Ancient Corinth, then, lay at the crossroads of two important trade routes. The first was the route via the isthmus between Attica and the Peloponnese; the second was the route across the isthmus between Lechaeum and Cenchreae. Ships from the western end of the Mediterranean filled the harbour in Lechaeum, while those from Asia and the eastern end of the Mediterranean sailed into the port of Cenchreae. Corinth, being so strategically located, grew wealthy on the taxes levied on the movement of goods which it controlled. The wealth of ancient Corinth is reflected in its magnificent buildings and infrastructure, temples, fountains, gymnasia, baths, a theatre, basilicas, an odeon, and paved roads, the remains of which can still be seen today.
However, ancient Corinth was renowned not only for its wealth and commercial importance, but also because it was responsible for the organization of the biennial Isthmian Games which attracted many visitors to the area, whose spending added to the prosperity of the city. In addition to this, Corinth had gained a certain notoriety because of its worship of Aphrodite. A temple for Aphrodite stood on the highest point of Acrocorinth, the hill at whose base the city was located. Strabo tells us that so wealthy was the cult of Aphrodite that it boasted a thousand courtesans dedicated to the goddess. Many sea captains, he says, squandered their money paying for the services of these cult-prostitutes, so that the proverb, ‘Not for every man is the voyage to Corinth’, was in use among them.1
In 146 BC the city was overrun by a Roman army under the leadership of Lucius Mummius. He had the city razed to the ground. Many of its treasures were carried away to Rome or destroyed. The inhabitants, the old Corinthians, were either killed or sold into slavery. The city lay in ruins and was uninhabited for more than a hundred years, until 44 BC when Julius Caesar had it rebuilt and named it Laus Iulia Corinthiensis. Roman freedmen as well as others from the eastern Mediterranean, including Syrians, Jews and Egyptians, were sent to occupy it. The Corinth of Paul’s day was not a Greek city like the older Corinth, but a Roman colony whose official language was Latin, even though the common spoken language was Greek. Pausanias, writing about AD 174, says that ‘Corinth is no longer inhabited by any of the old Corinthians, but by colonists sent out by the Romans.’
By Paul’s time, the location of Corinth and the opportunities to prosper as a result of the control of the trade routes attracted many people of different nationalities to the new city. The existence of a Jewish community in Corinth, attested by Philo (Embassy to Gaius, 281), is confirmed by the discovery of a stone bearing the clear remains of an inscription, ‘[syn]agogue of Hebr[ews]’. It is impossible to ascribe an exact date to this inscription,2 but it does confirm that fairly early on the Jewish community had a meeting-place in Corinth. According to Acts 18:4, Paul preached in a synagogue in Corinth when he first arrived in the city.
From Pausanias’ description it is clear that the new Corinth became a centre for the worship of many of the old Greco-Roman gods. He refers to temples or altars dedicated to Poseidon, Palaemon, Aphrodite, Artemis, Dionysus, Helius, Hermes, Apollo, Zeus, Isis, Eros and others. Strabo records that in his time there was a small temple to Aphrodite on the summit of Acrocorinth, while by the time Pausanias wrote, the ascent to Acrocorinth was punctuated by places of worship dedicated to various other deities, including Isis, Helius, Demeter and Pelagian. On the summit there was still found the temple of Aphrodite with images of Helius, Eros and Aphrodite herself.
Clearly, then, the new Corinth of Paul’s day was still a centre for the worship of Aphrodite, as the old city had been prior to its destruction in 146 BC. But it is a mistake to apply to it Strabo’s description of the worship of Aphrodite with its thousand cult-prostitutes which relates to the Corinth of the earlier period. We should think of Corinth in Paul’s day as similar to any other cosmopolitan Roman trade centre, no worse but no better.
There is no doubt that Corinth was regaining its wealth and prestige in Paul’s time. It was the capital of the Roman province of Achaia. Responsibility for the organization of the Isthmian Games (which had been assumed by the city of Sicyon when Corinth was destroyed in 146 BC) was restored to Corinth when the city was rebuilt in 44 BC by Julius Caesar. By the second century AD, Corinth was probably a leading city in Greece, rivalling Athens. As Corinth was the capital of the Roman province of Achaia, it was the seat of the Roman Proconsul who, when Paul first visited the city, was Lucius Iunius Gallio (Acts 18:12).
About 500 yards north of the centre of ancient Corinth are the remains of the shrine of Asklepios. According to Greek mythology, Asklepios was the son of the god Apollo and a human mother. He was regarded as a renowned healer. Shrines to this divine healer were found in many places, including Rome, Pergamum, Cyrene, Athens and Corinth. Cures were said to be effected when, after bathing in the sea, the patients underwent token ablutions at the shrine, and then made offerings of honey cakes at the altar. Further ablutions followed before the patients entered the main hall of the shrine, where they were urged to sleep. While they slept, Asklepios is believed to appear to them in a dream and exercise his medical arts upon them. When worshippers awoke, they might find themselves cured. Votive thank-offerings in the form of life-size terracotta models of the patients’ affected parts were then presented to the god at the shrine (though it has been suggested that these may have been offerings made to the god in the hope of receiving healing). Many such terracotta models have been found at the Asklepieion in Corinth (e.g. hands, feet, legs, arms, eyes, ears, breasts, genitals), and are on display in a special room at the museum at ancient Corinth.3
If such cures were being claimed by those seeking healing at the shrine of Asklepios in ancient Corinth, we can appreciate the Corinthians’ tendency to be impressed by anyone who came to them claiming to be able to perform cures. Paul’s opponents in Corinth claimed such powers and implied that Paul was lacking in this area. In response, the apostle had to remind his audience that ‘I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles’ (2 Cor. 12:12).
Ancient Corinth was subject to repeated earthquakes in the late fourth century ad, and in AD 521 a major earthquake severely damaged the city. In 1858 another major earthquake destroyed the city, where-upon the site at the base of Acrocorinth was abandoned and the modern city built about three and a half miles to the north-east.
Paul’s relationship with the Corinthian Christians, which stretched over a period of several years (c. AD 50–57), was a very complex affair. The apostle made three visits to Corinth. Emissaries of Paul made visits to Corinth, and members of the Corinthian congregation visited Paul when he was ministering in Ephesus. In addition, Paul sent several letters to the Corinthians during this period, and received at least one from them.
Due to the fragmentary nature of the information available to us, it is very difficult to reconstruct the details of the historical relationship between Paul and the Corinthians with certainty. Both our primary sources (extant letters of Paul) and the major secondary document (the Acts of the Apostles) provide only partial information. To add to the difficulty, our main primary sources (1 and 2 Corinthians) present us with some puzzling literary problems which need to be resolved before a compelling historical reconstruction can be made, but the literary problems themselves can be resolved properly only by recourse to an adequate historical reconstruction.
In order to provide a framework for understanding 2 Corinthians, a suggested reconstruction of the sequence of events in Paul’s relationship with the Corinthians is provided below. This reconstruction assumes certain decisions regarding the literary and historical problems involved. However, in the interests of a clear statement of the suggested sequence of events, the discussion of these critical issues is omitted from the reconstruction, and taken up later (here), where reasons for the decisions taken are provided.
According to the Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s first visit to Corinth was made in the last phase of his second missionary journey. After leaving Athens he came to Corinth, where he met up with a Jewish couple, Aquila and Priscilla, recently arrived in the city after being evicted from Rome. They, along with all other Jews, had been commanded to leave the imperial city under an edict of Claudius (generally believed to have been promulgated in AD 49). Paul plied the same trade of tentmaking (or leatherworking) as this couple, so he worked with them, and every Sabbath argued and persuaded Jews and Greeks in the synagogue (Acts 18:1–4).
After some time it appears that the majority of the Jews in Corinth rejected Paul’s message, opposed and reviled him. Paul thereupon turned his attention to the Gentiles, many of whom believed and were baptized. The apostle apparently felt vulnerable and afraid, for we are told, ‘One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city.” ’ Following this, he stayed a year and a half longer, teaching in Corinth (Acts 18:9–11).
Eventually the Jews brought Paul to the tribunal (bēma) where he was arraigned before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, accusing him of teaching people to worship God in ways contrary to the law. But Gallio drove the Jews from his tribunal, refusing to judge in matters related to Jewish law. After that, Paul continued to minister in Corinth ‘for some time’ (Acts 18:18).
He reminded the Corinthian believers that ‘not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential, not many were of noble birth’ (1 Cor. 1:26). However, ‘not many’ does not mean ‘not any’. So, for example, Crispus the ruler of the synagogue was one of those who believed (Acts 18:18; cf. 1 Cor. 1:14). The tentmakers, Priscilla and Aquila, would not have been poor artisans, but were probably traders and are known to have travelled between Corinth, Rome and Ephesus. They hosted the church that met in their home in Ephesus (Acts 18:1–3, 18; Rom. 16:3; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19). Gaius was sufficiently well off to own a villa capable of hosting ‘the whole church’ (Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 14:23). Stephanas and Chloe both had households, the members of which travelled from Corinth to Ephesus to bring news to Paul (1 Cor. 1:11; 16:15–18). Phoebe, who is described as the benefactor of the church in Cenchreae as well as Paul himself, was clearly a woman of substantial means (Rom. 16:1–2). Erastus who was the ‘city’s director of public works’ (Rom. 16:23; NRSV: ‘the city treasurer’) was obviously an important public figure.4 The membership of the infant Corinthian church, then, represented a cross-section of the city’s population.
At the conclusion of his pioneering mission in Corinth, Paul set sail from Cenchreae en route to Syria. He called in at Ephesus and spoke in the synagogue there, but declined a request to stay longer, promising to return if God willed (Acts 18:19–21).
After spending some time in (Syrian) Antioch, Paul set out again, travelling ‘from place to place throughout the region of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples’ (Acts 18:23). He then made his way across to Ephesus, arriving just after Apollos, an out-standing Alexandrian Jew, had crossed from there to Corinth (Acts 18:24 – 19:1).
(c) The Corinthians’ letter to Paul
Also during his Ephesian ministry, Paul received a letter, sent by the Corinthians themselves, raising a number of issues to which Paul would respond, including marriage and singleness (1 Cor. 7:1, 25), food offered to idols (1 Cor. 8:1), spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:1), and the collection (1 Cor. 16:1, 12).
(d) Tension between Paul and the Corinthians
(e) The writing of 1 Corinthians
(f) Timothy’s visit to Corinth
Paul sent Timothy to Corinth (1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10–11), but we have no explicit information concerning what transpired when he was there. However, it is clear that Paul eagerly awaited his return (1 Cor. 16:11). It seems that when Timothy arrived back in Ephesus, he brought disturbing news of the state of affairs in Corinth. This made Paul change the travel plans he had outlined in 1 Corinthians 16:5–9. Instead of journeying through Macedonia to Corinth and then on to Jerusalem, he sailed directly across to Corinth. It was now his stated intention, after visiting the church there, to journey north into Macedonia and then return again to Corinth on his way to Jerusalem. By so doing he hoped that the Corinthians ‘might benefit twice’ (2 Cor. 1:15–16).
Once back in Ephesus, Paul wrote his so-called ‘severe letter’ to the Corinthians. This letter is probably no longer extant, though some have suggested that it is preserved in whole or in part in 2 Corinthians 10 – 13 (see here). In it Paul called upon the Corinthian church to discipline the one who had caused him such hurt, and in this way to demonstrate their innocence in the matter and their affection for him (2 Cor. 2:3–4; 7:8, 12). It is not clear who carried the ‘severe letter’ to Corinth. It may have been Titus. In any case it was from Titus, returning from Corinth, that Paul expected news of the Corinthians’ response to this letter. Paul had expressed his confidence in the Corinthians to Titus before the latter left for Corinth (2 Cor. 7:14–16) and he may have even asked Titus to take up with the Corinthians the matter of the collection (2 Cor. 8:6). Plans had been made for the two to meet in Troas. So Paul left Ephesus and made his way to Troas. He found there a wide-open door for evangelism, but because Titus had not yet come, and because he was so anxious to meet him, he left Troas and crossed over into Macedonia hoping to intercept Titus on his way through that province to Troas (2 Cor. 2:12–13).
(a) Titus’ arrival in Macedonia and Paul’s letter of relief
When Titus finally arrived, Paul found great consolation (2 Cor. 7:6–7), the more so when he heard from him of the Corinthians’ zeal to demonstrate their affection and loyalty to their apostle by punishing the one who had caused him such hurt. Paul responded to this good news by writing another letter, 2 Corinthians 1 – 9 (see here). He said how glad he was that their response to the ‘severe letter’ and Titus’ visit had justified his confidence in them, especially seeing that he had boasted about them to Titus before sending him to Corinth (7:4, 14, 16). He also went to great lengths to explain the changes to his travel plans (1:15 – 2:1) and why, and in what frame of mind, he had written them previously such a ‘severe letter’ (2:3–4; 7:8–12). Although Paul was pleased when he heard that the Corinthians had acted vigorously to clear themselves by disciplining the one who had hurt him, nevertheless he urged them now to forgive and restore the one who had caused the pain, ‘in order that Satan might not outwit us’ (2:5–11). While it is not stated, it would appear that the one guilty of the hurtful attack on Paul had been moved to repentance as a result of the disciplinary action taken against him by the Corinthians.
This letter of relief deals with two other subjects at some length. First, there is a long explanation of the way in which Paul’s apostolic ministry was upheld and empowered in the midst of the many afflictions and anxieties which he experienced both in Asia (Ephesus) and Macedonia (1:3–11; 2:12–14). Second, there are detailed instructions and exhortations about the collection for the saints in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8–9). The Corinthians had made a beginning ‘last year’ (8:10) when they wrote to Paul, and he had replied giving basic directions about this matter (1 Cor. 16:1–4). In fact, Paul had actually boasted to the Macedonians about the Corinthians’ readiness to contribute to the collection, and was now becoming anxious lest they fail to vindicate his boasting (9:1–4).
(c) Paul’s final letter to Corinth
In response to this major crisis situation, Paul wrote his most severe and apparently final letter to the Corinthians, our 2 Corinthians 10 – 13 (see here). It was written to answer the accusations of the ‘false apostles’ and to dispel the suspicions they had raised in the minds of the Corinthians. It reads like a last desperate attempt to bring the Corinthians to their senses, to secure again their pure devotion to Christ and to revive once more their loyalty to Paul, their spiritual father. In it Paul foreshadowed his third visit when, he warned them, he would demonstrate his authority, if need be, though clearly he hoped the Corinthians’ response to this final letter would make that unnecessary (12:14; 13:1–4, 10).
(d) Paul’s third visit to Corinth
According to Acts 20:2–3, Paul did travel to Greece after his time in Macedonia, and spent three months there. We may assume that at this time he made his promised third visit to Corinth. Apparently, either as a result of his letter or because of his own presence in Corinth for the third time, the problems in the Corinthian church were settled for the time being. This can be inferred from Paul’s letter to the Romans, written from Corinth during these months, in which he stated, ‘Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the Lord’s people there. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem’ (Rom. 15:25–26). If the Achaeans (who must, for the most part, have consisted of the Corinthians) had now contributed to the collection, obviously their misgivings about Paul and his ministry reflected in 2 Corinthians 11:7–11 and 12:13–18 had been overcome. And if Paul spent three months in Greece in a frame of mind that allowed him to write Romans (with its sustained exposition and defence of the gospel), the situation in Corinth must have improved markedly.
One of the most perplexing problems related to Paul’s relationship with the Corinthians concerns the number of letters he wrote and whether or not all those letters have been preserved (in whole or in part). Views vary widely. The viewpoint underlying the reconstruction of events adopted in this commentary is that he wrote five letters to the church in Corinth. The first was the ‘previous letter’ (now lost) mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:9, then followed our 1 Corinthians. The third was the ‘severe letter’ spoken of in 2 Corinthians 2:3–4; 7:8, 12, while the fourth letter was our 2 Corinthians 1 – 9. The fifth and final letter is that preserved substantially in 2 Corinthians 10 – 13.5
However, there are a number of other views. Some argue that there were only three letters: the ‘previous letter’ (now lost), then 1 Corinthians (which is to be identified as the ‘severe letter’ of 2 Cor. 2:3–4; 7:8, 12) and finally 2 Corinthians.6 Others assume four letters were written: the ‘previous letter’ (2 Cor. 6:14 – 7:1 is sometimes regarded as a fragment of this letter), 1 Corinthians, the ‘severe letter’ (largely preserved in 2 Cor. 10 – 13) and 2 Corinthians 1 – 9.7 In addition to these major and more or less ‘straightforward’ viewpoints, there are suggestions that fragments of at least four (or as many as six) letters, including the ‘previous letter’ and ‘severe letter’, can be found scattered throughout our 1 and 2 Corinthians. Such views are based upon the recognition of apparent points of discontinuity in 1 and 2 Corinthians.8 As mentioned above, the viewpoint adopted in this commentary is that Paul wrote five letters to Corinth. In what follows, each of these letters is discussed in turn and reasons given for the stance adopted.
The fact that Paul wrote a letter prior to the writing of 1 Corinthians is uncontested. Such a ‘previous letter’ is implied by 1 Corinthians 5:9. The letter dealt, at least in part, with the matter of association with Christians who behaved immorally. Many commentators believe that this letter has been lost; however, some argue that part of it is preserved in 2 Corinthians 6:14 – 7:1.9 This passage does appear to interrupt the flow of thought in its present context, and for that reason it has been regarded by some as an interpolation and identified as a fragment of Paul’s ‘previous letter’ (see here). However, there is a major difficulty involved with this suggestion. While it is true that Paul’s ‘previous letter’ had been misunderstood by the Corinthians to mean that they should have no contact with anyone who was immoral, Paul responds in 1 Corinthians 5:9–13 by saying that his remarks applied only to ‘anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler’. He did not intend them to apply to unbelievers. Yet the passage in 2 Corinthians 6:14 – 7:1, which some claim to be a fragment of the ‘previous letter’, clearly refers to contact with unbelievers: ‘Do not be yoked together with unbelievers.’ If this were a fragment of the ‘previous letter’, Paul would be guilty of a blatant contradiction.
The great majority of scholars accept the unity of 1 Corinthians, and agree that it is the second of the letters sent by Paul to Corinth. A small number do question its unity and suggest that several sections belonged originally to the ‘previous letter’.10 However, their arguments have not been found convincing, and as the whole matter does not impinge directly upon the exegesis of 2 Corinthians, it may be left aside.
That Paul wrote a ‘severe letter’ is clearly implied by 2 Corinthians 2:3–4; 7:8, 12. The view adopted in this commentary is that this letter is no longer extant. The older traditional view, still supported by some scholars, is that the ‘severe letter’ to which Paul refers is in fact 1 Corinthians.11 The writing of that letter, it is argued, both caused Paul many tears and produced grief in the recipients. Paul had to reprimand his converts for a number of reasons, but especially because of their lax attitude towards immoral practices indulged in by certain members of the congregation. One factor supporting the traditional view is that 1 Corinthians does contain a demand for disciplinary action against an offender (1 Cor. 5:3–5, 7, 13), and the one thing we know about the contents of the ‘severe letter’ is that it contained such a demand, to which the apostle expected his audience to be obedient (2 Cor. 2:5–11). However, the majority of commentators today reject the view that 1 Corinthians is to be identified as Paul’s ‘severe letter’. The reason is that, despite the demand for disciplinary action against the incestuous person, and some strong words about party-spirit, libertarianism and disorder in public worship, 1 Corinthians just does not read like a letter written ‘out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears’ (2 Cor. 2:4). It does not seem to be a letter which Paul would have regretted writing and that would have caused such grief to its recipients (2 Cor. 7:8–9).
The dominant view for many years was that the ‘severe letter’ has survived, in part at least, and is preserved in 2 Corinthians 10 – 13.12 In support of this, it is argued first that it would have been psychologically impossible for Paul to have written 2 Corinthians 1 – 9 and 10 – 13 at the same time to the same people. The change in tone from warm encouragement to his audience to complete what they had begun in the matter of the collection found in chapters 8 – 9 to the strident rebukes and impassioned personal defence in chapters 10 – 13 is just too great. Second, it is asserted that a number of passages in chapters 1 – 9 refer to statements made previously in chapters 10 – 13 (cf. 1:23/13:2; 2:3/13:10; 2:9/10:6; 4:2/12:16; 7:2/12:17), and this shows that chapters 1 – 9 were written after chapters 10 – 13. Third, in 10:16 Paul says he is looking forward to preaching the gospel ‘in the regions beyond you’. This, it is argued, could not have been written from Macedonia to Corinth (as would have to be the case if 2 Corinthians were a unity), but could have been written quite appropriately from Ephesus (the probable place of writing of the ‘severe letter’). Fourth, it is argued that if 2 Corinthians were a unity, Paul would be guilty of making contradictory statements within the one letter (cf. 1:24/13:5; 7:16/12:20–21).
There appeared to be an emerging consensus in recent works on 2 Corinthians that chapters 1 – 9 constitute Paul’s fourth letter to the church in Corinth.13 Such a consensus rests upon the acceptance of two propositions: first, that chapters 8 – 9 belong together with chapters 1 – 7; and second, that chapters 1 – 9 and 10 – 13 could not have been written at the same time to the same people.
The first proposition has been questioned by a number of scholars. It has been variously suggested that either chapter 8 was originally a separate letter, and that it was chapter 9 that followed chapter 7, or that chapter 9 was originally a separate letter and only subsequently added in after chapter 8.14 There are three main arguments supporting this line of questioning. First, the wording of 9:1, with its introductory formula, peri men gar (lit. ‘for concerning…’), and full description of the subject matter, ‘this service to the Lord’s people’, reveals that Paul is taking up a new subject, rather than continuing one already broached in chapter 8. While it is true that Paul uses similar (but not identical) formulae elsewhere when taking up new subjects (e.g. 1 Cor. 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1), this does not mean that wherever such formulae are found we must assume the introduction of a new subject. Also the use of the full description, ‘this service to the Lord’s people’, where we might expect something briefer if chapter 9 continues the treatment begun in chapter 8, does not compel us to regard chapter 9 as a letter originally separate from chapter 8. The use of a full description in 9:1 is understandable following the large amount of material set down after the first mention of the collection in 8:4.15
Second, Paul’s appeal to the example of the Macedonians to stir up the Corinthians in 8:1–5 and his reference to the example of the Corinthians which he used to stir up the Macedonians in 9:1–2 are seen to be in contradiction if chapters 8 and 9 belong together. However, such a contradiction is more apparent than real. In chapter 8 Paul tells of a completed action by the Macedonians to stimulate the Corinthians to finish what they had only begun. In chapter 9 Paul tells how earlier on he had used the readiness of the Corinthians to be involved in providing relief to stir the Macedonians to the action they had now taken. There is no inherent contradiction here.
It can be further argued in favour of chapters 8 and 9 belonging together that Paul’s reference to ‘sending the brothers’ in 9:3 presupposes some knowledge of who they are, such as is provided in 8:16–24. In addition, 9:3–5 implies that the Corinthians understood the obligation resting upon them to contribute to the collection, an obligation Paul had stressed to them in 8:6–15. All in all, there seem to be insufficient reasons to overthrow the conclusion that chapters 8 and 9 belong together in their present position, and this is supported by the fact that there is no known manuscript in which these chapters are found anywhere but in their traditional location.
There are, however, scholars who reject this view and argue for the unity of the letter.16 They too recognize the change of tone at 10:1, but suggest that this can be understood without postulating two letters. Some suggest that while the apostle was in the process of writing his letter of relief and joy, he received further news from Corinth saying that a fresh crisis had been precipitated, and so he responded by adding chapters 10 – 13 to what he had already written. Others argue that the change in tone at 10:1 is not as great as has been suggested. They point to a common theme of strength through weakness running through both parts of the letter. They point out also that the apostle indulges in personal defence in both parts of the letter. Others argue that the change in tone can be accounted for in terms of Paul’s rhetorical strategy – chapters 10 – 13 function as a concluding peroration in which Paul gathers points made earlier in the letter and makes a strong emotional appeal to his audience to make a judgment in his favour. Finally, it is noted that there are no existing manuscripts which reproduce 2 Corinthians in any other form than that in which we know it today. Another view is that change of tone reflects the fact that in chapters 1 – 9 Paul encourages a faithful majority, whereas in chapters 10 – 13 he addresses a minority who still reject his ministry.
Second, it is true that the theme of strength through weakness is present in both chapters 1 – 9 and chapters 10 – 13, and that there is personal defence in both as well. But the intensity of the defence in the latter is far greater than in the former, and the reason for the incorporation of the theme of strength through weakness in chapters 1 – 9 is different from the reason for its incorporation in chapters 10 – 13. In the former, Paul included it to show how, despite all his apostolic privations and difficulties, the power of God was still at work through his ministry. In the latter, he included it as part of his deliberate inversion of his opponents’ criteria for evaluating apostleship.
The arguments against the view that chapters 10 – 13 belonged originally with chapters 1 – 9 have been set out above (here), as also have the arguments against seeing in chapters 10 – 13 Paul’s ‘severe letter’ (here). The view adopted by a number of recent interpreters is that chapters 10 – 13 constitute the major part of a fifth letter which Paul wrote to Corinth after the writing of chapters 1 – 9.17 This is the approach assumed in this commentary. However, the detailed exegesis that follows does not depend on this assumption.
One advantage of this view, as we have seen, is that it accounts better for the marked change in tone that takes place at 10:1. A second advantage is that it takes better account of the fact that in chapters 10 – 13 Paul is preparing the way for his imminent third visit. Thus in 12:19 – 13:10 he shows that the purpose of all he has written was for the Corinthians’ strengthening, in the hope that when he makes his third visit he will not have to be severe in the use of his authority. Such a declared purpose fits in well with the content of chapters 10 – 13 so long as they are not regarded as belonging with chapters 1 – 9, for the latter bear no hint of a threat of imminent disciplinary action. Further, this declared purpose is also understood better when chapters 10 – 13 are not identified with Paul’s ‘severe letter’. Paul wrote the ‘severe letter’ instead of making another visit, not to prepare the way for another one.
There were three main forms of rhetoric taught in the Greco-Roman world: judicial rhetoric by which a speaker sought to convince an audience to make a judgment about past events; deliberative rhetoric by which a speaker sought to motivate an audience to adopt a course of action in the future; and epideictic rhetoric by which a speaker sought to reinforce adherence to agreed values.18 Caution needs to be exercised in applying to Paul’s letters the categories of ancient rhetorical handbooks that were intended to provide guidance for those constructing speeches,19 but it is clear that he employed rhetorical techniques when communicating with his audience through his letters. In 1 Corinthians, for example, he employs deliberative rhetoric when urging the audience to act in certain ways in the future, and in 2 Corinthians, particularly in chapters 1 – 7; 10 – 13, he makes use of judicial rhetoric to defend his own actions as an apostle and to call upon his audience to make informed judgments regarding the ‘false apostles’. In chapters 8–9, however, Paul uses deliberative rhetoric to urge his audience to complete what they began in respect of the collection for the poor believers in Jerusalem.
There are two passages in 2 Corinthians which on first reading appear to interrupt the flow of Paul’s letter. Because of this, a number of scholars have suggested that these passages did not originally occupy their present position within the letter. The passages which concern us here are 2:14 – 7:4 and 6:14 – 7:1.
Paul brings the first part of the letter (1:1 – 2:13) to a close by telling how his anxiety while awaiting Titus’ arrival had prevented him from taking full advantage of an open door to preach the gospel in Troas; indeed, he had left that work and crossed over to Macedonia (2:12–13). At this point there is an abrupt change in the letter. What follows in 2:14 – 7:4 is an extended description of the way God had enabled him to carry on an effective ministry despite many difficulties and criticisms. It is only at 7:5 that Paul returns once again to the matter of the meeting with Titus. In fact, if the whole of 2:14 – 7:4 is omitted and in reading the letter we jump from 2:13 directly to 7:5, it still makes good sense. Various explanations have been offered for this phenomenon.
First, there are those who argue that 2:14 – 7:4 is definitely an interpolation, being either the whole or a portion of a separate letter written by Paul and included here by an editor of his letters. Accordingly, some suggest that 2:14 – 7:4 along with chapters 10 – 13 constitute the ‘severe letter’ mentioned in 2:3–4,20 while others say it is an interim letter, penned earlier than the ‘severe letter’, at a time before the Corinthians had fallen prey to Paul’s opponents.21 There are serious problems with these views. The view which connects 2:14 – 7:4 with chapters 10 – 13 fails to take sufficient note of the very different attitude adopted by Paul in the two blocks of material. In 2:14 – 7:4 he expresses great confidence in the Corinthians’ loyalty (7:14, 16), whereas in chapters 10 – 13 he is convinced that they had capitulated to his opponents (11:2–4, 19–20). And both views fail to explain adequately the close connection between 7:4 and 7:5–7. In the latter the idea of affliction is taken up again and related to 7:2–4 by the use of the word ‘for’ (gar). Also, both views take insufficient account of the repetition in 7:5–16 of ideas found in what precedes it (e.g. 7:4: ‘I take great pride in you’; 7:14, 16: ‘I had boasted to him about you… our boasting about you to Titus has proved to be true as well’; ‘I am glad I can have complete confidence in you’).
Second, and in contrast, there are those who regard 2:14 – 7:4 as an integral part of 2 Corinthians. To maintain this position they have to account for the rough transition from 2:13 to 2:14. Numerous explanations have been offered:
(a) In 2:14 – 7:4 Paul makes a conscious digression to express his gratitude to God for the relief from anxiety experienced when he finally met with Titus, a digression evoked by the mention of his name in 2:13.22
(b) In 2:14 Paul refers all his journeyings to God, to counterbalance his earlier acknowledgments (1:8–11; 1:23 – 2:1; 2:12–13) that the ‘compulsion of affairs’ had frustrated his desire either to journey or to tarry.23
(c) The contrast of human weakness and the power of God found in 1:8–11 is repeated when, following the admission of his weakness in 2:12–13, Paul strikes the note of triumph again in 2:14.24
(d) Paul was eager to prevent misunderstanding following his acknowledgment of acute anxiety while in Troas (2:13), so he either stresses there was no spiritual defeat involved for him personally,25 or claims that his preaching had proved successful everywhere (including Troas),26 as God always led him in triumph.
(e) The mention of Titus in 2:13 prompted Paul to leap forward, overlooking for the present the intermediate stages which are disclosed in 7:5–7, and expound the theological basis upon which his restored relationship with the Corinthians now rested.27
(f) A more recent suggestion is that, while a break between 2:13 and 2:14 is acknowledged, this is not evidence for an interpolation, but rather is occasioned by Paul’s introduction of a second traditional thanksgiving period (2:14–16). This thanksgiving period foreshadows, as most of Paul’s thanksgivings do, what is to be argued in detail in what follows.28
The major argument in favour of the view that 2:14 – 7:4 is an integral part of 2 Corinthians is the presence of the idea of comfort in affliction which is found in 1:1 – 2:13; 7:5–16 and 2:14 – 7:4 (compare 1:3–11; 7:3–7, 12–13 with 4:7 – 5:8; 6:1–10; 7:4). This idea runs as a thread throughout the first seven chapters. In addition, this view takes proper notice of the logical connection between 7:4 and 7:5. In both these matters, then, the view that 2:14 – 7:4 is not an interpolation is to be preferred, so long as some adequate explanation for the abrupt transition from 2:13 to 2:14 can be found. Suggestions, as we have seen, are not lacking, and so long as we can see possible ways of negotiating the transition, we ought not to accept too easily the idea that 2:14 – 7:4 is an interpolation.
All modern commentators recognize the abrupt changes in subject matter at 6:14 and 7:2. Several different explanations for these have been made. Some suggest that 6:14 – 7:1 is a non-Pauline interpolation.29 The apocalyptic dualism (righteousness/iniquity; light/darkness; Christ/Belial) reminiscent of the Qumran Scrolls, the use of hapax legomena (words found only here in Paul’s writings), the incompatibility of Paul’s exclusivism here with his more liberal approach in 1 Corinthians 5:9–10, and the unusual conjunction of ‘body’ (sarx, lit. ‘flesh’) and ‘spirit’ (pneuma) which are usually contrasted by Paul, are all cited as evidence that this passage is not of Paul’s composition. Such arguments have not proved compelling for most scholars. The unusual apocalyptic vocabulary can be accounted for by the nature of the exhortation, as can the use of hapax legomena. The so-called exclusiveness of 6:14 – 7:1 is not necessarily in conflict with the so-called liberalism of 1 Corinthians. Even in the latter, Paul is quite adamant about the need to avoid compromise with idolatrous worship (1 Cor. 10:14–22). He distinguishes between social contact with pagans and involvement in idol worship. Finally, it is true that Paul does, in theological argument, place ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ over against one another where ‘spirit’ refers to the Holy Spirit (cf. Gal. 5:16–25), but in the present passage the expression ‘body [lit. flesh] and spirit’ stands as a designation for the whole person.
Most modern scholars, then, accept 6:14 – 7:1 as Pauline. However, many still regard it as an interpolation into the text of 2 Corinthians made by a later redactor. Most of those who do so identify it as a fragment of the lost ‘previous letter’ mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:9.30 One problem with this view is that 6:14 – 7:1 calls for a separation of believers from unbelievers in the matter of idolatrous worship, whereas Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 5:9–13 indicate that in the ‘previous letter’ his concern was that the Corinthians should avoid contact with believers who were behaving immorally. Another problem is the very difficulty of explaining why any later redactor would deliberately interpolate such a passage into this context (accidental insertion is ruled out when it is recalled that first-century copies of Paul’s letters were written on papyrus scrolls, not on leaves of a codex which could have been accidentally displaced).31
In the light of all this, there are many scholars who, while recognizing the rough transitions (6:13 to 6:14 and 7:1 to 7:2), still argue that 6:14 – 7:1 has always been an integral part of 2 Corinthians and located in its present position.32 They, of course, have to explain why there are such abrupt changes in subject matter at both 6:14 and 7:2. A number of suggestions have been made:
(a) There was a pause in dictation of the letter at 6:13.33
(b) Having established his spiritual authority in the preceding chapters, Paul boldly warns against the ever-present threat of paganism, but not in a spirit of censoriousness, as 6:11–13 (which precedes) and 7:2–4 (which follows) indicate.34
(c) Paul, knowing that the Corinthians were having dealings with other apostles who proclaimed a different gospel, opens his heart to reveal his longing for a restored relationship with his converts, and urges them to reciprocate. However, he reminds them: ‘If you turn to God and to me his messenger, it means a break with the world.’35
(d) Paul’s main concern is for a restored relationship, as is evidenced by the thrust of 6:11–13 which is resumed again in 7:2–4. However, he realized that the main hindrance to the relationship was the Corinthians’ unwillingness to renounce all compromise with paganism, and this fact accounts for the inclusion of 6:14 – 7:1 between 6:13 and 7:2.36
An interesting suggestion has been made by N. A. Dahl. He argues that 6:14 – 7:1, with its marked parallels with certain features of the Qumran Scrolls, was originally a non-Pauline composition, but was included by Paul (or less probably by some later redactor) in its present context as part of the apostle’s warning to the Corinthians not to side with the false apostles. To join them ‘in their opposition to Paul would mean to side with Satan/Belial in his opposition to Christ’.37 While Dahl’s view of the original composition of 6:14 – 7:1 is problematical, the explanation he gives concerning the interrelation of the passage and its present context has the advantage of relating the passage to the undercurrent of opposition to Paul reflected in chapters 1 – 7 which had become overt by the time Paul wrote chapters 10 – 13.
Assigning dates to the various points in Paul’s career and to the time of writing of his letters is fraught with difficulties. In the case of his relationship with the Corinthians, we do have a couple of possible reference points which may help. First‚ Acts 18:2 tells us that when Paul arrived in Corinth on his first visit, ‘There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome.’ This edict of Claudius is generally held to have been promulgated in AD 49.38 Second‚ in Acts 18:12–17 we read that during Paul’s first visit to Corinth he was brought before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia. Fragments of an inscription found during excavations at Delphi contain a reproduction of a letter from the Emperor Claudius from which it can be inferred that Gallio held office in Corinth from the spring of AD 51 to the spring of AD 52. However, a statement made by Seneca‚ the Stoic philosopher and brother of Gallio, informs us that Gallio did not complete his term of office‚ and it is therefore impossible to date Paul’s encounter with him in the latter part of his term of office. It must have taken place then between July and October AD 51.39
Working from these reference points and taking note of the information provided about Paul’s movements in the Acts of the Apostles (and assuming that this is essentially compatible with what may be inferred from Paul’s letters), the following chronology for Paul’s contacts with the Corinthians can be suggested. He arrived in Corinth for his first visit early in AD 50. After spending eighteen months there, he was arraigned before Gallio (latter half of AD 51). He stayed on in Corinth ‘for some time’ after the arraignment‚ then sailed for Antioch. After spending ‘some time’ there, Paul travelled through Galatia to Ephesus, where he spent two years and three months (ad 52–55). Quite possibly, during his stay in Ephesus the apostle wrote the ‘previous letter’, and towards the end of his time there (ad 55) he wrote 1 Corinthians, made the ‘painful visit’, and wrote the ‘severe letter’. Paul then left Ephesus, travelling via Troas to Macedonia, where he met Titus, and from there he wrote 2 Corinthians 1 – 9, and shortly afterwards 2 Corinthians 10 – 13 (ad 56). He then made his third visit to Corinth and spent three months in Greece before setting out with the collection to Jerusalem, hoping to arrive there in time for Pentecost AD 57.40
In our reconstruction of the events involved in Paul’s relationship with the church in Corinth above, it was suggested that the opposition had two phases. In the first phase the opposition emanated primarily from one individual. It was news that the church had taken disciplinary action against the offending individual that produced in Paul the relief and joy which are expressed in chapters 1 – 7. While the opposition in this first phase was concentrated in one individual, there are hints even in chapters 1 – 7 of an undercurrent of opposition from another source in the background.
The second phase of opposition is reflected in chapters 10 – 13. Here Paul responds vigorously to the attacks of those whom he calls ‘false apostles’. According to our suggested reconstruction of events, this only became overt after Paul had succeeded in having disciplinary action taken against the individual offender mentioned above. The ‘false apostles’ may have been in Corinth during the first phase of opposition, and criticisms emanating from them may have strengthened the attacks of the offending individual. However, it was only after disciplinary action had been taken against this offender, and after Paul had urged members of the church to reinstate this person in their affections, that the opposition of the ‘false apostles’ moved from the background into the foreground.
As described above (here), when Paul made his second visit to Corinth, he became the object of a bitter personal attack mounted by a particular individual (the one who ‘caused grief ’, 2:5; ‘the one who did the wrong’, 7:12). The church as a whole did not defend the apostle Paul as one might have expected (2:3), and he felt forced to withdraw, but not before uttering dire warnings of disciplinary action he would take subsequently (cf. 13:2).
Traditionally the offending individual was identified as the incestuous person referred to in 1 Corinthians 5,41 and then accordingly Paul’s second visit to Corinth was believed to have taken place before the writing of 1 Corinthians, which then came to be regarded as the ‘severe letter’.42 However, this view has been abandoned by most recent commentators on two major grounds: (a) Paul, having in 1 Corinthians 5 called so strongly for the excommunication of the incestuous person, could hardly then turn around and plead for his reinstatement in 2 Corinthians 2. This is not a compelling objection, because it underestimates the effects of the gospel of forgiveness in the apostle’s own life; (b) the offence Paul alludes to in 2 Corinthians 2 is not immoral behaviour, but rather a personal attack upon himself and his apostolic authority. This is a far more weighty objection.
Other commentators have identified the individual who mounted this attack against Paul as one of the ‘false apostles’ whom he castigates in 11:12–15,43 but this identification is also problematic. It would seem unreasonable for Paul to expect the church to exercise discipline against someone who was not one of its members, and one whom the church had accepted as an apostle of Christ on the strength of letters of recommendation (from Jerusalem). He has also been identified as one of the leaders in the Corinthian church,44 though there is little evidence to support this view. Others have been content to leave aside the question of the offender’s actual identity, simply regarding him as an unknown person who, for some unknown reason, mounted a personal attack against Paul.45
Thrall suggests that the offender was one of the Corinthians who stole some of the collection money that had been handed over to Paul. This person denied he was responsible, claiming that Paul was the thief. Paul’s inability to convince members of the Corinthian congregation of the guilt of the person responsible and his own innocence in the matter meant he had to withdraw humiliated and hurt from Corinth and return to Ephesus where he wrote the ‘severe letter’. She offers several pieces of evidence in support of this hypothesis,46 to which might be added the fact that some in Corinth were suspicious about Paul’s motives for his involvement in the collection (2 Cor. 12:16–18). However, this suggestion has not received wide acceptance.
It is possible to offer further evidence in support of the traditional view that the offending individual was the incestuous person against whom Paul previously demanded disciplinary action, provided that this person is now understood to be guilty of an additional offence, that of a personal attack against Paul. In support of this view, the following sequence of events may be suggested. In the libertarian and status-conscious atmosphere which pertained in Corinth (1 Cor. 5–6),47 one of the church members of possibly high social status had committed incest with his stepmother (1 Cor. 5:1). Hearing of this, Paul was scandalized and demanded that disciplinary action be taken by the church against the offender and that they ‘hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord’ (1 Cor. 5:1–5). This demand was heard by the church when 1 Corinthians was received and read. Some time afterwards, Timothy, sent by Paul (1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10–11), arrived in Corinth and discovered that all was not well in the church. Paul’s demand for disciplinary action had not been complied with, and the incestuous person himself was resisting the apostle’s authority. Timothy returned to Ephesus, where he informed Paul of this state of affairs. The apostle then made his second and ‘painful visit’ to Corinth (2 Cor. 2:1), during which he expected to resolve the problem with the support of the church. However, the incestuous man, far from being brought to repentance or intimidated, mounted a personal attack against Paul and questioned his credentials and authority. The church members did not come to Paul’s defence as he expected they would (2 Cor. 2:3).
This questioning of Paul’s credentials and authority was not done in a vacuum. Even at the time of writing 1 Corinthians, Paul was aware that his apostolate was being criticized in Corinth (1 Cor. 4:3–5), and that questions were being asked by some who felt an antipathy towards him (1 Cor. 4:18–21). It is possible that Peter may have visited Corinth, and afterwards there emerged a Cephas party (1 Cor. 1:12). While it is unlikely that Peter himself would have raised questions about Paul’s credentials, the Cephas party, which claimed him as their patron, may have done so. However, there seem to have been others lurking in the background as well, those to whom Paul refers later as peddlers of God’s word (2 Cor. 2:17), whose underhand ways the apostle refused to imitate (2 Cor. 4:1–2). These people came to Corinth armed with letters of recommendation and criticized Paul’s lack of the same (2 Cor. 3:1–3). While they would hardly support the incestuous man in his sin, their own muffled criticisms of Paul could have been used by the offender as extra ammunition when he mounted his attack against him. If this was the case, and admittedly this is speculative, we would have a clue as to the reason why the Corinthian church as a whole did not spring to Paul’s defence. Though they may have agreed with Paul that the offender ought to be disciplined, they were at the same time dealing with questions about his authority, questions raised by others but taken up and used against Paul by the offender. While the members of the church were dealing with these questions, they would have felt pulled in two directions, and so were rendered powerless in the situation with the result that they did not support Paul as he expected they would have done (2 Cor. 2:3).
In support of the suggested identification of the offender as the incestuous person of 1 Corinthians 5:1 who was also guilty of a personal attack against Paul, several points can be made. First, it is clear that the general problem of immorality persisted throughout the period of Paul’s written communications with Corinth. The ‘previous letter’ contained an exhortation to avoid contact with immoral people, by which Paul meant ‘anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler’ (1 Cor. 5:9–11). When the apostle wrote 1 Corinthians, the problem of immorality was manifesting itself in both the behaviour of the incestuous man (1 Cor. 5:1–2) and the use of prostitutes by others (1 Cor. 6:15–20). When Paul wrote his final letter to Corinth, he was still concerned about the problem of immorality in the church (2 Cor. 12:21). The persistence of the general problem of immorality in the church before and after the mention of the sin of incest shows that the atmosphere was present in which the incestuous person could have opposed rather than submitted immediately to the discipline Paul demanded.
Fifth, once Paul knew the church had taken severe disciplinary action against the offender, he became concerned that the individual involved might be overwhelmed with excessive sorrow. Therefore, he urged the Corinthians to reaffirm their love for the offender, forgiving and comforting him, ‘in order that Satan might not outwit us’ (2 Cor. 2:6–11). It will be remembered that in Paul’s original demand for disciplinary action he called upon the church to ‘hand this man over to Satan’. There is here another possible link, suggesting that the offender of 2 Corinthians 2:5; 7:12 is to be identified with the incestuous man of 1 Corinthians 5:1. Paul, who had demanded that the man be handed over to Satan in the first place, now, presumably seeing that he had been brought to repentance, wanted him forgiven and restored so that at the end of the day ‘Satan might not outwit us’ (by depriving the church of one of its members indefinitely).
The nature of the attack made by the ‘false apostles’ upon Paul is reflected in his spirited response to it in chapters 10 – 13. They accused him of being ‘bold’ when absent and at a safe distance, but of being ‘timid’ when present (10:1). They said he ‘lived by the standards of this world’ (10:2), and that he used to ‘frighten’ people with his letters from afar, ‘but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing’ (10:9–10). They criticized Paul’s apostolate, saying it was inferior to their own, because he was unskilled in speaking (11:5–6) and, they implied, his ministry lacked apostolic signs (12:11–12). And, perhaps most cruelly, they attacked Paul’s personal integrity in financial matters. They insinuated that his refusal to accept financial support from the Corinthians (as they themselves obviously did) was evidence that Paul did not really love them (11:7–11) and that it was a smokescreen behind which he intended to extract an even greater amount for himself through the collection ploy (12:14–18).
As far as Paul was concerned, these men were not true apostles of Christ at all. In fact, he accused them of preaching another Jesus and a different gospel (11:4), and this reminds us of what he wrote in the letter to the Galatians when attacking others who proclaimed another gospel (Gal. 1:6–9). In that case, Paul’s opponents were Judaizers, a name coined to describe Jewish Christians who sought to impose upon Gentile converts the obligation to obey the Jewish law and to make them submit to circumcision. That Paul’s opponents in Corinth were also Judaizers is a view adopted by a number of scholars.48 However, there are no indications in 2 Corinthians that Paul’s opponents in Corinth were trying to impose circumcision and submission to the Mosaic law as did the Judaizers in Galatia.
There are, in addition to the demand for submission to the law and circumcision, other significant differences between the Judaizers of the Galatian letter and the opponents Paul confronts in chapters 10 – 13. Paul’s Corinthian opponents laid great stress upon rhetorical skills (11:5–6), not something predicated of the Jerusalem hierarchy (Acts 4:13), nor presumably of the Judaizers who represented them. In addition, the ‘false apostles’ at Corinth stressed the importance of visions and revelations (12:1), displays of power to prove that Christ spoke through them (13:3), and the so-called apostolic signs (12:11–13). These things also, as far as we know, did not feature as part of the Judaizers’ ministry. In the Hellenistic world there was great emphasis upon the importance of rhetorical skills and a fascination with wonder-workers who sought to demonstrate their validity by appeals to visions and revelations (cf. Col. 2:18) and by the performance of mighty works (cf. Acts 8:9–13). Perhaps the Jewish Christian opposition to Paul in Corinth had borrowed something from the Hellenistic world, or even accommodated their approach to the Corinthian outlook. It is clear from 1 Corinthians that the believers in Corinth were fascinated by such things and needed to be warned by Paul against placing too much importance upon them (1 Cor. 1:5; 4:8–10; 13:1–2).
It would seem, then, that Paul’s opponents were either Jewish Christians who had themselves been influenced by exposure to the Hellenistic world and had incorporated into their own understanding of apostleship certain Hellenistic ideas, or that they were Jewish Christians from the mother church in Jerusalem who had accommodated themselves to ideas prevalent among the Corinthians so as to more easily influence the latter against Paul.49
Up until this point in the discussion we have assumed that Paul has only one group in mind throughout chapters 10 – 13, where he attacks his opponents and compares and contrasts himself with them. Thus it has been assumed that those whom Paul calls ‘false apostles’ (11:12–15) and those to whom he refers as ‘super-apostles’ (11:5; 12:11) are one and the same. However, not all commentators agree with this assumption. Barrett argues that the expression ‘false apostles’ refers to Paul’s opponents active in the church in Corinth, but the expression ‘super-apostles’ does not. The latter denotes the leadership of the Jerusalem church, the Jerusalem apostles including Peter. Even though Paul admits no inferiority vis-à-vis these ‘super-apostles’, he will not criticize or attack them as he does the ‘false apostles’.50
One positive feature of this view is that it makes it possible for us to see parallels between the problems Paul was confronting in Corinth and those he faced in Galatia. Paul’s converts in Galatia were troubled by Judaizers who demanded that Gentile converts take upon themselves the yoke of the law and submit to circumcision. At the time when this issue was being debated in the early church, things were made more difficult by Peter’s ambivalence in Antioch (Gal. 2:11–21). If Paul’s opponents in Corinth were appealing to the example and teaching of the ‘super-apostles’ including Peter, then Paul would have been caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, he needed to attack the views advocated by his opponents, but on the other hand, he would be reticent to criticize Peter or the other ‘super-apostles’, for they were the ‘pillars’ of the Jerusalem church who had recognized the validity of his mission and gospel, and given to him the right hand of fellowship (Gal. 2:1–10). Thus Paul, though forced to claim that he was in no way inferior to the ‘super-apostles’ so that he could strengthen his position against those who were appealing to them against him, refused to criticize or attack them as he did the ‘false apostles’.
Seeing that Paul connects the ‘super-apostles’ with a different gospel, a different Jesus and a different spirit, and concedes inferiority to them in speaking ability, the identification of the ‘super-apostles’ with the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ is unlikely. It is better to regard ‘super-apostles’ and ‘false apostles’ as two designations for the one group, those whom Paul opposed in Corinth and whom he accused of leading his converts astray from their devotion to Christ (11:2–6).51
If we bring together the scraps of information which Paul provides about the teaching of his opponents, two major areas of theological disagreement between these men and the apostle Paul may be discerned. The first relates to the gospel itself, and we have seen that Paul regards theirs as a different gospel in which a different Jesus is preached and by which a different spirit is received (see Introduction, here, and Commentary).
The second area of disagreement relates to the whole matter of apostleship and the criteria for evaluating claims people make to be apostles of Christ. Such criteria were necessary, for the title ‘apostle’ was claimed by individuals other than the Twelve in the early church, and Christians needed to be able to evaluate their claims. Paul’s opponents, at least as far as Paul lets us see them through his letter‚ embraced what may be called a triumphalist viewpoint. They expected apostles to be personally impressive, have a commanding presence and good speaking ability (10:10). They will be authoritative in their dealings with those under them (11:20–21). Their claims to be apostles will rest upon visions and revelations (12:1)‚ and will be supported by the performance of apostolic signs (12:11–13). They will act as spokespersons of Christ and be known as such because of the manifestations of power in their ministry (13:2–4). And on the more formal side, apostles of Christ will have proper Jewish connections (11:21–22) and bear letters of recommendation (3:1), most likely from the mother church in Jerusalem.
For the sake of the Corinthian church, Paul felt obliged to answer his opponents according to their folly. So he points out that his own ministry does not lack commendation (3:2–3), nor does he lack knowledge (11:6) or authority (11:20–21; 13:10). He points out also that he has experienced visions and revelations (12:1–5), that he does perform the signs of an apostle (12:11–13) and that he can show evidence that Christ speaks through him (13:3–4). However, it is patently clear that Paul rejects this whole approach to evaluating claims to apostleship, and the triumphalist criteria involved. For him, the marks of true apostolic ministry are its fruit (3:2–3), the character in which it is carried out, that is, in accordance with the meekness and gentleness of Christ (10:1–2), and the sharing of Christ’s sufferings (4:8–12; 11:23–28). He who preaches the gospel of Christ crucified as Lord will exemplify in his ministry both the weakness in which Christ was crucified and the power exercised by Christ as the risen Lord (4:7–12; 12:9–10; 13:3–4).
Paul depicts God as ‘the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1:3; 11:31), ‘the Father of compassion’ (1:3; cf. 4:1), ‘the God of all comfort’ (1:3; cf. 1:4; 7:6) and the God who loves a cheerful giver (9:7). He further depicts the nature of God by describing what he does: he raises the dead (1:9); he said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness’ (4:6); he causes believers to ‘stand firm’ in Christ and anoints them, giving them his Spirit as a ‘deposit’, so guaranteeing their full salvation (1:21–22). He leads Paul in triumphal procession and through him spreads abroad the aroma of the knowledge of Christ (2:14), and enables his servants to become competent ministers of the new covenant (3:5). He shines into people’s hearts to give ‘the light of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ’ (4:6) and he gives believers his Spirit guaranteeing their resurrection to immortality (5:5). He brings in the ‘new creation’ (5:17), he is the primary agent of the reconciliation effected through Christ (5:18–19) and he committed to Paul the message of reconciliation, thus making his appeal to humanity to be reconciled to him through the apostle’s ministry (5:19–20). He comforts the downcast (7:6), he motivates believers to care for one another (8:16), he provides his people with blessings in abundance so that they can contribute to fellow believers in need (9:8), he assigns to his servants the ‘sphere of service’ in which they are to exercise their ministry (10:13), and above all he gave the ‘indescribable gift’, a reference to the giving of his Son (9:15; cf. 8:9).
A final but oblique reference to the atonement is found in 8:9: ‘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.’ This has often been interpreted in relation to his incarnation, but it should probably also be seen as an allusion to his death providing salvation for those who believe.
In 4:14 Paul speaks with assurance of the resurrection: ‘We know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you to himself.’ But because of the wear and tear upon his body as a result of his present sufferings, Paul says he was ‘wasting away’, but adds, ‘our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all’ (4:16–17). Then, speaking metaphorically of his present body being replaced by a future resurrection body, he says, ‘For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands’ (5:1). He makes it plain that his first preference is not to be ‘unclothed’ (i.e. to be without a body), but rather he longs to be ‘clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling’ (i.e. to have a resurrection body, 5:4), and his confidence that he will experience this blessed state is expressed when he says, ‘the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come’ (5:5). Then, apparently realizing that he might die before the general resurrection, he speaks of his present existence and an intermediate existence prior to the resurrection: ‘For we live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord’ (5:7–8). Of course, his ultimate desire is to be away from his (mortal) body and present with the Lord in his resurrection body. Ever the one who seeks to be a faithful servant of God, he adds, ‘So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it’ (5:9).
Paul received consolation from God in the midst of his afflictions and he believed this was intended in part to enable him to console others experiencing affliction (1:3–7). He claimed to carry out his ministry with ‘integrity and godly sincerity’, eschewing earthly wisdom and shameful practices that he might have used to impress people (1:12; 4:2; 7:2). He sought rather to commend himself to his hearers’ consciences in the sight of God by ‘setting forth the truth plainly’ and being careful not to put obstacles in anyone’s way (4:2; 6:3–10). He resisted the temptation to ‘lord it over’ the faith of his converts, seeing his role rather as working for their joy (1:24). He was open in declaring the depth of his love for them and how his heart was wide open towards them (2:4; 6:11; 7:3). The apostle was willing to exercise ‘tough love’ with his converts, even causing them grief when necessary with a strongly worded letter, but that in the end had the positive effect of leading them to repentance (7:8–9). An important part of Paul’s ministry was initiating a collection among the Gentile churches for the relief of members of the Jewish church in Jerusalem, something that would also enhance the bonds of fellowship between these churches (8–9).
Employing military metaphors, Paul claimed that in his ministry he did ‘not wage war as the world does’, that is, he did not use ‘worldly wisdom’ or practise cunning by inappropriate use of rhetorical techniques or falsify God’s word in order to manipulate people. Instead, as he clearly proclaimed and defended the gospel, his ‘weapons’ had ‘divine power’ and were aimed at demolishing ‘arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God’ so as to ‘take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ’ (10:3–5). He kept within the ‘sphere of service’ assigned to him by God and had a desire to extend his work into areas as yet untouched by other missionaries (10:13–16).
In response, Paul says he did not need to carry letters of recommendation to Corinth, because the very existence of the church there was testimony to the authenticity of his ministry. In fact, Christ himself was the author of a letter of recommendation for him, a letter ‘inscribed’ in the hearts of the Corinthian believers by the work of the Spirit through Paul’s own ministry (3:2–3). While conceding that he might be ‘untrained as a speaker’ and therefore could be regarded as inferior to the false apostles in this regard, he insisted that he was certainly not lacking in the far more important matter of knowledge, and this had been evident in his ministry among the Corinthian believers (11:5–6). As to the false apostles’ claims to Jewish ancestry, Paul insisted his own ancestry was just as impressive: ‘Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I.’ He claimed that he was a better servant of Christ than they were (11:22–23). To support this claim he pointed to the many sufferings, afflictions and humiliations he had experienced in service of Christ. In all this, he was boasting not of his strengths, but his weakness (11:23–33). In the matter of visions and revelations, he says that, while there was nothing to be gained by it, he could point to revelatory experiences of a far more exalted nature than others might claim: he had been caught up into the third heaven, into paradise, and heard things no-one is permitted to repeat (12:1–4). But he immediately diverted attention away from these experiences to the thorn in the flesh that he was given to keep him from being too elated, and how the Lord would not remove it despite his repeated prayers, so that he might learn that God’s power was made perfect in human weakness (12:8–9). As to the performance of signs and wonders, Paul reminded his converts that ‘the marks of a true apostle’ had been performed among them, ‘signs, wonders and miracles’, and they should have commended him rather than he having to commend himself (12:11–12). Finally, seeing they wanted proof that Christ was speaking through him, Paul told them he would not be lenient when he came next time. Just as Christ ‘was crucified in weakness yet he lives by God’s power’, so while Paul was ‘weak in him,’ he says, ‘by God’s power we will live with him in our dealing with you’ (13:2–4). Summing up, what Paul regarded as primary marks of authenticity were the fruit of his labours, the existence of his converts, and the coincidence of weakness and the power of God in his ministry, as was the case in the ministry of Christ. Far from his sufferings being regarded as something which invalidated his claim to apostleship, they were in fact legitimizing evidence (cf. Gal. 6:17).
To encourage generosity, Paul reminded them that God is able to bless us so that we have enough for our needs and be able to help others in greater need (9:8–10). He also reminded them that in this matter, ‘Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously’ (9:6). Finally, Paul went to great lengths to ensure that the administration of the collection was above board, that all was done in a way that was right both in the sight of God and in the sight of others, by including representatives of the churches in the arrangements for its reception and conveyance (8:18–22).