2. Paul responds to a new crisis (10:1 – 13:14)

Paul opens his response to this crisis by countering the criticisms that he lacks courage when present and that he conducts his ministry according to mere human standards. He insists that the ‘weapons’ he fights with have ‘divine power’. He says he is ready to ‘punish’ disobedience, even though his ministry is essentially for building up, not tearing down (vv. 1–11). He refuses to engage in pointless comparisons of his ministry with that of his opponents, and insists that he operates only in the sphere assigned to him by God. He does not boast of work done in another’s territory, as his opponents were doing, as his aim is to preach in the ‘regions beyond’ (vv. 12–18).

Paul appeals to the Corinthians so to act that when he comes on his third visit he will not need to take action against them as he is resolved to do against those who question the validity of his apostleship (vv. 1–2). He denies charges that he acts in a worldly fashion, assuring his audience that he conducts his ministry with ‘weapons’ that have divine power (vv. 3–5). He informs them that he is ready to punish his opponents in Corinth, as soon as their own obedience is complete (v. 6). He responds to the criticisms levelled against him by his opponents: first, that he was no true servant of Christ while they were (vv. 7–8), and second, that while his letters were ‘weighty and forceful’, ‘in person he is unimpressive’, and ‘his speaking amounts to nothing’ (vv. 9–11).

i. Paul responds to criticisms (10:1–11)

1. By the humility and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you. Humility here translates praütētos, which is usually rendered ‘meekness’ (SO NRSV). Among the Greeks from classical times onwards it denoted a ‘mild and gentle friendliness’, a highly prized social virtue, and the opposite of brusqueness or sudden anger. It was regarded as virtuous to show mildness to one’s own people and harshness to one’s enemies. Mildness on the part of the judge meant sentencing offenders with more leniency than the law prescribed. The essential meaning of the word translated gentleness (epieikeias) is ‘suitable’ or ‘fitting’, and when used in a moral sense, ‘reasonable’ or ‘fair’. Applied to rulers, it denoted kindness, equity and leniency (cf. Acts 24:4). In the present context it is part of a hendiadys (the use of two words joined by ‘and’ to express one idea), and therefore its meaning here is defined by that of praütēs, and so is rendered gentleness in the NIV.

The meekness and gentleness to which Paul appeals are exemplified in the life and ministry of Christ who dealt gently and compassionately with sinners (cf. Matt. 11:29). With this in mind, in the next verse Paul will beg the Corinthians to act in such a way that he will be able to deal gently with them and not have to be ‘bold’ in the use of his apostolic authority. Thrall (p. 600) comments,

Paul’s reminder of the character of Christ could be understood in two different ways: either he is appealing to his audience to behave in a Christ-like manner towards himself, or else he is begging them not to compel him to abandon the Christ-like manner which he would wish to maintain towards them. The general context, concerned as it is with the personal impression Paul makes by his presence and by his letters, would support the second alternative.

It is important to remember that in the case of Christ, meekness and gentleness did not mean weakness, and this was also true of Paul. Hafemann (p. 393) comments, ‘Far from timidity, his [Christ’s] “meekness” is his slowness to anger, far from lacking conviction, his “gentleness” is his forbearance, in contrast to being vindictive.’

Before stating the content of his appeal in verse 2, Paul inserts an ironic reference to the criticisms of his behaviour that some in his audience have entertained: I, Paul, who am ‘timid’ when face to face with you, but ‘bold’ towards you when away! Paul had not acted authoritatively on his second (‘painful’) visit, as previously threatened (1 Cor. 4:18–21). This was probably the basis upon which his opponents accused him of being timid when face to face with the Corinthians, and of being bold only when communicating by letter at a safe distance (cf. 10:10–11).

2. I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be towards some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. Paul’s desire not to show boldness can no more be construed as a sign of ‘unapostolic’ timidity than can the meekness of Christ be construed as moral weakness. Paul did not wish to show boldness to the Corinthians as he expected to show towards those who accused him of acting according to the standards of this world (lit. ‘according to the flesh’), the false apostles and those Corinthians influenced by them. To act according to the flesh is the opposite of acting according to the Spirit. Paul responds to these criticisms in verses 3–6 with an extensive use of military terminology.

3. For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does (more literally: ‘For while we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh’). In this verse and those that follow (vv. 4–6) Paul employs military metaphors to make his point. He refers to waging war (v. 3), weapons and strongholds (v. 4), things raised up (i.e. towers/ramparts), taking captives (v. 5), and punishing disobedience (i.e. ‘court-martial’) (v. 6).

While acknowledging that he lives in the world, Paul denies that he wages war as the world does. To ‘live in the world’ means to participate in normal human existence with all its limitations. ‘To wage war as the world does’ here means to carry out ministry with mere human resources, and with the concomitant tendency to employ doubtful means (cf. 1:17; 4:2; 12:16–18). Paul did not rely upon the sort of things that itinerant orators did to make an impression, nor the things which his opponents in Corinth regarded as necessary in an authentic ministry: an impressive presence, exceptional speaking ability, self-commendation, Jewish pedigree, the experience of visions and revelations, the performance of signs and wonders, and an authoritarian manner (cf. 10:10, 12, 18; 11:20, 22; 12:1, 12).

4. To support the denial that he wages war ‘as the world does’, Paul says, The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power. He contrasts the weak weapons of the world and powerful weapons used in the service of God. The weapons of the world1 refer to the things employed by those who ‘wage war as the world does’, mentioned in the commentary on the previous verse. Paul does not, in this passage, identify the weapons that have divine power, but his statements elsewhere suggest that they consist in the proclamation of the gospel through which the Holy Spirit releases his power to transform lives (4:1–6; Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:17 – 2:5; 1 Thess. 1:5; 2:13).

To demolish strongholds. The word strongholds (ochyrōmatōn) is found only here in the New Testament. It is used in a literal sense in Proverbs 21:22 (LXX), while Philo uses it figuratively of a stronghold prepared by persuasive words against the honour of God (Confusion of Tongues, 129). The military practice of building strongholds (in antiquity Acrocorinth was fortified by walls and gates) provided the imagery used by Cynic and Stoic philosophers, and in particular by Seneca, a contemporary of Paul, to describe the fortification of the soul by reasonable arguments to render it impregnable under the attack of adverse fortune. In the next verse Paul speaks of destroying arguments which stand against the knowledge of God, suggesting that the strongholds he has in mind are the intellectual arguments of unbelievers that have to be demolished so that the truth of the gospel might gain entry.

5. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God. The words every pretension translate pan hypsōma epairomenon (lit. ‘every high thing lifted up’), an expression that relates to the world of ancient warfare and denotes a tower or raised rampart built to withstand the enemy. Both the ‘strongholds’ of verse 4 and the ‘tower’ (pretension) of this verse stand for intellectual arguments employed by people in their rejection of the gospel. It is by the proclamation of the gospel that God releases his power by which these very arguments (cf. 1 Cor. 1:19: ‘the wisdom of the wise’) will be destroyed, and by which those who believe will be saved (cf. Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:17–25; 2:1–5; 1 Thess. 1:5; 2:13). This reflects an important aspect of Paul’s missionary activity. His proclamation of the gospel, like our Lord’s preaching of the kingdom, was not bare declaration, but involved reasoning and arguing with his hearers in an effort to remove barriers erected against the truth (cf. Acts 18:4; 19:8–10). While what Paul says here reflects his missionary tactics, he may also have in mind his rebuttal of arguments employed by his opponents in Corinth.

We take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. By the proclamation and defence of the gospel, Paul destroyed arguments in an effort to take every thought captive to obey Christ. The imagery is of a stronghold breached and those sheltering behind its walls taken captive. The apostle’s purpose was not only to demolish false arguments, but also to bring people’s thoughts under the lordship of Christ. His mission as an apostle was ‘to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith’ (Rom. 1:5).

6. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete. Paul portrays himself as being ready (en hetoimō echontes-an expression used of military preparedness) to punish every disobedience. It is not easy to determine what was the exact nature of the disobedience Paul stood ready to punish. Perhaps he believed that because he had carried out the pioneer evangelism in Corinth, this gave him the apostolic authority there, and any others claiming to be apostles ought to be in submission to him in that situation (cf. 10:13–16). But in the light of the accusations Paul makes in chapter 11, it is more likely that the disobedience he had in mind was far more serious. It was a tampering with the truth of the gospel (11:4), and because of that its perpetrators could be called ‘false apostles, deceitful workers’, and even servants of Satan (11:13–15). If all this be granted, then the complete obedience from the Corinthians for which the apostle waited before taking action against the intruders would be the rejection of the message of his opponents and their claims, and the recognition again of Paul’s authority and the truth of his gospel.

The nature of the punishment that Paul was ready to inflict is also difficult to determine. The fact that he says he stood ready to do so once the majority of the Corinthians’ obedience was complete suggests it involved excommunication (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1–13), something that could not be implemented without their cooperation. Alternatively, he might have had in mind some manifestation of divine power like that visited upon Ananias and Sapphira (death, Acts 5:1–10) and Elymas the magician (blindness, Acts 13:6–11).

7. The first sentence of this verse, You are judging by appearances, is construed in the NIV as a statement of fact, whereas the NRSV interprets it as a command: ‘Look at what is before your eyes.’ Both are legitimate translations of the original, as the verb blepete can be construed as either an imperative (‘Look!’) or an indicative (‘You are looking/judging’) or even as an interrogative (‘Are you looking?’). The imperative rendering of the NRSV is to be preferred on the grounds that blepete when used elsewhere in Paul’s letters is always imperative (1 Cor. 8:9; 10:12, 18; 16:10; Gal. 5:15; Eph. 5:15; Phil. 3:2; Col. 2:8), with only one possible exception (1 Cor. 1:26). The sense of Paul’s command is: ‘Look at what is patently obvious!’

If anyone is confident that they belong to Christ, they should consider again that we belong to Christ just as much as they do. What ought to be patently obvious to Paul’s audience is that, even granted for the sake of argument the claims of his opponents to be Christ’s (he will deny this later; cf. 11:13–15), he himself (and his colleagues) are equally so.

There has been much debate about the meaning of belong to Christ (Christou einai, lit. ‘to be of Christ’). It has been variously understood to mean: (a) to be a Christian, (b) to have been a disciple of the earthly Jesus, (c) to be a servant or apostle of Christ, and (d) to be part of Christ (understood along Gnostic lines). The view that it means to be a servant of Christ or an apostle commends itself most in the light of both 11:23 (‘are they servants of Christ… I am more’) and the fact that throughout chapters 10 – 13 Paul is defending his apostolate. Paul’s claim to be Christ’s apostle rested upon his conversion-commissioning experience.

8. So even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us. Paul’s reference to boasting somewhat freely of his authority may be an allusion to the authoritative demands made in his ‘severe letter’. By the Lord, here he means Christ, the one who commissioned him as an apostle. He adds, by way of parenthesis, that his authority is for building you up rather than tearing you down (cf. 13:10; Jer. 1:10; 24:6; 42:10; 45:4). He states the purpose for which the Lord gave him authority both positively (for building you up) and negatively (not for tearing you down). While his use of authority may sometimes appear to tear people down (cf. 13:10), it is actually intended to build them up through spiritual discipline.

On the surface there appears to be a contradiction between what Paul says here – that the authority he has is not for tearing down (ouk eis kathairesin) – and what he says in verse 4 – that he uses ‘weapons’ to demolish (kathairesin) strongholds. The same Greek verb is used in both places. The different contexts provide the resolution to the apparent contradiction. In the case of verse 4 he speaks of tearing down strongholds (i.e. intellectual resistance to the truth of the gospel), and this is a legitimate part of his apostolic mission. In the case of verse 8 he says the authority the Lord gave him is not for ‘tearing you down’ (i.e. it was given with the opposite intention of ‘building you up’). He tears down arguments, but builds up people.

Following the parenthesis, Paul completes what he started to say at the beginning of the verse: So even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us… I will not be ashamed of it. The clue to understanding this statement is to be found in verses 9–11. Paul is confident that it will become apparent that his behaviour when present is completely consistent with his bold use of authority by letter when absent, and so he will be vindicated rather than put to shame as far as his boasting of authority is concerned. An alternate view is that Paul is saying he will have no need to feel ashamed of his use of authority when he stands before the judgment seat of Christ (cf. 5:10), but this is less likely in the present context.

It is important to recognize that apostolic authority was of great significance for Paul. He was an ambassador for Christ (5:20), and as such he passed on the message entrusted to him with the full authority of his Lord. Therefore Paul expected to be obeyed when speaking in the name of the Lord; anyone who rejected his instructions rejected the word of the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 14:37–38). Because he was entrusted with such authority, Paul was careful to distinguish the word of the Lord from his own good advice and from other statements he sometimes felt forced to make (1 Cor. 7:10, 25; 2 Cor. 11:17). His authority was expressed not only in instructions which he expected to be obeyed, but also in the dynamic power of God which could be demonstrated (cf. 13:2–3). However, having such authority did not exempt the apostle from the experience of weakness, persecution and suffering. In fact, as the bearer of Christ’s authority he also shared in Christ’s weakness, even while the power of God was at work through him (cf. 13:4).

9. I do not want to seem to be trying to frighten you with my letters. The NIV construes this verse as an independent sentence, but when the original is translated literally, it reads: ‘in order that I may not seem to terrify you by letters’. The grammatical connection with what precedes is not apparent. Thrall (pp. 626–627) suggests there must be ‘some intermediate thought’ that would connect it to verse 8. She says, ‘The connecting link would then be: “I say this”. And the meaning of the verse would be: “so that I may not seem to be operating, so to speak, an epistolary ‘terror-campaign’”.’ It is clear that Paul was responding to criticisms made by his opponents who accused him of writing strongly worded letters and claiming an authority he did not have.

10. Paul knew what his opponents were saying to his converts, and he reproduces it here: For some say, ‘His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing.’ While Paul’s letters were regarded as intimidating (weighty and forceful), he was deemed to lack authority when present in person. The words in person he is unimpressive (lit. ‘[his] bodily presence is weak’) may reflect his opponents’ reaction to a physical ailment which was never healed (cf. 12:7–9; Gal. 4:15), or his lack of an impressive physical make-up, something regarded as essential by students of rhetoric who wished to impress an audience.2 Most likely, however, it signifies what his critics regarded as a lack of a commanding presence because Paul did not provide displays of authority and spiritual charisma.

The charge that his speaking amounts to nothing was probably made by Paul’s opponents, either because they disliked his unadorned style of speaking (cf. 1 Cor. 2:1–2), or perhaps because they could not understand why one claiming to be an apostle of Christ had not spoken boldly in his own defence when attacked by the offender (cf. 2:5; 7:12), choosing rather to retire in humiliation and send a strongly worded letter from a safe distance.

11. Of those who so criticized him, Paul says, Such people should realise that what we are in our letters when we are absent, we will be in our actions when we are present. While the apostle may have chosen not to act authoritatively on his second visit, that does not mean he is unable to do so. The one who wrote the strong letters was prepared to stand up to his critics when he came on the third visit. No-one should mistake his efforts to be conciliatory as evidence that he lacked authority (cf. 10:6; 13:1–4).

ii. Boasting within proper limits (10:12–18)

In the previous section Paul defended himself against those who claimed that, while he could write boldly from a distance, his lack of authority was plain for all to see when he was present in person. In 10:12–18 Paul takes the offensive. He satirizes his opponents who commend themselves (by comparing themselves with one another!). By contrast, his own boasting, he says, is carefully measured and based upon actual work done in the sphere of operations assigned to him by the Lord. He concludes, clearly having his opponents in mind, ‘It is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends.’

12. We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some who commend themselves. A popular method used by teachers to attract pupils in Paul’s day was to compare themselves with other teachers (cf. the papyrus P. Oxy. 2190). Paul says he would not dare to compare himself with his critics! It is the self-commendation of his opponents and the way they go about it that is the particular object of Paul’s satire: When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are not wise. We cannot be certain about the criteria they might have employed in this measurement. However, it is likely that they employed the same criteria when comparing themselves with Paul, and there are hints in 2 Corinthians concerning what these were: an authoritative presence and impressive speech (10:1, 10; 11:20–21), the levying of a fee for the message proclaimed (11:7–11), an impeccable Jewish ancestry (11:21b-22), impressive spiritual experiences (12:1–6), the performance of apostolic signs (12:12), and some show of power and authority (11:19–20) to prove that Christ spoke through them (13:3). The triumphalist nature of these criteria should be noted. There is no room for weakness, suffering, persecution and imprisonment which were often Paul’s lot, and which Jesus himself said would be the experience of those who followed him. If the understanding of the criteria adopted by Paul’s opponents suggested here is valid, it is no wonder Paul says of these people: they are not wise.

13–14. Having criticized the way his opponents commended themselves, Paul contrasts it with his own measured boasting: We, however, will not boast beyond proper limits, but will confine our boasting to the sphere of service God himself has assigned to us, a sphere that also includes you. In speaking of the sphere of service God has apportioned to him, Paul uses the expression to metron tou kanonos (lit. ‘the measure of the sphere’). The basic meaning of kanōn is ‘a rule’ or ‘a standard of measurement’. In recently published papyri there is evidence for the use of the word to denote services rendered within ‘a specified geographical area’,3 and the same sense of the word is required here. The sphere (kanōn) of ministry that God assigned to Paul was the preaching of the gospel in Gentile lands (cf. Rom. 1:5, 13–14; 15:18–19; Gal. 2:7–8) and, as the success of his ministry in Corinth showed, the people of that city were included in his God-ordained sphere of ministry: a sphere that also includes you. The fact that he was within his rights when operating in Corinth seems to have been questioned by his opponents, because Paul immediately asserts, We are not going too far in our boasting, as would be the case if we had not come to you, for we did get as far as you with the gospel of Christ. Paul bases his right to operate as an apostle in Corinth on two facts: first, God assigned to him the task of evangelizing the nations, and second, he was the one who carried out the initial evangelization of Corinth.

15. Neither do we go beyond our limits by boasting of work done by others. What Paul means by boasting beyond limit is further clarified in this verse, namely boasting of the fruits of the labours of others as if they were the fruits of one’s own. The implication of Paul’s claim that he did not boast in other men’s labours is that his opponents did.

Our hope is that, as your faith continues to grow, our sphere of activity among you will greatly expand (more literally, ‘but having hope that, as your faith grows, we shall be magnified among you in accordance with our sphere [of service] for abundance’). This part of verse 15 is very difficult to translate. The NIV and NRSV both construe it in the same way to mean that Paul hopes his sphere of service among the Corinthians will be enlarged as their faith grows. Such an enlargement of ministry would both signal the end of the present crisis, leaving Paul free to preach elsewhere, and also provide him with an enlarged support base from which to do so. Calvin (p. 137) comments, ‘As if he had said, “If you had progressed as far as you ought, I should by now be occupied in gaining new churches and I should have your assistance in doing so. But, as things are, you are delaying me by your weakness.”’

16. So that we can preach the gospel in the regions beyond you. For we do not want to boast about work already done in someone else’s territory. In Romans, written not long after these chapters were penned, Paul speaks of his ambition to take the gospel to Spain (Rom. 15:24), and we should think of his reference to regions beyond you as denoting lands, like Spain, further to the west. Also in Romans, Paul expresses his ambition ‘to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation’ (Rom. 15:20). In the present context the same motivation underlies Paul’s desire to preach in regions beyond you: he did not want to boast of work already done in another’s field. There is in all this the implication that Paul’s opponents, by interfering in Corinth, were doing the very thing which he sought so carefully to avoid.

Before leaving this verse, we should note that there remain in the world today both geographical areas and segments within societies where Christ is not known. There men and women who share Paul’s ambition to preach the gospel where Christ has not already been named are still needed.

17. But, ‘Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.’ Though there may be some room for legitimate pride in work done by the grace of God (cf. Rom. 15:17–18), nevertheless the true ground of Christian boasting is the privilege of knowing God himself. Here (and in 1 Cor. 1:31) Paul draws on the teaching of Jeremiah 9:23–24, where the wise, the mighty and the rich are counselled against glorying in their advantages. All who glory are urged to glory in the fact that they know the Lord. Jesus taught the Seventy the same lesson when they came back from their mission rejoicing that they had seen even the demons subject to them (Luke 10:17–20).

18. Glorying in success can easily degenerate into self-commendation. Paul reminds his audience (as he reminds himself), For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends. The word translated approved (dokimos) carries the idea of approval after testing. Paul uses the word to describe a tried and tested servant of Christ, one whose worth has been proved (Rom. 16:10; cf. 2 Tim. 2:15). He uses the cognate verb (dokimazō) in reference to the testing of Christian workers (2 Cor. 8:22) and the works of believers (1 Cor. 3:13; Gal. 6:4).

In this verse Paul’s eyes are upon the ultimate evaluation of a person’s ministry. Then it will matter little what the individual says by way of self-recommendation or what judgments others have made. What will matter is the commendation which the Lord himself will give (cf. 1 Cor. 4:1–5). This is the rubric under which Paul carried out his apostolic labours, and in the present context it is probably implied that his opponents in Corinth did not. Paul returns again to the theme of passing God’s test in 13:5–7.

Although it is distasteful to defend oneself against criticism, this is sometimes necessary for the sake of one’s ministry, as it was in Paul’s case. Particularly significant is his insistence that his ministry was not carried out according to the world’s standards: he did not flatter his audience, nor adulterate the word of God to make it more acceptable, nor did he manipulate them by improper use of rhetoric. He countered arguments people used to resist the knowledge of God, while trusting that God’s power would be released through the preaching of the gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 2:1–5). Paul ministered with God-given authority to build people up, not to tear them down. He did not lord it over people’s faith, but worked with them for their joy (1:24).

While it is sometimes necessary to respond to criticism by putting the record straight, self-commendation for its own sake is to be avoided. The commendation that matters ultimately is that coming from the Lord himself: ‘For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends.’ Believers long to hear the words: ‘Well done, good and faithful servant!… Come and share your master’s happiness!’ (Matt. 25:21, 23).

There is a sense in which Christians can legitimately ‘boast’ of work faithfully carried out for the Lord, while remembering that effective ministry is what Christ himself accomplishes through them (cf. Rom. 15:18). Ultimately, therefore, Paul’s exhortation stands: ‘But, “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”’

B. Paul’s plea for tolerance and condemnation of his opponents (11:1–15)

In this passage Paul foreshadows the ‘fool’s speech’ which is to follow later in this chapter and in the next. He explains that his great concern about his audience’s gullibility forces him to make the ‘fool’s speech’. He is concerned lest their minds be led astray from devotion to Christ by those who question his credentials and proclaim a different gospel. He responds to criticisms of his practice of not asking for or accepting financial support from the Corinthians. Because of this, he appears to have come under criticism on two counts. First, the Corinthians felt affronted because he refused to accept assistance from them, especially when by so doing he was forced to undertake menial work to support himself, work which they regarded as degrading for an apostle (v. 7). Second, this refusal was misconstrued as evidence that Paul did not really love the Corinthians. If he would not accept their money, surely that meant he had no real affection for them (v. 11). Despite these criticisms, Paul informs his audience that he has no intention of changing his practice, and the reason for this is that he wishes to undercut claims made by his opponents to work on the same basis as he does (v. 12). There follows a strong verbal attack in which Paul dispenses with irony and reveals clearly his opinion of his opponents (vv. 13–15).

1. I hope you will put up with me in a little foolishness. Paul regards the parading of his credentials in the ‘fool’s speech’ which is to follow (11:16 – 12:13) as an act of folly. This is especially so because, as he has just said, ‘it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends’ (10:18). Yet in the light of the situation in Corinth, he was forced to set forth his credentials, and that, not as he would have chosen, but in accordance with the criteria favoured by his opponents and apparently accepted by his converts. To meet the demands of the situation, Paul ‘answers the fool according to his folly’. When he entreats his audience, Yes, please put up with me! (construing anechesthe as imperative), it is probably more a sign of his own embarrassment about the whole exercise than a concern that they might see it as inappropriate.

i. The Corinthians’ gullibility (11:1–6)

2–3. Paul reveals the deep concern which leads him to indulge in the folly of self-commendation: I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy (more literally, ‘I am jealous over you with [the] jealousy of God’). As he sees what is occurring in Corinth, Paul is deeply moved because he shares the jealousy of God for his people (cf. Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Deut. 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; Josh. 24:19). Chrysostom says, ‘For God is said to be jealous, not in a human way but so that everyone may know that he claims sovereign rights over those whom he loves and does what he does for their exclusive benefit. Human jealousy is basically selfish, but divine jealousy is both intense and pure’ (Bray, p. 290).

Paul employs a betrothal metaphor to express his concern: I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. Marriage among the Jews of Paul’s day involved two separate ceremonies, the betrothal and the nuptial ceremony which consummated the marriage. Usually a year elapsed between the two, but during that period the woman was regarded legally as the man’s wife, while socially she remained a virgin. The betrothal contract was binding, and could be broken only by death or a formal written divorce document. Unfaithfulness or violation of a betrothed woman was regarded as adultery and punishable as such.4 These marriage customs provide the background to Paul’s statements here, while at the same time recalling Old Testament passages where Israel is portrayed as the betrothed of God (cf. e.g. Hos. 2:19–20).

Paul saw himself as the agent of God through whom his converts were betrothed to Christ (the ‘father’ of the bride, as it were), and felt under obligation to ensure that they would be presented as a pure virgin to her one husband at the nuptial ceremony when the marriage will be consummated at the parousia of Christ (cf. Eph. 5:27; Col. 1:22). Clearly, as the early Church Fathers recognized, Paul was not speaking of the physical, but the ‘spiritual virginity’ of those sanctified by grace through faith in Christ.5

In view of recent events in Corinth, Paul was forced to say, But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. To portray the danger he sees, Paul compares it with the deception of Eve in the garden (‘the serpent deceived me, and I ate’, Gen. 3:13). It is significant that the serpent’s ‘seduction’ of Eve was not sexual, but rather the beguiling of her mind by denying the truth of what God had said (Gen. 3:1–7). Thus, the story of Eve aptly depicts the danger the Corinthians faced (i.e. that their minds will be led astray). The word translated minds (noēmata) is found only six times in the New Testament, every time in Paul’s writings, and five out of the six in 2 Corinthians. Elsewhere Paul uses it to describe the ‘schemes’ of Satan (2:11), hardening or blinding of the ‘mind’ (3:14; 4:4), the taking captive of every ‘thought’ to obey Christ (10:5), and the ‘mind’ that is kept by the peace of God, which passes understanding (Phil. 4:7). In the present passage Paul is concerned with the beguiling of the minds (not the compromise of the morals) of his audience. What he means by this will be revealed in verse 4, but before proceeding to that it is important to stress that Christians’ minds are prime targets for the assaults of the serpent (which Paul equates with Satan; cf. v. 14), assaults that are intended to lead them astray from their devotion to Christ.

4. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached. Just as Eve was deceived by the serpent that denied the truth of God’s word, so Paul’s converts’ minds were being led astray by those who preached another Jesus. As noted in the commentary on 10:12, the criteria for evaluating apostleship that were employed by Paul’s opponents were apparently triumphalist in character and left no room for the experience of weakness or suffering. It may be that in their preaching Paul’s opponents stressed the power and glory of Christ to the virtual exclusion of the fact that he had also known weakness, humiliation, persecution, suffering and death. Paul preached Christ crucified as Lord, so a proclamation like that outlined above would seem to him to be the preaching of another Jesus.

Or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received. The word spirit in the phrase, a different spirit, is not capitalized because the spirit received at the hands of the false apostles is not the Holy Spirit, and therefore very different from the Spirit the Corinthians received when they responded to the gospel proclaimed by Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 2:12; 3:16; 6:19). What different spirit people actually received at the hands of the false apostles is difficult to determine. If we recognize that Paul’s opponents operated in a very different spirit from the spirit in which Paul operated (being authoritarian and overbearing [11:20] rather than gentle and caring as Paul was [10:1; cf. 1 Cor. 4:21]), we could say that the different spirit the Corinthians were willing to accept was their authoritarian and overbearing spirit. Along similar lines, Martin (p. 336) says that the different spirit Paul’s opponents brought refers to ‘their attitude to living before the congregation [that] betrays a spirit in contradiction of Paul’s strength-as-weakness (astheneia) teaching and practice’.

However, if in the phrase, a different spirit, the word ‘Spirit’ is capitalized, it denotes the Holy Spirit. Harris (p. 744) spells out the case for this interpretation:

Jesus-Spirit-gospel is an apt summary of Christianity… his [Paul’s] kērygma centred on Jesus Christ crucified and risen, on the gift of the Spirit of God or of Christ as the fulfilment of promise and the pledge of inheritance, and on the good news of forgiveness and reconciliation in Christ as the instrument of God’s saving power. He knew that these three elements stood or fell together, for ‘another Jesus’ would inevitably mean both a ‘different Spirit’, since the Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:9; Phil. 1:19), and a ‘different gospel’, since the gospel is about Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 2:12; 9:13; 10:14). His opponents apparently used the same three terms, but their content was so different that the message they were proclaiming amounted to a perversion of the gospel, indeed a false gospel, no gospel at all.

Or a different gospel from the one you accepted. Paul used the same expression, a different gospel, when describing the teaching the Judaizers brought to his churches in Galatia (Gal. 1:6–9), and it has been suggested that the gospel of Paul’s Corinthian opponents may have been the same, that is, a gospel stressing the need for Gentiles not only to believe in Christ, but also to take upon themselves the yoke of the law and submit to circumcision if they wanted to be numbered among the true people of God. While Paul’s opponents in Corinth were Jewish (11:22), this is nevertheless unlikely on two counts. First, there is no mention in 2 Corinthians 10–13 of demands to keep the law (whether food laws or Sabbath and other special day observances) or to undergo circumcision. Second, the emphases we do find in 2 Corinthians 10–13, for example, on skill in speaking and knowledge (11:6), displays of authority (11:20), visions and revelations (12:1) and the performance of apostolic signs (12:12–13), are not found in Galatians. Therefore it seems better to interpret a different gospel in the same way as ‘another Jesus’, that is, as a gospel which stressed the power and glory of Christ and which had little place for Christ crucified as well as Lord.

You put up with it easily enough (lit. ‘you bear with it well’). Paul uses the same word here as he did in verse 1 (‘I hope you will put up with me’). It is no wonder he felt he could ask his audience to put up with him when he knew they were putting up easily enough with those who preached a different gospel.

5. I do not think I am in the least inferior to those ‘super-apostles’. From expressions of concern, Paul now turns to personal defence. For a discussion of the identity of the super-apostles, see Introduction. The position adopted in this commentary is that they are to be identified with those who preached a different gospel (v. 4) and whom Paul calls false apostles and servants of Satan (vv. 14–15). In claiming to be not in the least inferior to these men, Paul is not at the same time conceding that they are his equals. He is just responding to their claims. Later he will make his own claims and assert that he is in fact superior to them (vv. 21b-33).

6. I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge. The first part of this statement could be understood in either of two ways: first, as a straightforward concession that in the use of rhetorical skills in public speaking Paul is inferior to his opponents; and second, as a rhetorical device by which he places himself in an inferior position vis-à-vis his opponents, even though he knows (and expects his audience to know) that he is in fact superior to them. It is the former alternative which fits the context better. Paul’s purpose seems to be, while conceding inferiority in the less important area of rhetorical skills, to claim superiority in the far more important area of knowledge. Ambrosiaster notes, ‘Paul did not mean by this that he did not know how to speak but that commendation did not depend on mere eloquence’ (Bray, pp. 291–292).

By knowledge Paul means primarily insight into the mystery of the gospel (cf. Eph. 1:9; 3:1–6; Col. 1:26–27) which his opponents have failed to understand properly. Of this knowledge, Paul says, We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way. Undoubtedly he did so during the eighteen months or more he spent teaching the word of God in Corinth during his first visit to the city (Acts 18:11), as well as by his letters. It may be added that the responsibility of all who pastor God’s people is to make his truth perfectly clear to them in every way.

ii. The matter of financial remuneration (11:7–15)

7. Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? According to Acts 18:3, Paul worked as a tentmaker/leatherworker to provide for his needs during his first stay in Corinth. By so doing, he ‘lowered’ himself, for among the Greeks it was regarded as degrading for philosophers or itinerant teachers to engage in manual work to supply their needs. No doubt aware of this, Paul asks with ironic exaggeration whether he committed a sin by so abasing himself when he preached God’s gospel free of charge. Alternatively, it has been suggested that Paul’s practice was a sin because it contravened the dominical teaching that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 9:14). Another view is that Paul’s preaching free of charge was a sin because it involved a refusal of the Corinthians’ offer of financial support. To refuse benefaction in the ancient world was a rejection of friendship, and constituted an insult to those who offered it. While each of these suggestions has merit, the first seems to fit best in the context where Paul’s question includes the notion of lowering himself while preaching free of charge. The expected answer to Paul’s question is, of course, a resounding ‘No’.

What did Paul have in mind when he said that he lowered himself in order to elevate you? When he preached the gospel free of charge and the Corinthians responded with faith, they were ‘elevated’ to become members of God’s people, inheritors of the promises of God.

8. I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. The verb ‘to rob’ (sylaō) that Paul uses here is a strong one. In the papyri it is used with the meaning ‘to pillage’, and in classical Greek it was used predominantly in a military context meaning ‘to strip’ (a dead soldier of his armour). Why Paul chose such a strong word is difficult to determine. Perhaps he wanted to bring home to the Corinthians the lengths to which he had gone in making the gospel available to them free of charge, that is, even to the extent of ‘robbing’ other churches by accepting support from them while working in Corinth, work from which the donors would receive no benefits.

9. What exactly was involved in ‘robbing’ other churches Paul spells out here. And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. The word supplied translates the aorist indicative of prosanaplēroō, which can mean either simply ‘to fill up’ or ‘to fill up by adding’. In the present context, where the proceeds from Paul’s own manual work obviously would have provided most of his needs, the latter sense, ‘to fill up by adding’, appropriately expresses the function of the gifts brought from Macedonia. From evidence available in Paul’s letters, it seems that among the Macedonian believers it was those at Philippi who were the main contributors to his needs. They repeatedly shared in Paul’s ministry by assisting him financially from the time they were converted up until and including his imprisonment during which he wrote Philippians (cf. Phil. 1:5; 4:10, 14–18).

I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so. Because Paul’s needs were met either by the results of his own manual labour or by gifts from the Macedonians, he was able to refrain from burdening the Corinthians, and he asserts that he is determined to continue that practice in the future. By so saying, he may have been also making it plain that by informing the Corinthians of his being in need he was not making an implied request for help.

10. As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. The regions of Achaia denotes the Roman province of Achaia of which Corinth was the major city and administrative centre. Throughout these regions, Paul affirms with an oath, his boast of ministering free of charge will not be silenced. No doubt Paul’s opponents would have liked to see his boasting silenced by him relenting and accepting financial remuneration, but he was determined that it would not be so (cf. 5:12).

This policy may have been felt as an affront by the Corinthians, especially having just been told (v. 9), if they had not known before, that while Paul was in their midst he had actually been in need and had accepted help from others while refusing to accept it from them.

There are a number of possible reasons why Paul refused assistance from the Corinthians. First, there was his general ambition to preach the gospel free of charge. To preach it was mandatory for him; to preach it free of charge was his own choice (cf. 1 Cor. 9:15–18). Second, there was his desire not to burden those among whom he ministered, and perhaps we may add that he did not wish to lose his independence by becoming financially obliged to anyone. In Paul’s world, the acceptance of a benefaction often meant becoming a ‘client’ of the benefactor, and so sacrificing some of one’s independence.

We may wonder, then, why Paul accepted assistance from the Macedonians. Perhaps he felt free to accept gifts from churches who by giving them wished to participate in his ministry in other places. In such cases, his ambition to offer the gospel free of charge would not be compromised, and there would be little chance that his benefactors would regard him as their client.

11. Because Paul’s opponents could not silence his boasting, they tried to undermine his relationship with the Corinthians by suggesting that his refusal to accept their assistance was proof that he did not really love them. Paul was aware of their strategy, so he poses the rhetorical question: Why? Because I do not love you? He does not bother to dignify this accusation with a reasoned reply. Instead, calling upon God as his witness, he simply affirms his love for his audience: God knows I do!

12. Paul restates the assertion he made in verse 9b, but in slightly different terms: And I will keep on doing what I am doing (i.e. he will refrain from placing any financial burdens upon the Corinthians). In the light of the activity of his opponents in Corinth, Paul had an added reason for doing so: in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. This part of verse 12 is difficult to translate and interpret, but the NIV rendering captures what is probably Paul’s intention here. His opponents, in order to consolidate thoroughly their position in Corinth, wanted to be able to say that they carried out their mission on the same terms as Paul did so as to be considered equal with him. However, there was one crucial area in which their ministries differed from his: they wanted financial remuneration from the Corinthians. If they were bona fide apostles, they need not have been concerned about this distinction, for most other apostles accepted remuneration (cf. 1 Cor. 9:3–7), and Paul himself defended at length the right of Christian workers to do so (cf. 1 Cor. 9:7–14). It seems likely that Paul’s opponents not only accepted remuneration, but greedily extracted it (cf. 2:17; 4:2; 11:20), and this would have made them particularly sensitive to odious comparisons that could be made of their ministry and Paul’s. They would have been pleased if Paul discontinued his practice in this matter, but he was for that very reason determined not to do so, and in this way he undermined their claims to work on the same terms as he did.

13. Paul now dispenses with irony, personal defence and explanations of his policy in money matters, and with striking virulence exposes the true character of his opponents. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. Essentially they are deceivers, passing themselves off as apostles of Christ when they were not, and for that reason they deserved the epithet false apostles. Paul has already indicated that they preach ‘a different gospel’, and that made them false apostles.

14. The deceitfulness of these people does not surprise Paul: And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. Paul may be thinking here of Genesis 3 and the deceitfulness of the serpent who ‘enlightened’ Eve. Alternatively, there are stories in Jewish pseudepigraphical works in which the devil or Satan appears as an angel to deceive Eve (Life of Adam and Eve 9:1–3; Apocalypse of Moses 17:1), and the apostle could be alluding to these. Or it may simply be that Paul, as a result of his missionary experiences, came to recognize Satan’s devices (cf. 2:11).

15. Whatever lies behind Paul’s statement in verse 14 that Satan ‘masquerades as an angel of light’, the conclusion he draws from it is plain enough. Arguing from the greater to the lesser, he says, It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Paul’s opponents are revealed here as instruments of Satan who masquerade as servants of righteousness. Paul does not make clear in what way they masquerade as servants of righteousness. It is unlikely that they were like the Judaizers operating in Galatia and demanding obedience to the law and submission to circumcision. However, as Jews they may have advocated some level of law observance which led Paul to contrast the glory of ministry under the old and new covenants in 3:7–18. Satan’s attacks on the church are seldom frontal. They are more often subversive, and carried out by those within the church who misguidedly serve his ends. It is precisely this that Paul fears may happen in the Corinthian church, as 11:3–4 indicates very clearly.

Of those who serve Satan in Corinth, Paul says, Their end will be what their actions deserve. In 5:10 Paul reminded his audience that ‘we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due to us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.’ In other epistles also, when dealing with those who oppose the truth of God or attack his messengers, Paul asserts that they will face the judgment of God (Rom. 3:8; 1 Cor. 3:17; Phil. 3:19; 2 Tim. 4:14).

In 11:1–6, foreshadowing the ‘fool’s speech’ that is to follow in 11:16 – 12:13, Paul explains that what motivates his ‘folly’ is the godly jealousy he feels for his converts. Like a father who betroths his daughter to her future husband and desires to see her presented as a pure virgin to him, Paul seeks to ensure that the devotion of those who, as a result of his preaching, have given their allegiance to Christ are not subverted by those who preach another Jesus and another gospel. This underlines the importance in Christian ministry of a real commitment to enhancing people’s devotion to Christ while protecting them from false teachers who would deceive them.

It is surprising that Paul engages in a comparison of his ministry and that of his opponents. But there is a time, as was the case on this occasion with Paul, when genuine Christian leaders need to respond to criticisms of their ministry, not as self-justification, but for the sake of the ministry itself. As Paul did so, he highlighted the fact that knowledge of gospel truth and faithfulness in keeping it before people are more important than style or rhetorical adornment in conveying the message.

In 11:7–15 Paul defends his policy of not accepting financial support from those among whom he is presently ministering so as to make the gospel available free of charge. He does this even though it involved lowering himself in people’s eyes by engaging in manual labour. He insists that refusing their benefaction was not a sign that he did not love them. It was a practice he was determined to continue in order to distance himself from his opponents who were greedy for financial gain. Paul’s example is a reminder that Christian ministers must not be motivated by a desire for financial gain, but rather by a desire to please God and be a blessing to his people.

Paul’s description of his opponents as false apostles, deceitful workers and servants of Satan seems harsh to modern readers. But considering these people were preaching ‘another Jesus’ and ‘another gospel’, and the consequences involved for any who accepted their heretical message, they needed to be exposed. Christian ministers today need likewise to expose false teachers in order to protect God’s ‘flock’ from ‘wolves’ that would devour them.

C. The ‘fool’s speech’ (11:16 – 12:13)

Because of concern for his converts and their susceptibility to deception, Paul exposed his opponents’ true nature as ‘servants of Satan’ (11:13–15). As well as doing that, and against his better judgment, here in 11:16 – 12:13 he demonstrates that, even using his opponents’ criteria, he is a better servant of Christ than they are. So, in the extended ‘fool’s speech’ of 11:16 – 12:13, he boasts of his credentials, apostolic trials, visionary experiences and the mighty works he performed. He knows such worldly boasting is foolish, but in the circumstances where his converts have been swayed by the boasting of others, he feels compelled to boast a little himself. But in the end he turns this boasting match on its head and boasts not of his strengths but of his weaknesses, for God’s strength is made perfect in human weakness.

In this opening section of the ‘fool’s speech’, Paul asks his audience to bear with him and he makes clear that what he is about to say is not said with the Lord’s authority. Then with biting irony he asks them to bear with him, seeing that they have been ready enough to bear with other fools, being wise themselves! These others have acted in the most high-handed and pretentious fashion, but Paul says ironically, ‘we were too weak for that!’

i. Accept me as a fool (11:16–21a)

16. I repeat. Paul had already asked his audience to bear with him ‘in a little foolishness’ (v. 1), and now, following the long diversion of verses 2–15, he repeats his request in slightly different terms: let no one take me for a fool. But if you do, then tolerate me just as you would a fool, so that I may do a little boasting.6 Paul is conscious that the boasting in which he is about to engage is an act of folly, but he does not want the Corinthians to regard him as foolish for doing so. In fact, it is only their gullibility vis-à-vis the claims of the false apostles that forces him to boast at all (cf. 12:11). But even if they do regard his boasting as the act of a fool, let them accept him as such, and listen to his boasting as they have listened to the boasting of the other fools (his opponents) whom they have received.

17–18. In this self-confident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool. Paul makes clear that the boasting in which he is about to indulge is not something he engages in as the Lord would (kata kyrion; NRSV: ‘with the Lord’s authority’). Ambrosiaster comments, ‘God does not approve of boasting, so this mode of speaking does not come from him. But the content of what he is saying is still true’ (Bray, p. 296).

Paul explains what motivates this act of folly: Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast. Boasting in the way the world does translates kauchōntai kata sarka (lit. ‘boast according to [the] flesh’), that is, of human achievement, of power and prestige, and even of spiritual experiences, in terms which do not take into account what is pleasing to God. It is because many (his opponents) boast in the way the world does, and because his converts have been won over by such boasting, that Paul feels forced to indulge in it too for their sakes, even though he is painfully aware that such boasting is pure folly.

19. You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! The fools they gladly put up with are the intruders, Paul’s opponents. So, as the Corinthians have gladly put up with those fools, Paul asks that, even if they regard him as a fool, to put up with him as well. The expression since you are so wise! is a cutting allusion to the Corinthians’ tendency to pride themselves on their own wisdom (cf. 1 Cor. 3:18–20; 4:10; 6:5; 8:1–7; 13:2).

20. In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you. Unlike Paul, who saw his role as working with people for their joy and not lording it over their faith (1:24), the intruders brought those they influenced under their ‘lordship’. Paul exposes the despicable authoritarianism of his opponents, as well as the misplaced forbearance of the Corinthians, by piling up in close succession four expressions which depict the nature of the Corinthians’ enslavement. In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps you in the face. Exploits (katesthiei, lit. ‘consumes’) probably refers to the intruders’ greedy demands for remuneration. The verb translated takes advantage of (lambanei, lit. ‘takes’) is used by Paul again in 12:16, where he writes, ‘Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught [elabon] you by trickery!’ This illuminates the unusual use of the verb lambanō in the present context: the Corinthians were ‘taken in’ or ‘fleeced’ by Paul’s opponents. Puts on airs (epairetai) signifies a presumptuous lifting up of one’s self. Paul uses the same verb in 10:5 when referring to ‘every pretension that sets itself up [lit. ‘every high thing lifted up’] against the knowledge of God’. To slap the face was a way of humiliating a person. Paul may be using the expression literally, in which case it would mean the false apostles had become so authoritarian in their dealings with the Corinthians that they would actually slap the faces of those who questioned their authority. Alternatively, Paul could be using the expression metaphorically to mean his opponents were acting in a way that dishonoured the Corinthians. Chrysostom comments, ‘He said this, not meaning that they were stricken on the face, but that they spat upon and dishonoured them.’7

Welborn argues that Paul depicts his opponents as ‘pretentious parasites’, referring to a figure well known and ridiculed in Greco-Roman comedies, in order to contrast their behaviour with his own modest behaviour, and as a reproach to the Corinthians who have taken in and been ‘taken in’ by such persons.8

21a. Paul concludes this paragraph with another statement filled with scathing sarcasm: To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that! The Corinthians had entertained the criticisms of Paul’s opponents that he was weak (10:10). Paul now throws that back at them, saying in effect, ‘Yes, I admit, we were too weak to make such a despicable display of overbearing authoritarianism as that practised by those intruders!’

ii. Paul’s Jewish ancestry (11:21b-22)

In this section Paul responds to his opponents’ claims to impeccable Jewish ancestry, asserting that his own Jewish credentials are just as good.

21b-22. Whatever anyone else dares to boast about – I am speaking as a fool – I also dare to boast about.9 The apostle will mention in turn those things of which his opponents boast: their Jewish pedigree and their being servants of Christ (vv. 22–23), visions and revelations experienced (12:1), and the performance of signs and wonders (12:12). Then he will indulge in a little boasting of his own to show that he is in no way inferior in any of these areas. Both here (vv. 21b, 23a) and in three other places in the speech (11:30; 12:1, 11) Paul shows how uneasy he is about boasting-I am speaking as a fool.

Are they Hebrews? So am I. The designation Hebrews may be understood in a couple of ways: (i) to denote ethnic purity, as in the expression ‘a Hebrew of Hebrews’ (Phil. 3:5), distinguishing Jews by birth from proselytes; (ii) to distinguish Hebrew and Aramaic-speaking Jews who generally lived in Palestine (Hebrews) from Greek-speaking Jews generally of the dispersion (Hellenists) (cf. Acts 6:1). However, this distinction is not as clear-cut as it might seem, for as the inscription, ‘[Syn]agogue of the Hebr[ews]’, found in Corinth (see Introduction) shows, even Jews of the dispersion referred to themselves as ‘Hebrews’. In the present context it is best to see Paul claiming that he has the same pure Jewish ancestry as that claimed by his opponents. Whether they were Palestinian or Hellenistic Jews cannot be determined from these verses.

Are they Israelites? So am I. Israelites were possibly distinguished from Hebrews on the grounds that Gentile proselytes could be incorporated into Israel, but could never, of course, claim to be Hebrews (born of Hebrews). The term ‘Israelite’ then should probably be taken to denote the religious and social rather than ethnic characteristics of being a Jew.

Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. How are we to distinguish Abraham’s descendants from Israelites? In Romans 11:1 Paul says, ‘I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham’, using the terms almost synonymously. Perhaps we may distinguish them in this way: if Hebrews is to be understood ethnically, and Israelites religiously and socially, then descendants of Abraham could be understood theologically and related to God’s call and promises to Abraham’s offspring.

While there are difficulties in discerning the precise nuances of these three terms, Paul’s main thrust is clear. Whatever boasting his opponents indulge in as far as their Jewish pedigree is concerned, Paul can boast of the same.

iii. A better servant of Christ (11:23–33)

Paul concedes for the sake of argument that his opponents are servants of Christ, but claims that he is more so (vv. 21b-23a). To reinforce his claim, he provides a list of his apostolic trials (vv. 23b-29), which may be divided into four sections: (a) verses 23b-25 which speak of imprisonments, beatings and being near death, including a detailed explanation of what these involved; (b) verse 26 which speaks of frequent journeys, with a description of the dangers of travel; (c) verse 27 which speaks of toil and hardship, with an account of the privations involved in these; and (d) verses 28–29 which speak of anxiety for all the churches, with an example of what caused it. Finally, he narrates the story of his ignominious flight from Damascus as a further illustration of his ‘weakness’ as an apostle (vv. 30–33).

23a. Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. Responding to his opponents’ claims regarding Jewish ancestry, Paul simply claimed to be their equal, but here, with rhetorical heightening, he responds to their claim to be servants of Christ by saying that he is more than their equal. He is prepared, for the sake of argument, to concede what he elsewhere (vv. 13–15) denies (i.e. that they are servants of Christ), because he will show that he is more than their equal anyhow. In the following verses he will claim that he is more so because he has worked much harder and suffered much more in his service of Christ.

By saying, I am out of my mind to talk like this, Paul reveals again his reluctance to be responding at all to such claims. The comparing of one servant of Christ with another is something he had already warned the Corinthians against (1 Cor. 1:11–16; 3:4–9, 21–22; 4:1), and now through the force of new circumstances he is engaging in that very practice himself.

23b. Supporting his claim to be a better servant of Christ than his opponents, Paul provides a list of his apostolic hardships and sufferings. The list opens with the words: I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. The much harder work probably refers to strenuous exertions in his missionary work, exertions far greater than those of his opponents, and even of the other apostles (cf. 1 Cor. 15:10). Acts records only one imprisonment before the time these chapters were written – the overnight stay in the prison at Philippi (Acts 16:19–40). Paul’s brief reference to far more imprisonments reminds us that he experienced many more trials than Acts records, and how limited our knowledge of his missionary career really is, even with the Acts account to draw upon. What is meant by the severe flogging, and being exposed to death again and again, he explains in verses 24–25.

24–25. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Deuteronomy 25:1–3 specifies that punishment by beating must not exceed forty strokes, and as a hedge around the law the Jews of Paul’s day limited the number to forty minus one, lest by an error in counting the prescribed number be exceeded and the law be broken by an impetuous executioner, and the offender permanently disgraced (cf. Chrysostom, Bray, p. 298). Jesus warned his disciples that they would be flogged in synagogues (Matt. 10:17; Mark 13:9), and Paul in his pre-conversion days actually instigated such floggings (Acts 22:20; 26:11). Having been converted to the faith he once opposed, he himself had, by the time he wrote this letter, been subjected five times to judicial floggings in synagogues. This reveals indirectly that, despite much opposition, Paul did not give up his connection with Judaism or the synagogue and lose himself in the Gentile world.

Three times I was beaten with rods. The one such incident we know of took place in Philippi (cf. Acts 16:22–23),10 and it is probably in the light of this that Paul, writing shortly after the event, speaks of having ‘suffered and been treated outrageously in Philippi’ (1 Thess. 2:2). Glancy argues that the scars left upon Paul’s body as a result of his beatings (cf. Gal. 6:17) were not, like the battle wounds on the bodies of soldiers, regarded as badges of honour. Rather they were ‘markings of a servile body, insignia of humiliation and submission’. So in fact Paul’s boast about the beatings he had endured would be seen as a sign of weakness, not valour, and this is what the apostle intended it to be.11

Once I was pelted with stones. Stoning could be either a Jewish judicial execution (cf. Lev. 24:14, 16) or an act of mob violence. The latter was the case in Lystra where Paul was stoned and left for dead (Acts 14:19).

Three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea. From Acts we know of only one shipwreck in which Paul was involved, and that took place after this letter was written. However, Acts records nine sea voyages which the apostle made prior to this time, and there were almost certainly others. So there were plenty of voyages during which Paul could have suffered shipwreck. Spending a night and a day in the open sea must have brought the apostle face to face with death, as had his stoning at Lystra.

26. I have been constantly on the move. With these words, the second section of Paul’s trials list begins which sheds light on the dangers he faced in his travels: I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. Most of these references to dangers are self-explanatory. ‘Danger from rivers,’ Ambrosiaster says, occurred ‘in winter, when there was constant rain and rivers often overflowed their banks’ (Bray, p. 298). Danger from false believers probably refers to the attacks of those who opposed Paul and his gospel (cf. Gal. 2:4), and here, most likely, he has in mind especially those who opposed him in Corinth.

27. The third section of the trials list bears the heading, I have laboured and toiled, and once again a general description is followed by specific examples. And have often gone without sleep. This probably does not refer to sleeplessness because of anxiety, as that would be better included in verse 28, where Paul speaks of the pressure of his concern over the churches. But included as it is here among examples of labour and toil, the sleepless nights were probably due either to his preaching and teaching into the early hours (cf. Acts 20:7–12, 31) when those who had to labour during the day would be free to listen, or to the occasions when he had to ply his trade at night so as to support himself when he used the daylight hours for missionary activity (2 Thess. 3:7–8). I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Despite income from manual work and gifts from the Macedonians, there were times when Paul suffered want (cf. Phil. 4:10–13) and must have gone without food, drink and adequate clothing (cf. Rom. 8:35; 1 Cor. 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:13).

28–29. This fourth section of the trials list differs from the previous three in that it deals with subjective rather than objective matters: Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. It should be noted that Paul’s concern here is not the unwarranted anxiety about oneself which Jesus cautioned his disciples against (Matt. 6:25–34), but rather that healthy concern for the welfare of others which Jesus himself experienced (Luke 13:34). The Corinthian letters provide abundant examples of situations which kept the pressure upon Paul’s pastoral heart. He himself cites one example: Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn? This reflects Paul’s concern for those who are weak in faith, and who are caused to stumble and fall because of the behaviour of those who pride themselves on being strong in faith (cf. Rom. 14:1–23; 1 Cor. 8:1–13). When Paul saw Christians weak in faith, he felt their vulnerability, and when he saw them made to fall, he burned with indignation against the behaviour of those who had caused it. Chrysostom comments, ‘What wonderful affection in a pastor! Others’ falls, he is saying, accentuate my grief, others’ obstacles inflame the fire of my suffering’ (Bray, p. 299).

30–33. In this passage Paul narrates an incident from the earliest days of his experience as a Christian. This supplements the list of trials of which he has already boasted, but also seems to parody the whole business of boasting. The passage begins, If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. Again the apostle shows his distaste for boasting, and foreshadows the fact that he is about to turn the whole thing on its head. Unlike the trials list of verses 23b-29, which some might construe as triumphalist (i.e. ‘all these difficulties I have overcome in order to fulfil my commission’), the account of his ignominious flight from Damascus which he is about to narrate contains little of which to be proud.

The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised for ever, knows that I am not lying. Before proceeding to his narration, Paul appeals to God as witness that what he is about to say is true. He may have wished, by this affirmation, to stress the truth of the content of the trials list also, though much of that is likely to have been common knowledge. The grammatical construction in the original indicates that he who is to be praised for ever is predicated of the God and Father, not the Lord Jesus.

In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. King Aretas IV (9 BC – AD 40)12 was ruler of the Nabateans, whose capital was at Petra. The governor (ethnarchēs) ‘has been taken to be a royal official charged [by Aretas] with oversight of the Nabatean commercial colony established at Damascus’.13 In Galatians 1:17 Paul says that following his conversion, ‘I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.’ It is likely, therefore, that Paul began preaching the gospel in Arabia and may have aroused the antagonism of Aretas, who then ordered his governor in Damascus to arrest him.14 According to the account of Paul’s escape in Acts 9:23–25, hostile Jews who reacted against his forthright preaching of Jesus as Messiah plotted to kill him and were watching the gates of Damascus so as to seize him when he tried to leave. As Paul’s own testimony in the present passage identifies the governor as the one who guarded the city, it would appear that the Jewish and Nabatean communities acted in concert seeking to seize Paul. On later occasions, Jews in other cities were to bring charges against Paul (cf. Acts 18:12; 25:7, 15).

But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands. Paul’s departure from Damascus on this occasion was very different from his earlier approach as persecutor. Then he came as a zealous Jewish crusader ‘breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples’, and carrying letters to leaders of the Jewish synagogues in Damascus authorizing him to bring bound to Jerusalem any who ‘belonged to the Way’ (Acts 9:1–2). But now he found himself being hunted down by his fellow Jews because he preached Jesus as Messiah. Thus he was forced to flee from Damascus, escaping by being lowered down over the wall in a basket like a bundle of merchandise. This was probably Paul’s first taste of the ignominy of persecution, and it must have left an indelible imprint upon him. It was a humiliating experience, and its inclusion here seems to constitute a parody of the whole purpose of boasting.

iv. Visions and revelations (12:1–10)

Paul’s boasting now moves from apostolic trials to visions and revelations. He recounts, in the third person, an experience in which he was caught up to the third heaven, to paradise, where he heard things about which he was not permitted to speak. Instead, he tells of a thorn in the flesh given to keep him from becoming too conceited, and how he sought God in prayer repeatedly for its removal, but in response was told that God’s grace was sufficient for him. Through this revelation he learnt of the simultaneity of weakness and power. Paul’s emphasis upon the coincidence of weakness and power was almost certainly intended to undermine triumphalist ideas about power and authority held by his opponents, and to support his own claim to apostolic authority, despite his imprisonments, persecutions and rejection which may seem to be inconsistent with that claim.

1. I must go on boasting. While the apostle was convinced there was nothing to be gained by boasting, he recognized that in the present situation there was much to be lost if he did not. His opponents had drawn up an agenda, it had been adopted by his converts, and he must now respond to the next item therein. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. We are accustomed, perhaps, to the occurrence of visions and revelations in the stories of God’s dealings with people in Old Testament times. It is surprising just how much they are a part of the accounts of God’s dealings with Christians in New Testament times as well. Zechariah received a vision while serving in the temple, and was told his prayer had been heard and that his wife Elizabeth would bear a son whose name would be John (the Baptist) (Luke 1:8–23). Jesus’ transfiguration is called a vision which was given to Peter, James and John (Matt. 17:9). The women who went to Jesus’ tomb reported that they had seen a vision of angels who said that Jesus was alive (Luke 24:22–24). Stephen, just before his death, saw a vision of ‘the Son of man’ standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55–56). The Lord spoke to Ananias in a vision when he instructed him to seek out Saul of Tarsus after the latter had been struck blind on the Damascus road (Acts 9:10). Peter was made ready to receive a call to visit Cornelius’ household by a threefold vision of unclean animals descending from heaven in a sheet (Acts 10:17, 19; 11:5). On another occasion when he was released from prison by an angel, Peter thought he was seeing a vision (Acts 12:9). The book of Revelation is the description of revelations made to the author on the Isle of Patmos (Rev. 1:1).

Paul experienced many visions and revelations of the Lord. The first and most important was the revelation of Jesus Christ to him on the Damascus road (Acts 22:6–11; 26:12–20; Gal. 1:15–16). Subsequently he saw a vision of a man from Macedonia calling him to come over and help (Acts 16:9–10). When he was carrying out pioneer evangelism in Corinth, he received encouragement from the Lord through a vision (Acts 18:9–11). Paul claimed he received his gospel by revelation (Gal. 1:12), and that his insights into the mystery of the gospel, his access to true wisdom, and his understanding of particular eschatological truths were based upon revelations from God (cf. Eph. 3:3–5; 1 Cor. 2:9–10; 1 Thess. 4:15).

2–4. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Of the many visions and revelations Paul experienced, he singles out one that took place fourteen years ago. His dating of the experience underlines its historical reality. Barnett (p. 561) comments, ‘Paul’s “fourteen years ago” must be calculated (by internal reckoning) from the time of writing this letter (c. AD 55), suggesting that this vision/revelation occurred c. AD 42, at which time Paul would have been in his native Syria-Cilicia (Gal. 1:18, 21; 2:1; Acts 9:29–30; 11:25).’ This places the experience several years after his conversion, and thus it cannot be equated with the revelation of Christ to Paul on the Damascus road. It is remarkable that, as far as we know, Paul had not spoken of this experience previously, probably, as he says later, ‘so that no one may think better of me than what is seen in me or heard from me, even considering the exceptional character of the revelations’ (vv. 6–7, NRSV).

Paul describes the experience in the third person (I know a man), perhaps as a way of indicating its sacred character for him, or alternatively because he wanted to maintain a distinction between the Paul who was granted this superlative experience in the past and the Paul whose behaviour people may see and whose words they may hear in the present (cf. 12:6). In fact, the account is so consistently cast in the third person that the reader may even wonder whether the apostle is relating the experience of another person, rather than his own.15 However, a careful reading and appreciation of the thrust of verses 1, 5, 7 confirms that Paul is speaking of his own experience. The reference here to a man in Christ can be taken to mean simply Paul as a Christian.

The apostle says he was caught up to the third heaven (v. 2) and a little later that he was caught up to paradise (v. 4). He used the same verb, ‘to catch up’ (harpazō) in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 when speaking of Christians who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord and will then be ‘caught up’ to meet the Lord in the air.

Among Paul’s contemporaries, differing cosmologies were in vogue, variously portraying three, five or seven heavens, which were spoken of as a series of hemispherical strata above the earth. It has been suggested that the reference to ‘the heavens, even the highest heaven’ (lit. ‘heaven and the heaven of heavens’) in Solomon’s dedication prayer in 1 Kings 8:27 gave rise, among the Jews at least, to the notion of the heavens in three strata. However, the text itself is probably no more than a simple Hebrew superlative. In the pseudepigraphical writings (e.g. T. Levi 3) there is reference to several heavens, and in rabbinic writings seven heavens are mentioned (Str-B 3, p. 531).

The identification of the third heaven with Paradise which is made by Paul in the present passage has a parallel in the Apocalypse of Moses 37:5, where God hands Adam over to the archangel Michael and says, ‘Lift him up into Paradise unto the third heaven, and leave him there until that fearful day of my reckoning, which I will make in the world.’

In both Jewish (e.g. 1 Enoch 39:3f.) and Gentile (e.g. Plato, Rep. 10:614–621) literature there are accounts similar to that of the apostle’s description of his experience. In the Babylonian Talmud (Hag. 14b) there is a story of four rabbis who were temporarily taken up into Paradise, but so awesome was their experience that only one, Rabbi Akiba, returned unharmed. The story post-dates Paul (R. Akiba died c. AD 135), but indicates, nevertheless, the sort of accounts that were circulating in the first and second centuries of the Christian era.

All these literary parallels, whether in terminology, concepts or the experience of being caught up, show three things. First, what Paul spoke of was understandable to his contemporaries. Second, the experience of being caught up into Paradise was believed to be awe-inspiring, and this explains in part Paul’s great reticence in describing it. Third, the experience of being caught up to the third heaven would place the apostle on a level with the great heroes of faith, and by claiming such an experience, Paul would completely outflank his opponents. It is therefore all the more remarkable that he did not make maximum capital out of it. But instead, having disclosed the bare fact, he quickly directs attention away from his experience and to his weakness as the only safe ground for boasting.

Speaking of being caught up into the third heaven or Paradise, Paul says, Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know – God knows (v. 2). If Paul himself did not know the exact mechanism whereby his rapture occurred, there is certainly no way in which we can. However, some effort must be made to understand the two possible means which he mentions, in the body or out of the body. In the Old Testament tradition two men were translated bodily to heaven: Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kgs 2:9–12), but their translations were permanent not temporary. It is also said of Elijah that he was carried off bodily from one place to another by the Spirit of the Lord (1 Kgs 18:12).

The New Testament accounts of Jesus’ temptation refer to him being taken by the devil to the pinnacle of the temple and to a high mountain (Matt. 4:5, 8), but the mechanism (whether bodily or visionary) is not specified. The writer of Revelation tells of his being carried away ‘in the Spirit’ to a wilderness (Rev. 17:3), and to a great high mountain (Rev. 21:10). Whether being ‘in the Spirit’ means out of the body or simply denotes a visionary experience is not clear.

Philo appears to have believed that heavenly experiences necessitate being out of the body, for he explains that should the strains of heavenly music ever reach our ears, irrepressible yearnings and frantic longings would be produced, causing us to abstain from necessary food. And alluding to Exodus 24:18, he says that Moses was listening to heavenly music ‘when, having laid aside his body, for forty days and as many nights he touched neither bread nor water at all’ (De Somnis [On Dreams] 1, 36). Such an idea of non-bodily rapture would be in line with dualistic beliefs that there cannot be any contact between the heavenly and material worlds, the latter being regarded as evil by definition. When Paul says that he does not know whether his temporary translation was in the body or out of the body, he keeps open the possibility of both, and thereby makes clear that he would not accept the dualistic view that the material world is inherently evil. At the same time, he does not exclude the possibility of a spiritual experience out of the body.

And I know that this man – whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows – was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. The expression inexpressible things (arrēta) is found only here in the New Testament, but is common in ancient inscriptions. It was associated with the mystery religions and describes things too sacred to be divulged. Such secrecy concerning things that had been revealed was a commonplace among devotees of the mystery religions of Paul’s day, but quite unusual in Christian circles. Paul did speak of the ‘mystery’ of the gospel, but that was something which, though previously hidden, had now been made known to the apostles and prophets through the Spirit for the express purpose that they should proclaim it to all people (cf. 1 Cor. 2:1 mg.; Eph. 3:1–9; 6:19–20; Col. 1:25–27; 4:3). It is only in the present context that Paul speaks of something revealed to him that he could not speak about, presumably because it was so sacred and intended for him alone.

Paul’s account of his rapture differs markedly from other such accounts from the ancient world, both in its brevity and the absence of any descriptions of what he saw. Paul refers only to what he heard.

5–6a. I will boast about a man like that. Although the brief account is finished, Paul continues to speak of the experience in the third person. He has been forced to boast of the Paul who fourteen years ago experienced such a revelation, but refuses to make that the ground of present boasting: but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. Having felt forced into the futile exercise of boasting about spiritual experience, Paul returns (cf. 11:30) to the one safe ground of boasting – his personal weakness – and develops this further in verses 7–10. However, before doing so, he insists, Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. If he did choose to boast about that experience, he would not, in one sense, be acting foolishly, because all he has said about it is true.

6b-7a. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say, or because of these surpassingly great revelations.16 The apostle’s reason for making less of his past experience than he might is that he wants people’s evaluation of him to be based upon what I do or say (ho blepei me ē akouei ex emou; lit. ‘what he sees [in] me or hears from me’). Harris (p. 850) comments, ‘Seeing and hearing encompass the two primary ways in which an evaluation of a person can be undertaken – by observing conduct and listening to what is said. In Paul’s case the reference would be to all his behaviour as a person and as a missionary-pastor, and to all his preaching and teaching.’ Paul wanted people’s evaluation of him as an apostle to be based on these things, not upon his past revelatory and visionary experiences.

7b. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh. Instead of making capital out of his rapture, as his opponents obviously did out of their spiritual experiences, Paul immediately explains how he was kept from becoming too conceited. A thorn (skolops) was given him in the flesh. The word skolops, found only here in the New Testament, was used for anything pointed (e.g. a stake, the pointed end of a fish-hook, a splinter or a thorn). The fact that Paul speaks of a thorn in the flesh suggests that the imagery is of a splinter or a thorn, rather than a stake, as some have argued.

In the LXX skolops is used figuratively in Numbers 33:55 (‘But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs [skolopes] in your eyes and thorns in your sides’), Ezekiel 28:24 (‘No longer will the people of Israel have malicious neighbours who are painful briers [skolops] and sharp thorns’) and Hosea 2:8 (ET, 2:6) (‘Therefore I will block her path with thornbushes [skolopsin]; I will wall her in so that she cannot find her way’). In each case, skolops is used to denote something that frustrates and causes trouble in the lives of those afflicted. That Paul’s thorn was a trouble and frustration to him is evident from his thrice-repeated prayer for its removal (v. 8).

Paul further describes the thorn in his flesh as a messenger of Satan, to torment me. In the story of Job, Satan is allowed to harass that great hero of faith and endurance, but only within the limits set by God (Job 1–2). In 1 Thessalonians 2:17–18 Paul tells his audience how he longed to revisit them after he was forced to leave Thessalonica (cf. Acts 17:1–10), but could not do so because Satan blocked his way. And in the present context Satan is allowed to torment the apostle by means of a thorn in the flesh. It is important to recognize that in both Old and New Testaments Satan has no power other than that allowed him by God. In the Gospels Jesus has complete power over all the forces of darkness. Satan has no power over him (John 14:30–31), and demons must obey his will (Mark 1:21–28; 5:1–13). This power Christ gave to his disciples (Mark 6:7). And yet we see in the case of Paul that Satan was allowed to block the apostle’s way and torment him with a thorn in the flesh. However, it must be said that in both cases the actions of Satan, while in themselves bad things, are made to serve God’s purposes. In the first case, having his way blocked kept him on the move and that meant the gospel came to Berea, Athens and Corinth. In the second case, the torment served to keep Paul spiritually well-balanced. It was a weight upon his spirit preventing him from becoming conceited.

Many suggestions have been made concerning the nature of Paul’s ‘thorn in the flesh’. They include: (i) some form of spiritual harassment, for example, the limitations of a nature corrupted by sin, the torments of temptation, or oppression by a demon; (ii) persecution, for example, that instigated by Jewish opposition or by Paul’s Christian opponents; (iii) some physical or mental ailment, for example, eye trouble, attacks of malarial fever, stammering speech, epilepsy, headaches or a neurological disturbance; (iv) the Corinthian church’s rejection of his apostleship.17 However, the plain fact is that there is insufficient data to decide the matter. Most modern interpreters prefer to see it as some sort of physical ailment, and the fact that Paul calls it a thorn in the flesh offers some support for this. Galatians 4:15 is appealed to by those who want to identify it as an eye problem.

8–9. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. Although there is no essential similarity between Paul’s experience and that of Jesus in Gethsemane, nevertheless it is interesting to note that both prayed three times that something be removed, and in both cases the removal requested was not granted. However, just as Jesus was strengthened to face his dreadful and unique ordeal, so encouragement and strength were made available to Paul: But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you.’ Essentially, the word of the Lord to Paul was that while the thorn would not be removed, his grace would enable him to cope with it. To this was added the explanation, for my power is made perfect in weakness. In 1 Corinthians 1:26–31 Paul pointed out to his converts that by God’s deliberate choice not many of them were wise according to worldly standards, nor influential, nor of noble birth. The reason was that ‘God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong… so that no one may boast before him.’ The Lord’s response to Paul’s request for removal of the ‘thorn’ was to remind him that his power is manifested in the weak. It also provides, in this context, justification for Paul’s rejection of the type of boasting indulged in by his opponents, and for his own practice of boasting in weakness.

Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. Having been taught that Christ’s power is made perfect in weakness, Paul is glad to boast of his weaknesses. This does not mean he enjoys weaknesses as such; what he delights in is the power of Christ that rests upon him in these weaknesses. The verb ‘to rest upon’ (episkēnoō) is quite rare. It is found only here in the New Testament, and not at all in the LXX or the papyri. Before Paul, its only known use is by Polybius the Greek historian (c. 201–120 BC) who used it twice of the billeting of soldiers. It may, therefore, be better to translate the verb as ‘dwell in’ or ‘reside’ rather than ‘rest upon’. Either way, it is the experience of Christ’s power in his weakness that enables Paul to boast.

10. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. Paul applies the lesson he learnt from the Lord’s response to his prayers for the removal of the ‘thorn’ to all the difficulties he experienced in his apostolic ministry, whether personal weakness and hardships, or pain inflicted upon him by others. When he says, I delight in weakness…, the verb translated delight in (eudokeō) may also be translated ‘be content with’ (so NRSV), but in neither case should it be construed in such a way as to indicate that Paul was a masochist, enjoying the sufferings he experienced. The reason he delighted in his sufferings was because he knew that Christ’s power would rest upon him in the midst of them.

While Paul’s audience could have gained much by learning of the simultaneity of weakness and power of which Paul speaks in verses 7–10, his motive in setting it out was not limited to that. His opponents had criticized his apostleship on the grounds of his weakness (cf. 10:10), and very likely they regarded the many persecutions and insults that Paul experienced as inconsistent with his claim to be an apostle of the exalted Christ. By setting out the principle of divine power manifested through human weakness, Paul both defended his own claim to apostleship and cut the ground from under the claims of his opponents.

v. Signs of an apostle (12:11–13)

With these verses Paul brings his ‘fool’s speech’ to an end. He says that the whole exercise was an act of folly, but one he was forced into by the failure of his converts to speak up on his behalf. They ought to have commended him, rather than he having to indulge in the folly of boasting on his own behalf, for in fact he was in no way inferior to the so-called ‘super-apostles’. The Corinthians had been favoured by the performance of apostolic signs; the only thing they had missed out on was being burdened financially by Paul. He concludes ironically by asking their forgiveness for this wrong!

11. I have made a fool of myself. Paul is conscious that his boasting has been an exercise in foolishness. But in a sense the Corinthians themselves are to blame. He says, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you. Paul places particular emphasis upon the words you and I. In effect, he says, ‘You Corinthians forced me to indulge in self-commendation, when in fact I ought to have been commended by you.’ If, instead of accepting the criticisms of Paul made by his opponents, the Corinthians had spoken up on his behalf, testifying that it was through his preaching that they had been converted (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1b-2), that God had confirmed his preaching with signs and wonders, and that his behaviour among them had been exemplary, then Paul would have had no need to boast on his own behalf. People do not need to indulge in the unpleasant act of self-commendation when their friends, or those to whom they have ministered, take positive action to defend their integrity.

For I am not in the least inferior to the ‘super-apostles’, even though I am nothing. Paul speaks sarcastically when he refers to his opponents as super-apostles, and insists that he is in no way inferior to them. When he adds, even though I am nothing, he is probably referring to what his opponents were saying about him. Alternatively, he may be revealing in a straightforward way his own sense of unworthiness to have been entrusted with an apostolic commission (cf. 1 Cor. 15:9–10).

12. I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle. The word true is an addition in the NIV for which there is no counterpart in the original. While its inclusion, therefore, is strictly unwarranted, it does draw attention to the fact that Paul is here concerned to show that he is a true apostle, even according to the criteria espoused by his opponents. He claims that he is in no way inferior to these people in respect of the marks of a true apostle. And these Paul itemizes as signs, wonders and miracles. The account of Paul’s first visit to Corinth in Acts 18 records no miracles, but obviously such had been carried out, otherwise his appeal to them here would be nonsense. In Romans (written shortly after these chapters) he speaks of his ministry in terms of ‘what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done – by the power of signs and wonders, through the power of the Spirit of God’ (Rom. 15:17–19). Clearly, the performance of the marks of a true apostle were a normal accompaniment to Paul’s ministry, and in this respect Corinth had been no less favoured than others.

13. How were you inferior to the other churches, except that I was never a burden to you? On what grounds the Corinthians might have felt themselves to have been disadvantaged in comparison to other churches is not specified. Clearly it was not that Paul’s ministry among them was not accompanied by ‘signs, wonders and miracles’, for he had just reminded them that these ‘marks of a true apostle’ had been demonstrated among them.

Perhaps they felt offended that Paul had refused to accept support from them while he accepted it from other churches. If this was the case, then Paul asks them ironically, Forgive me this wrong!, implying it would seem that it is a strange thing indeed that they should object to being not burdened or exploited by him, as they had been by his opponents (cf. 11:20).

Paul felt forced to boast about his apostolic credentials in the ‘fool’s speech’, because his converts were being deceived by his opponents and had accepted their criteria for judging the validity of his ministry. While boasting, he repeatedly emphasized that doing so was against his better judgment – he was ‘not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool’. Because the validity of his ministry had been called into question and because the Christian standing of his converts was threatened, he judged it imperative to set out his credentials. There comes a time to speak up when one’s ministry is under attack and to defend its authenticity, even at the risk of being accused of self–commendation.

When claiming to be a better servant of Christ than his opponents, Paul emphasized, not his eloquence or the success of his mission, but the beatings and imprisonments he had suffered, the dangers he had been exposed to, and the privations he had undergone – things which showed his weakness rather than his strength. These things would not have commended him to his opponents or the Corinthians, but they were the badges of a true servant of Christ. The Lord himself said, ‘Remember what I told you: “A servant is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also… They will treat you this way because of my name’ (John 15:20–21). For Paul, sufferings were legitimizing evidence that he was a true servant of Christ (cf. Gal. 6:17).

While claiming to be the recipient of visions and revelations because he was forced to defend the authenticity of his ministry, Paul chose not to capitalize on these experiences. Instead, he directed his audience’s attention to his thorn in the flesh, further evidence of his weakness, and he emphasized the sufficiency of the grace of God, whose strength is made perfect in human weakness. This has been the experience of Christian people through the centuries who have learnt, as Paul did, that ‘this all – surpassing power is from God and not from us’ (4:7).

Paul’s preaching in Corinth had been accompanied by ‘signs, wonders and miracles’, and the Corinthians had failed to say this had been the case when his ministry was criticized by his opponents as lacking in this respect. As a result, Paul had to defend the validity of his ministry himself. From this we may learn how important it is to come to the defence of our Christian brothers and sisters when they are unjustly criticized, so they are not placed in the invidious position of having to defend themselves.

D. Paul’s planned third visit (12:14 – 13:10)

Having been forced to ‘boast’ about his apostolic credentials in the ‘fool’s speech’ to demonstrate to the Corinthians that he was in no way inferior to the false apostles, in this section Paul addresses other matters that cried out for attention. First, in respect of financial integrity he assures them that he is willing to spend his resources and to be spent himself for their benefit, and neither he nor those whom he sent intended to exploit them (12:14–18).

Second, to set the record straight, Paul insists he is not interested in simply defending himself, but has his audience’s well-being in mind. And he writes as he does because he fears that on his upcoming third visit he might find them to be not as he would wish, and as a result they would find him to be not as they would wish (12:19–21).

Third, aware that there were still some in Corinth who suspected him of malpractice, Paul warns them that any charges they might bring must be supported by two or three witnesses. If they demand proof that Christ speaks through him, apparently because his weaknesses seemed to nullify such a claim, he assures them that though he is ‘weak’ in Christ, he will act with the power of God when he deals with them (13:1–4).

Fourth, he exhorts his audience to examine themselves, and he assures them he is glad to be weak if they prove to be strong. He explains that he is writing now in the hope that it will produce improvement in them, so that when he comes he will not have to be harsh in his dealings with them, as he has threatened to be (13:5–10).

After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children. Paul draws upon the general principle that in family life it is the parents who provide for their children and not vice-versa (there does come a time, of course, when adult children should provide for elderly parents; cf. Mark 7:8–12; 1 Tim. 5:4). Paul applies this general principle to his relationship as spiritual father to the Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor. 4:15) to support his decision not to burden them financially (elsewhere he does defend the right of ministers of the gospel to be supported financially; cf. 1 Cor. 9:4–14).

i. Paul refuses to burden the Corinthians (12:14–18)

14. Now I am ready to visit you for the third time. This statement is ambiguous both in the original and in the NIV translation. It could mean either that this is the third time Paul has been ready to make a visit (without indicating whether he actually made all the visits for which he was ready), or that he is now ready to make his third visit. Fortunately 13:1 resolves the question, confirming that he is about to embark on his third visit. The two previous ones were the pioneer missionary visit and the ‘painful visit’ (see Introduction, here). Paul’s intended third visit is mentioned in several other places in this letter (10:2; 12:20–21; 13:1, 10), and from these references it is clear that the apostle was ready for a showdown, though he still hoped it would not come to that.

And I will not be a burden to you, because what I want is not your possessions but you. On the third visit Paul will adhere to his policy of not accepting support from the Corinthians. His purpose in coming is to win them back, not to tap their resources. Calvin (p. 165) paraphrases Paul’s purpose: ‘I seek larger wages than you think, for I am not content with your riches but I seek the whole of you in order to present you to the Lord as a sacrifice from the fruits of my ministry.’ There may be in Paul’s statement a veiled contrast between his motives and those of his opponents, who in this respect could not claim to work on the same terms as he did (cf. 11:12).

Paul uses the verb ‘to save up’ (thēsaurizō) here, which is found also in his advice concerning the collection: ‘On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made’ (1 Cor. 16:2, italics added). This advice, it seems, had been falsely construed by his opponents to mean that he really wanted his spiritual children to lay up money for him. Paul denies such accusations by saying that it is parents who should lay up for their children and not vice versa.

15–16. As parents willingly provide for their children, Paul says, So I will very gladly spend for you everything I have and expend myself as well. Two cognate verbs are used: dapanaō (‘to spend’) and ekdapanaō (‘to expend’). The word dapanaō is used elsewhere in the New Testament where it usually refers to spending money (Mark 5:26, the woman with the haemorrhage spent all she had on doctors; Luke 15:14, the prodigal spent all his inheritance on riotous living; Acts 21:24, Paul spent money to pay for the sacrifices offered by Jewish Christians), and this is its common use in the papyri as well. So here, consistent with the context and in parallel with these other uses, Paul employs the word to express his willingness to spend his resources for the Corinthians. By spending his resources, he probably includes meeting the cost of his support while labouring among and for the Corinthians.

The word ekdapanaō is found only here in the New Testament, and means ‘to spend’ or ‘to expend’. Applied to a person, as here, it means to expend oneself in the sense of the sacrifice of one’s life. Such is the apostle’s commitment to his converts that he is prepared not only to spend his resources, but even to sacrifice his own life for their sakes. Such a statement of extreme commitment to the well-being of others is not an isolated one in Paul’s writings. He felt the same way about his Jewish compatriots (Rom. 9:3) and the Philippian church (Phil. 2:17).

After such a statement of his love and commitment to the Corinthians, Paul understandably asks, If I love you more, will you love me less? The apostle, who is prepared to exhaust his own earnings so as not to be a burden to the Corinthians, and is prepared even to sacrifice his life for them if necessary, asks whether, in response to his abundant love, he is going to be loved less by them.

And Paul knows why the greater love for them on his part means less love for him on theirs. It is because one expression of his love (refusing to be a burden to them) has been misconstrued by his opponents. So he confronts his audience with the charge levelled against him: Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery! This charge originated with Paul’s opponents, and was entertained for a time by his converts. The craftiness and trickery of which Paul was accused was that of using the occasion of the collection for the poor Judean Christians as an opportunity to benefit himself substantially as well. That this was the nature of the accusation is confirmed in verses 17–18.

17–18. Paul confronts his audience again: Did I exploit you through any of the men I sent to you? To increase the impact, he reminds them of the ones he sent to them. I urged Titus to go to you and I sent our brother with him. Paul refers to the sending of Titus and the ‘earnest’ brother that he foreshadowed in 8:16–17, 22.18 Having reminded them, he asks a second question: Titus did not exploit you, did he? Both this and the previous question by their form in the original demand a negative answer. Paul concludes his defence against this allegation by asking, Did we not walk in the same footsteps by the same Spirit? These questions, as both their form in the original language and the translation provided in the NIV show, require a positive answer. Both Paul and those whom he sent to Corinth on the business of the collection had acted in the same way, with complete integrity. The apostle expects his audience to acknowledge that fact.

By the same Spirit translates tō autō pneumati, which is susceptible to two interpretations, either that of the NIV which identifies pneuma here as the Holy Spirit and interprets the whole as a reference to walking in the Spirit (cf. Gal. 5:16), or that of the NRSV which identifies pneuma as the human spirit and translates the whole as: ‘Did we not conduct ourselves with the same spirit?’ Both make good sense, but perhaps the second is preferable in the context where it is Paul’s and his emissaries’ conduct towards the Corinthians that is defended.

ii. The real purpose of Paul’s fool’s speech (12:19–21)

In these verses Paul seeks to clarify the real underlying motive of his boasting. Certainly, he felt forced into it because his audience had been influenced adversely by the boasting of his opponents, and he needed to show that he was in no way inferior to those men. But underlying that, his real aim was to strengthen his converts (v. 19). And this he did because he was afraid that when he came on his third visit, both he and they would find in one another not what they would desire. They might find Paul acting with bold authority against them, and he might find that many of them were still caught up in the sins of the past (vv. 20–21).

19. Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to you? This has been translated in the NIV (and also in the NRSV) as a question. It could also be translated as a statement: ‘You have been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to you.’ But either way, Paul’s point is the same. He wants to correct a view of his boasting which interprets it as an effort to defend himself. Hafemann (p. 487) comments, ‘Thus, in defending himself, Paul has not been seeking the approval of the Corinthians but fighting to strengthen their faith (12:19c)… Since God is making his appeal through Paul (5:20b), for him to fight for his own legitimacy as an apostle is to fight for the faith of the Corinthians.’

We have been speaking in the sight of God as those in Christ. As a Christian, Paul knows that all he says (and does) is in the sight of God. He states this fact here to underline the truth of what follows: everything we do, dear friends, is for your strengthening. When Paul says everything … is for your strengthening, he refers, most likely, to all that he has said, done and written, particularly in the present letter which they might have mistakenly construed as mere self-defence. He also reiterates the purpose of apostolic ministry: to strengthen/build up the church (cf. 10:8; 13:10). People are strengthened and built up in their faith by both encouragement and admonishment.

It should be noted that after the strong words and irony of chapters 10 – 12, Paul’s true feeling for his converts emerges again in the appellation dear friends (agapētoi, lit. ‘beloved’; cf. 11:11; 12:15). It was Paul’s love for the Corinthians, as much as his dismay because a false gospel was being entertained by them, that accounted for the strength of his attack against his opponents and the extent of his boasting.

20. Paul laboured to strengthen the Corinthians because he loved them, but also, he says, For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be. He is ready to come to them for the third visit (12:14) and does not want to be disappointed when he arrives. If what he fears is in evidence when he arrives, he warns, you may not find me as you want me to be. If there is no improvement, then Paul must act with boldness and authority against the church (cf. 1 Cor. 4:21), as he has threatened to act against his opponents (10:2, 6; cf. 13:1–4).19

Paul spells out in detail what he fears he might find when he arrives: I fear that there may be discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder. The list may owe something to traditional lists of vices that Paul makes use of elsewhere (e.g. Rom. 1:29; 13:13; Gal. 5:19–21; Col. 3:8–9). However, it is significant that the first two items on Paul’s list here, discord and jealousy, are the very things he mentioned when dealing with the problem of party spirit in 1 Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor. 1:11; 3:3). And the last item on Paul’s list, disorder, was a problem addressed in 1 Corinthians in relation to women’s behaviour and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, as well as the use of spiritual gifts, all in the context of the worship of the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 11:2–34).

21. Paul was by no means convinced that the problems he addressed in 1 Corinthians were now things of the past, and this is confirmed by his words in verse 21: I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you. In 9:3–4 Paul spoke of the humiliation he would feel if, when he came to Corinth with some of the Macedonians, the Corinthians proved to be unprepared to make their contribution to the collection. But here he faces the possibility of a far greater humiliation, that of seeing the results of his labours in Corinth marred by serious moral breakdown. He envisages being grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged. Calvin (p. 167) comments, ‘Paul reveals to us the mind of a true and sincere pastor when he says that he will look on the sins of others with grief. It is right that every pastor should bear the concerns of the Church on his heart, should feel its ills as if they were his own, sympathize with its sorrows and grieve for its sins.’

In 1 Corinthians 5 – 6 Paul dealt at length with the arrogance of the Corinthians and the immoral practices of some in their midst. These included incest (a man living with his stepmother) and the use of prostitutes, and in the latter case it appears to have been justified by appeal to the slogan: ‘I have the right to do anything’ (1 Cor. 6:12). Paul called for disciplinary action against the incestuous person (1 Cor. 5:3–5) and argued that sexual immorality was incompatible with the Christian’s status as the dwelling-place of the Spirit (1 Cor. 6:18–20).

If it is correct to identify the incestuous person with the one who later questioned Paul’s authority and led the personal attack against him during the ‘painful visit’, then we know that he was eventually disciplined severely, so much so that Paul urged the rest to turn and forgive him (2:6–8). In that case, it is unlikely that this person is included among those who sinned before and had not repented. It is more likely that Paul refers to those who formerly practised immorality and who may have desisted for a while (in deference to his appeal in 1 Cor. 5 – 6) without truly repenting. But in the new crisis situation where Paul’s authority was called into question again, this time by Jewish Christian opponents of the apostle, he fears some of the Corinthians may be engaging in immoral and licentious practices once more.

iii. Paul threatens strong action on his third visit (13:1–10)

The apostle speaks here in threatening terms of his third visit to Corinth. He informs his audience that when he comes again to Corinth, he will not spare offenders. If they want proof that Christ is speaking through him, then they shall get it! He tells them that just as Christ was crucified in weakness but now lives by the power of God, so too he (Paul), though sharing the weakness and suffering of Christ, will act with the power of God when he deals with them. Alluding again to their demands for proof, Paul responds by challenging his audience to prove themselves to see whether they are holding to the faith. He assures his audience that for his part he could never act contrary to the truth.

1. This will be my third visit to you. The first visit was that of Paul’s pioneer evangelism in Corinth (c. AD 50–51), and the second was the ‘painful visit’ (c. AD 55) made after the writing of 1 Corinthians (see Introduction). The third visit (made c. AD 56–57) has been foreshadowed several times (cf. 10:2; 12:14, 20–21), and it is clear from these references and the present context that Paul is prepared for a showdown.

Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. Paul here introduces, without any introductory formula, a slightly abbreviated version of Deuteronomy 19:15 (LXX). The requirement that accusations must be supported by the evidence of at least two witnesses was stressed in first-century Judaism. The same requirement was incorporated by Jesus into his instructions to the disciples concerning church discipline (Matt. 18:16), and is also reflected in a number of places elsewhere in the New Testament (John 8:17; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28; 1 John 5:8).

Paul’s introduction of this quotation here has been understood in various ways. Some draw attention to Paul’s reference to his second and third visits to Corinth in verses 1–2 and suggest that these are somehow analogous to the two or three witnesses demanded by the law (so e.g. Calvin, p. 169; Thrall, p. 876). The evidence provided by these visits will justify the disciplinary action Paul intends taking in Corinth. However, Paul’s first visit can hardly be seen as a witness to Corinthian misdemeanours (it was the pioneer evangelistic visit during which the church was founded). Further, the third visit could hardly be regarded as a ‘witness’ when it was on that visit Paul intended taking disciplinary action. Such an interpretation also makes Paul do strange things with the text of Deuteronomy 19:15 which clearly refers to the witness of persons (not events), as allusions to it elsewhere in the New Testament testify.

Another suggestion is that the warnings Paul gave (v. 2) constitute the witnesses required. The difficulty in this case is that, despite the multiple warnings given, only one person is involved as a witness. A third possibility is that Paul, determined to take disciplinary action when he arrived, is simply assuring his audience that he will do so in accordance with the instructions of Jesus and the judicial procedures accepted by the churches 20 and, as Hafemann (p. 490) suggests, he will support his charge against them with several witnesses from within the congregation itself.

Finally, the apostle could be issuing a challenge to any in his audience who may have been inclined to bring a charge against him. If so, Paul is saying that they must be prepared to sustain their accusations by the evidence of two or three witnesses. This suggestion takes note of the fact that it is not only the Corinthians who are under scrutiny (by Paul), but also Paul himself (by them) (vv. 5–10).

2. I already gave you a warning when I was with you the second time. I now repeat it while absent. Paul both updates his warning and pinpoints for us the time when he first issued it. The occasion of the original warning was his second visit, that is, the ‘painful visit’ during which he had been attacked by the offender (cf. 2:5; 7:12). From the present context we learn that Paul did not conclude his second visit before uttering dire warnings to those who were still unrepentant about their previous sins.

On my return I will not spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others. Paul’s reference to those who sinned earlier may be understood as a reference to the unrepentant sexual offenders of 12:21 (cf. 1 Cor. 6:12–20), while any of the others is possibly a reference to those who condoned the sexual offences (cf. 1 Cor. 5:2, 6) or simply to other members of the church. The content of the apostle’s warning is: on my return I will not spare them. Paul had threatened that on his second visit he would take disciplinary action (1 Cor. 4:18–21), but in the event he withdrew without doing so, preferring rather to write a ‘severe letter’. But now, ready to make his third visit, he warns his audience that he will not spare them this time. The nature of the disciplinary action he intended to take is not specified. Suggested explanations include the excommunication of the offenders or some supernatural affliction (cf. 1 Cor. 5:3–5; Acts 13:8–11).

3. Paul here gives a reason for the threat in verse 2b that ‘I will not spare those who sinned’: since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me. The Corinthians wanted proof that Paul functioned as Christ’s ‘mouthpiece’. Influenced by his opponents, they had adopted various criteria for testing the validity of apostolic claims. One of these was that through a true apostle the word of Christ should be heard, and there should be evidence to prove that this was so. Such evidence would include an impressive presence and powerful speaking ability (10:10), and the performance of signs and wonders (12:11–13). Paul would not have objected to the view that through true apostles Christ speaks, but would have taken strong exception to the proofs of this demanded by his opponents and the Corinthians. He had learnt that the power of Christ rested upon the weak, and that Christ spoke through his servants when they proclaimed the gospel, not because of their impressive personal presence, high-sounding words, or even accompanying supernatural signs.

In response to the demand for proofs, Paul threatens to provide evidence of Christ’s speaking through him, but it will be evidence that his audience will not find to their liking. He will not spare them. He will be severe in his use of apostolic authority (cf. v. 10). In this regard he warns the Corinthians: He [Christ] is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you. Christ had worked powerfully by the Spirit among the Corinthians when Paul performed the signs of an apostle in Corinth (12:12; cf. Rom. 15:18–19), but in the present context Paul has in mind the power of Christ revealed in disciplinary action against those who persisted in their sins. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:30–31, written in response to news of abuses at the Lord’s Supper, may provide a clue to what he has in mind here: ‘That is why many among you are weak and ill, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment.’

4. For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Paul reminds his audience that the Christ who now lives by the power of God was once crucified in weakness, having taken upon himself the weakness of mortal human flesh in the incarnation. This provides a paradigm by which they should understand the paradox of Paul’s own apostolic ministry: Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with him in our dealing with you. The many evidences of the apostle’s weakness (cf. 1:3–11; 4:7–12; 11:23–29) should not blind the Corinthians to the fact that Christ’s power is being manifested in his apostolate. While acknowledging his weakness in Christ, Paul threatens to use the disciplinary power of Christ when dealing with his audience. Hafemann (p. 492) comments:

The parallels established between Christ and Paul in 13:4 show how Christ’s power is made perfect in Paul’s ministry (cf. 12:9). His primary purpose as an apostle is to mediate through his suffering in Christ the knowledge of God and the transforming power of the life-giving Spirit (2:14 – 3:18; 4:1–15). This is the way in which Paul usually mediates the power of Christ’s resurrection. But toward those who reject the cross and the power of Christ as embodied in his suffering and endurance, the resurrection power of Christ will be made known through his acts of judgment within the church. If Paul is an agent of God’s redemption, he must also be an agent of God’s judgment (cf. 2:15–16a; 4:4; 6:1–2).

5. Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. The positioning of the repeated reflexive pronouns yourselves (heautous) in the original language shows that Paul emphasizes that the Corinthians should be examining themselves rather than him. The meaning of being in the faith could refer to holding the truth of the gospel, or living as true believers. When Paul urged the Corinthians to examine themselves, was he implying that they might find they were not true believers? What he says next reveals this was not the case, as does the way he addresses them throughout the letter. The result Paul expected from their self-examination was that they were certainly in the faith, and his purpose in urging them to do so was that they would conclude that the one who led them to faith in Christ must be a true apostle.21

Do you not realise that Christ Jesus is in you – unless, of course, you fail the test? In a previous letter Paul had stressed the importance of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the congregation and the individual believer, and the moral implications of this (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19–20). In the present context, where the prospect of moral failure on the part of the Corinthians has raised Paul’s concern (cf. 12:21), the ethical implications of the presence of Christ by the Spirit is implicitly invoked by Paul’s question: Do you not realise that Christ Jesus is in you? The Corinthians appear to have been quite confident that Christ was in them, so the purpose of Paul’s question is to reawaken in them the moral implications of that great fact.

6. And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test. Just as Paul emphasized in the previous verse (by the emphatic positioning of reflexive pronouns) that the Corinthians should test themselves to ensure that they were holding to the faith, so he stresses here, by the inclusion of the emphatic pronoun we (hēmeis), his hope that he and his colleagues will be found not to have failed the test. This comes as a surprise, for the context leads us to expect that Paul’s hope would be that the Corinthians would be the ones found not to have failed the test. The explanation is: by testing themselves and reaching the conclusion that they do hold to the faith and that therefore Christ is in them, the Corinthians will at the same time be acknowledging that Paul and his colleagues have not failed the test. For if the Corinthians hold the true faith and are indwelt by Christ, that is so because of what they received through the ministry of Paul and his fellow workers, and that in turn proves that Paul is a true apostle, one who has not failed the test. Harris (p. 923) puts it this way: ‘He assumes that the Corinthians will give themselves a “pass” on their self-audit and hopes that they will clearly perceive the indissoluble link between their “pass” and his “pass”.’

7. Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong. Paul discloses the content of his prayer, and this disclosure not only reveals his concern for the Corinthians, but also functions as an exhortation to them. The wrong he prays they will avoid is best understood in this context as failure to hold to the faith (v. 5) and a falling back into immorality (12:21).

Lest his motives be misunderstood, he explains that his reason for praying is not so that people will see that we have stood the test but so that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed. Though Paul hopes they will find out that he has not failed the test (v. 6), this is not his main concern. He wants them to avoid wrongdoing, not because his own reputation would suffer, but because he wants them to be found doing what is right. Calvin (pp. 173–174) paraphrases Paul: ‘“I have no anxiety”, he says, “for myself or for my reputation; my only fear is that you should offend God, and I am ready to be as a reprobate myself, if only you are free from all blame” – a reprobate, that is, in the judgment of men, who very often reject those who are worthy of the highest honour.’

Those who may deem Paul to have failed the test would probably do so on the grounds that he failed to provide proofs that Christ spoke through him; in other words, he lacked an impressive presence, his speech was of no account (10:10), and there was little evidence, as they thought, of spiritual power in his ministry (e.g. visionary experiences and the performance of signs and wonders; cf. 12:1, 11–13). In his ‘fool’s speech’ Paul provided such evidence as they demanded, even though he gave it his own special twist (see commentary on 11:16 – 12:13). However, as far as he was concerned, legitimization of his apostleship belongs not with such displays of power, but is seen in the changed lives of his converts. When they pass the test of holding the faith, and that finds expression in moral renewal in their lives, then the genuineness of Paul’s apostolate will be confirmed (cf. 3:1–3).

8. Lest his statement ‘though we may seem to have failed’ (v. 7b) should be misconstrued as an admission that he has acted wrongly, Paul adds, For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. The truth is best understood here as the gospel, and what Paul asserts is that he could never act in a way that is contrary to the gospel or its implications.

9. We are glad whenever we are weak but you are strong. This statement reinforces that of verse 7, and recasts it in general terms. Paul is prepared, as he says in verse 7, to appear to have failed as long as the Corinthians do what is right. Now, in more general terms, he says that he is prepared, even glad, to be weak if that means strength for his converts. During his ministry, Paul had discovered that weakness in himself was the concomitant of God’s power at work in others (cf. 4:11–12; 12:7–10), a fact which rests upon God’s decision to use the weak things of this world to achieve his purposes (cf. 1 Cor. 1:26–29). The sort of strength Paul looked for in his converts was commitment to the gospel and the outworking of that commitment in moral renewal.

And our prayer is that you may be fully restored. It is a mark of the apostle’s Christian maturity and commitment to the purposes of God that in the face of the defection of his converts, and their calling into question of his own apostolate, his overriding concern is not self-justification, but rather their restoration, that their moral failures should be put right.

10. Paul sums up the purpose of his letter: This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority. This statement of purpose fits well with the content of chapters 10 – 13 in which Paul has repeatedly threatened a severe use of authority (10:5–6, 11; 12:20; 13:1–4). Despite repeated threats, Paul hoped all along that it would not prove necessary to carry them out (10:2; 12:19–21). We may say, then, that the purpose of chapters 10 – 13 was to recall the Corinthians to their senses so that they would reject the false gospel and false claims of Paul’s opponents and also live out in their lives the moral implications of the gospel and so forestall a severe use of authority by Paul.

Paul describes his authority as the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down. It is true that elsewhere in his writings Paul speaks of an exercise of authority which could be seen as a tearing down (e.g. handing people over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, 1 Cor. 5:3–5; cf. 1 Tim. 1:20), nevertheless the primary function of that authority was for building up Christ’s church. This is stressed again and again in this letter (cf. 10:8; 12:19).

Paul defended his integrity in financial matters in the light of accusations that his refusal to accept support was a smokescreen behind which he was exploiting the Corinthians through the collection. Though his policy was not to accept support from those among whom he was presently ministering, he defended the right of others to do so. All this underlines two things: gospel ministers deserve support, but may waive the right if they wish; financial integrity is vitally important to prevent one’s ministry being ill spoken of. To correct false impressions in this matter is not merely a matter of self-defence, but is necessary to ensure that one’s efforts to strengthen the church are not rejected.

The Corinthians wanted proof that Christ spoke through Paul. For them it seemed that his sufferings, persecutions and weaknesses militated against his claim to be an apostle, the mouthpiece of Christ. Paul emphasized that weakness did not invalidate his claim, but was in fact the concomitant of the power of Christ at work through him. This is both a warning against a triumphalist approach to ministry and an encouragement to remember that God’s power is made perfect in human weakness.

The authority of the minister is essentially for the building up not the tearing down of God’s people. Calvin’s comment (pp. 175–176) is apposite: ‘Since the Gospel is by its own nature “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1.16) and “the savour of life unto life” (II Cor. 2.15, 16) and is only contingently “a savour of death”, the authority conferred upon ministers of the Gospel ought to be used for the salvation of those who hear them, for if it turns out to their destruction, that is against its nature.’

E. Conclusion (13:11–14)

Typical of ancient letters, this one concludes with some final words of exhortation and encouragement, followed by a benediction invoking God’s blessing upon the audience.

11. Finally, brothers and sisters, rejoice! Rejoice translates chairete, as it does in 1 Thessalonians 5:16 where it is part of a similar list of brief exhortations. It could also be translated ‘farewell’, as in the NRSV.

i. Final exhortations and encouragement (13:11–13)

Strive for full restoration, encourage one another. What Paul required by way of full restoration is clear enough. He wanted the Corinthians to reject the different gospel brought by his opponents (11:1–6), to recognize his rightful claims to be their apostle (10:13–18; 11:21–23; 12:11–13), and to make sure no immoral practices were allowed in their midst (12:20–21). Paul has already appealed to the Corinthians to examine themselves and amend their ways so that when he comes he will not have to be harsh in the use of his authority (vv. 5–10).

Be of one mind, live in peace. This reminds us that the disharmony which marred the church when 1 Corinthians was written (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10–12; 3:1–4) was still a source of trouble in the church (cf. 12:20). To this exhortation Paul adds the assurance: And the God of love and peace will be with you. This promise should not be understood as a reward that will be given if the Corinthians obey Paul’s exhortation. It is best taken as an encouragement to those who set themselves to obey, as well as an indication of the source of power by which they will be enabled to do so.

12. Greet one another with a holy kiss. In the New Testament the kiss was a sign of greeting and respect. So, for example, Jesus reproached Simon the Pharisee because he gave him no kiss when he entered his house (Luke 7:45). It was also used as a symbol of gratitude, as in the case of the woman who, being forgiven much, kissed Jesus’ feet repeatedly (Luke 7:38, 45). It was an expression of love in the case of the father of the prodigal who embraced and kissed his wayward son when he returned home (Luke 15:20). Paul repeatedly exhorted members of the churches to greet one another with a holy kiss (apart from the present context such exhortations are found in Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 1 Thess. 5:26, cf. 1 Pet. 5:14).

In Greco-Roman society public kissing tended to be treated with some reticence, although it seems as a form of welcome it was becoming more common in the imperial period and, if that was the case, ‘it may have been easier for the church to make the public kiss into a group rule and provide it with a deeper motivation’.22

The fact that the kiss was described as holy indicates that erotic overtones were excluded; the kiss was a greeting, a sign of peace and Christian agapē. In post-New Testament times the use of the holy or cultic kiss is found in early Christian liturgies, especially the Eucharist. However, quite early there were objections voiced against the practice because of the suspicions of non-Christians and because of the danger of erotic perversion.23

13. All God’s people here send their greetings. All God’s people, whose greetings Paul conveys, are to be understood as either all the Christians of Macedonia, or those Christians in the particular Macedonian city from which he wrote this letter.

ii. Benediction (13:14)

14. The closing invocation of God’s blessing is especially significant because of its triadic formulation. It is the only place in the New Testament where God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are explicitly mentioned together in such a benediction.

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. In 8:9 Paul wrote, ‘For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich’ (see commentary on 8:9). This is the nature of the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ which Paul invokes upon his audience, a grace completely undeserved, yet overwhelmingly generous and astonishingly committed to the well-being of sinful human beings.

And the love of God. The love of God is a major theme in Paul’s theology. It was demonstrated supremely when God provided, and was involved in, the great reconciliation effected by Christ so that human beings might live at peace with God (5:18–21; Rom. 5:6–8). This is the nature of the love of God which Paul invokes upon his audience. Once again, what is involved is completely undeserved and astonishingly generous.

And the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. The word fellowship translates koinōnia, the essential meaning of which is ‘participation’. The expression the fellowship of the Holy Spirit can be construed to mean either participation in the Holy Spirit where the Holy Spirit is understood as the one in whom Christian people share (objective genitive construction). Alternatively, it can be construed to mean a fellowship created by the Holy Spirit (subjective genitive construction). Both ideas are true and are found elsewhere in Paul’s letters (e.g. 1 Cor. 12:13 where, on one interpretation of that text, Christians are said to have been both baptized by one Spirit [en pneumati ] into one body, and made to drink of one Spirit). In any case, Christians can share ‘objectively’ in the Spirit only if the Holy Spirit himself as subject makes that participation possible.