors which leads many scholars to see in chs. 10–13 the remains of a subsequent letter of Paul (see Introduction).
Harris (p. 553) argues that Paul’s opponents in Corinth were inhibiting the success of the collection by accepting the offer of support made by the Corinthians and thus becoming an extra financial burden on them.
There is a variant which reads ‘the love from you in us’ instead of the love we have kindled in you, but the context, where the qualities evident in the Corinthians are listed, suggests the latter is to be preferred.
Harris (p. 587) comments, ‘If Paul had advocated the practice of tithing, this would have been an appropriate place for him to mention or defend it. But so far from championing the practice of giving by percentage, he argues for proportional giving.’
This is how Philo understood Exod. 16:16–18 (Quis rerum divinarum heres sit, 191), which he then applied allegorically to the word of God.
Suggestions concerning his identity made by early Church Fathers include Luke (Pelagius, Oecumenius) and Barnabas (Chrysostom, Theodoret of Cyr) (Bray, p. 276). Other suggestions include Luke (Plummer, p. 248; Hughes, p. 313), Apollos (Martin, p. 275), and Sopater, Aristarchus or Secundus who are mentioned as representatives of the Macedonian churches in Acts 20:4.
Where the expression en tō euangeliō is used elsewhere by Paul (10:14; Rom. 1:9; 1 Cor. 9:18; Phil 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:2), in most if not all cases it relates to preaching the gospel.
In 4:2 Paul spoke in similar vein in relation to his preaching: ‘By setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.’ Cf. also Rom. 12:17: ‘Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone.’
Theodoret of Cyr says, ‘Some people think this refers to Apollos, whom Paul promised in his first epistle that he would send’ (Bray, p. 277).
Betz, p. 90, argues that Paul says, ‘there is no need for me to write’ in order ‘to relieve the tiresomeness of the subject’, anticipating the reaction: ‘Oh, not another of those letters on the collection!’
In the original it is not you in Achaia (as in the NIV), but just ‘Achaia’ (as in the NRSV), about whom Paul boasted of their being ready. If Achaia was in fact ready, Betz, pp. 92–93, asks why Paul wrote to ensure they would be. His suggestion is that the churches of Achaia were to be distinguished from the church in Corinth (cf. 1:1)-Achaia was ready, only Corinth was not, and Paul wanted the Achaeans to make sure the Corinthians would do their part. However, as Corinth was the provincial capital of Achaia, it is unlikely that it would be excluded from Paul’s boasting about Achaia being ready. It may be added that Paul speaks of Achaia because his earlier reference was to the Macedonians.
Having been so confident translates en tē hypostasei tautē, which may also be rendered: ‘in this endeavour’. Thrall (pp. 568–570) supports the view that hypostasis here is best interpreted as ‘plan’ or ‘project’.
The verse is notable for remarkable paronomasia (the repetition of words having the same stem) in the Greek original: God is able to make all (pasan) grace abound to you, so that having always (pantote) in all things (panti) all (pasan) you need so that you may abound in all (pan) good work.
Sevenster, Paul and Seneca, pp. 113–114.
Nickle, Collection, is representative of modern approaches and provides a readable coverage of the main issues involved. See also S. McKnight, ‘Collection for the Saints’, DPL, 143–147; Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, pp. 287–305, and the major commentaries by Furnish (pp. 409–413) and Martin (pp. 256–258).
Nickle, Collection, pp. 74–93.
Ibid., pp. 129–142.
By weapons of the world, Chrysostom says, ‘he means wealth, glory, power, loquaciousness, cleverness, half-truths, flatteries, hypocrisies and so on’ (Bray, p. 284).
In Acts of Paul and Thecla 3 Paul is described as ‘a man of small stature, with a bald head and crooked legs, in a good state of body, with eyebrows meeting and nose somewhat hooked’.
NewDocs I, pp. 36–45.
Batey, ‘Paul’s Bride Image’, pp. 176–182.
So e.g. Origen, Augustine, Caesarius of Arles (Bray, pp. 290–291).
Calvin (pp. 147–148) interprets Paul’s reference to a little boasting temporally, as something he will indulge in only for a short time.
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 12, p. 392.
Welborn, ‘Caricature’, pp. 39–56.
The twofold phrases, to boast about, are added in the NIV to make clear what Paul intended. Literally rendered, the text would read: ‘whatever anyone dares… I also dare’.
In fact, it was illegal for magistrates to have a Roman citizen (as Paul was) beaten, though the Philippian magistrates did not know initially that Paul held Roman citizenship, and for this reason they came to apologize to Paul for what they had done (Acts 16:36–39). We know from incidents recorded in other ancient literature that the law was not always observed in practice.
Glancy, ‘Boasting’, pp. 99–135.
It was the daughter of Aretas IV who was the first wife of Herod Antipas, and whom the latter divorced to marry Herodias, the wife of his half-brother, Philip (Matt. 14:3–4).
ABD s.v. ‘Aretas’.
Cf. Murphy-O’Connor, ‘Paul in Arabia’, pp. 733–734.
Barrier, ‘Visions’, pp. 33–42, argues that Paul is not speaking of his own experience, but parodying that of his opponents. So, too, Goulder, ‘Vision’, pp. 53–71.
The words, or because of these surpassingly great revelations (kai tē hyperbolē tōn apokalypseōn) (v. 7a), could be seen as part of the explanation why Paul refrained from boasting, (i.e. that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me, and particularly not because of these surpassingly great revelations), or as the reason why he was given a thorn in the flesh (to prevent him from becoming conceited as a result of receiving such revelations, v. 7b).
So McCant, ‘Paul’s Thorn’, pp. 550–572; Woods, ‘Opposition’, pp. 44–53.
Paul omits any reference to ‘the brother who is praised by all the churches’ who also accompanied Titus (8:18–19), possibly because he was not an associate of Paul, but an appointee of the churches.
The NRSV translates 12:20a as ‘For I fear that when I come, I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish’, in which the negative particles do not relate to the verbs ‘find’, but to what was wished for/wanted.
Against this view, it has been argued that personal witnesses are needed only to bring to light secret sins, not public scandals with which Paul is concerned here (assuming the scandals were not simply based on rumours but on events known publicly). In response, it can be stated that the role of witnesses is not only to bring to light what was secret, but also to bear responsibility before the judiciary for the charge brought.
Cf. Brown, ‘Meaning’, pp. 175–188.
Klassen, ‘The Sacred Kiss’, pp, 122–135, esp. 126–128.
Jewett, Romans, p. 973, notes, ‘In the post-NT period, when the church was attempting to conform to the society, “the men kissed the men and the women the women,” thus avoiding the appearance of promiscuity. It is therefore likely that the adjective “holy” was attached to this inclusive greeting in response to sexual promiscuity encouraged by such kissing.’ Cf. G. Stählin, ‘Phileō ’, TDNT 9, pp. 142–143.