Our 2 Corinthians is the last of the extant letters Paul wrote to the believers in Corinth. These letters provide us with more insight into the condition of this church and Paul’s relationship with it than is available regarding any of the other churches he founded. 2 Corinthians reflects a community under siege from false apostles and still struggling with moral issues, and also Paul’s commitment to ensure its members’ continued devotion to Christ. It contains the most developed treatment of the motivation for Christian giving in the New Testament. It provides insight into the nature and authority of apostolic ministry, including its authenticating marks, and the importance of disciplining and restoring offenders. God’s power in the midst of human weakness, the source of ministerial effectiveness, is a pervading theme. All these things make 2 Corinthians an important resource for those in pastoral ministry.
The ancient city of Corinth lay upon the narrow isthmus connecting the Peloponnese with the Greek mainland. Situated about three and a half miles south-west of present-day Corinth, the ancient city was built on a trapezium-shaped terrace at the foot of a large rocky hill known as Acrocorinth. This hill rises to a height of 1,886 feet above sea level and dominates the surrounding landscape.
The isthmus upon which Corinth was built separates the waters of the Gulf of Corinth in the north-west from those of the Saronic Gulf in the south-east. On the north-western side of the isthmus, bordering the Gulf of Corinth, was the port of Lechaeum, and on the south-eastern side, bordering the Saronic Gulf, lay the port of Cenchreae (the port used by Paul when travelling to or from Corinth by ship; cf. Acts 18:18). The overland journey between the two ports was approximately ten miles, while the journey by sea around the southern tip of the Peloponnese (Cape Maleae) was about 200 miles. The Cape Maleae region was notorious for its violent storms and treacherous currents, so that ancient mariners used to quote the proverb, recorded for us by Strabo: ‘But when you double Maleae, forget your home’ (Geography 8.6.20). Instead of undertaking the dangerous journey around Cape Maleae, ancient sea captains could unload their cargo on one side of the isthmus and have it transported overland to the other side where it could be loaded on to another ship. If their ships were not too large, they could be strapped on to a wheeled vehicle and hauled the four miles across the narrowest part of the isthmus on a stone-paved road known as the Diolkos (from the verb dielkō, ‘to haul across’). Because of the danger of the voyage around Cape Maleae, and because of the expense of off-loading and reloading cargo and hauling ships across, plans were made as early as the time of Periander (d. c. 586 BC) to cut a channel through the isthmus. A serious attempt to do this was begun by the Emperor Nero in AD 67, but was discontinued when he died. Work on the canal was only resumed in 1887 and completed in 1893.
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).
Another matter of interest related to Paul’s contacts with Corinth is the discovery during excavations of the remains of a large speaker’s platform or rostrum. This is most likely to be the tribunal (bēma) at which Paul was arraigned before Gallio (Acts 18:12–17). It was built around AD 44 from blue and white marble and consisted of a high, broad rectangular platform, originally carrying a superstructure and provided with benches at the back and along the two sides. However, in more recent times the identification of this structure with the tribunal at which Paul was arraigned has been questioned. It is argued that the bēma was reserved for major official occasions, and that minor matters, such as the Jewish complaints against Paul, were more likely to have been heard in one of the basilicas which were used for administrative purposes. However, the fact that Paul was arraigned before Gallio, the governor of the province, and not before city magistrates, suggests this was not a minor matter, and therefore supports the view that it was at the bēma that Paul was arraigned. No matter at which exact spot Paul was arraigned, the whole episode seems to have provided him with the imagery for his statement in 2 Corinthians 5:10 that ‘we must all appear before the judgment seat [bēma] of Christ’.
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).
When Paul arrived in Ephesus, he entered the synagogue and ‘spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God’ (Acts 19:8). Once again he was opposed by some of the Jews and so withdrew, taking the disciples with him. Then for two years he argued daily in the hall of Tyrannus, and ‘all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord’ (Acts 19:10). Probably at this time the churches of Colossae, Laodicea and Hierapolis were established by Paul, his colleagues or converts. During Paul’s time in Ephesus extraordinary miracles were wrought through him (healings and exorcisms), leading to many conversions and a mass burning of magical books. These conversions disturbed the guild of silversmiths in Ephesus who earned their living making shrines of Artemis, the god of the Ephesians, and led by one Demetrius they precipitated a great riot (Acts 19:8–41). Paul’s ministry in Ephesus, then, was marked by great success and much opposition. It was during this tumultuous period that many of Paul’s contacts with the Corinthian church which form the historical background to 2 Corinthians took place. The various contacts during this period are described below.
(a) Paul’s ‘previous letter’
Paul wrote a letter (now lost) to the Corinthians in which he urged them ‘not to associate with sexually immoral people’. What Paul wrote in this letter was misunderstood by the Corinthians to mean that they should cut themselves off from social contact with the non-Christian world (1 Cor. 5:9).
(b) Visitors from Corinth
While at Ephesus, Paul was visited by Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:15–18), and also by those referred to as ‘Chloe’s household’, who reported to Paul the quarrelling and division which was occurring in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 1:11–12).
(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
A close reading of 1 Corinthians reveals that the acute tension in the relationship between Paul and the Corinthians reflected in 2 Corinthians 10 – 13 was already beginning to emerge during the early stages of Paul’s Ephesian ministry. Hints of this are found throughout 1 Corinthians. Three statements will serve as examples: ‘Some of you have become arrogant, as if I were not coming to you. But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have’ (1 Cor. 4:18–19); ‘This is my defence to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink?’ (1 Cor. 9:3–4); ‘If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored’ (1 Cor. 14:37–38).
(e) The writing of 1 Corinthians
It was to clarify the intention of his ‘previous letter’, respond to news brought by Chloe’s people, deal with issues raised in the Corinthians’ letter, and head off some emerging criticisms of his own person and ministry that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians during his time in Ephesus. He took the opportunity also to give instructions about the ‘collection for the Lord’s people’ (a collection that was being taken up among the Gentile congregations to assist poor believers in Jerusalem), and to advise the Corinthians of his intended visit. Paul planned to travel via Macedonia to Corinth and, after spending some considerable time there, to journey on to Jerusalem, accompanying the bearers of the collection, if that seemed desirable (1 Cor. 16:1 – 9; cf. Acts 19:21–22; Rom. 15:25–26).
(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).
(g) Paul’s ‘painful visit’
However, when Paul arrived in Corinth from Ephesus, he found himself the object of a hurtful attack (2 Cor. 2:5; 7:12) made by an individual, while no attempt was made by the congregation as a whole to support him (2 Cor. 2:3). It proved to be a very painful visit, and one which the apostle did not wish to repeat. Once again he changed his travel plans. Instead of travelling to Macedonia and then returning to Corinth as previously promised, he made his way straight back to Ephesus (2 Cor. 1:23; 2:1).
(h) Paul’s ‘severe letter’
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).
When Paul reached Macedonia, he found himself embroiled in the bitter persecution which the churches of Macedonia themselves were experiencing (2 Cor. 7:5; 8:1–2), and this only compounded his anxiety.
(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).
(b) Titus returns to Corinth
Paul wanted to ensure that neither he nor the Corinthians would be embarrassed because of their lack of readiness in the matter of the collection. So he sent Titus and two others to Corinth to make sure matters were finalized before he arrived. They were possibly accompanied by some of the very Macedonians to whom he had boasted of the Corinthians’ readiness to contribute to the collection (8:16 – 9:5).
However, when Titus and the others arrived in Corinth, they found a situation which had seriously deteriorated. Men whom Paul called ‘false apostles’ were levelling all sorts of accusations against him. Apparently, the Corinthian church had been deeply influenced by these men, had accepted their ‘gospel’ (11:1–4) and submitted to their overbearing demands (11:16–20). Titus brought back news of this terrible situation in Corinth to Paul, who was still in Macedonia.
(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.
It would be gratifying to be able to say that after all these things the Corinthian church went from strength to strength. Unfortunately this was not the case. Evidence from the First Epistle of Clement (written c. AD 95) indicates that disharmony had become a problem once more (cf. 1 Clem 47:1 – 7).
Valuable as they are, Paul’s letters to the Corinthians present modern interpreters with a range of literary problems that are discussed below.
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).
The positive aspects of the view that chapters 10 – 13 constitute the greater part of Paul’s ‘severe letter’ are that it offers an explanation for the dramatic change in tone that occurs at 10:1. The content of these chapters is such that they could have been written ‘out of great distress and anguish of heart’, and it would no doubt have caused much pain to the audience. However, this view does have a number of weaknesses. First, chapters 10 – 13 do not contain the one thing which we know was found in Paul’s ‘severe letter’: the demand to discipline the offender. Second, in 12:17–18 Paul asks, ‘Did I exploit you through any of the men I sent to you? I urged Titus to go to you and I sent our brother with him. Titus did not exploit you, did he?’ This seems to refer back to arrangements mentioned in 8:6, 16–24 and 9:3–5. If we accept that chapters 8–9 belonged originally with chapters 1 – 7 (as do most, but not all, proponents of the view that chapters 10 – 13 constitute Paul’s ‘severe letter’), then it seems that chapters 10 – 13 were written after chapters 1 – 9. Third, Paul wrote his ‘severe letter’ instead of making the return visit to Corinth which he had promised earlier, and so as not to cause his audience pain (1:23–24), whereas chapters 10 – 13 were written when the apostle was ready to make a visit (12:14) and threatening strong disciplinary action (13:1–4).
The view adopted in this commentary, then, is that the ‘severe letter’ is to be found neither in 1 Corinthians nor 2 Corinthians 10 – 13, but that it is no longer extant.
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.
Third, chapters 8 and 9 present different purposes for sending the ‘brothers’ on ahead to Corinth. In chapter 8 Paul says he is sending highly accredited envoys so as to avoid accusations of impropriety as far as the collection is concerned. In chapter 9 the purpose of their being sent is to ensure everything is ready when Paul himself arrives. In response, it can be said that these two purposes are complementary and do not demand a separation of chapters 8 and 9.
In favour of the unity of chapters 8 and 9, it can be shown that there is a discernible progression in the argument begun in chapter 8 and carried through chapter 9. In chapter 8 Paul begins to stimulate the Corinthians to action by citing the example of the Macedonians (vv. 1 – 7) and the example of Christ’s self-giving (vv. 8–12), while assuring them that he was not seeking to burden them so that others might be eased (vv. 13–15). He then describes the arrangements that have been made for receiving and transporting the collection, so that the whole project will be seen clearly to have been carried out in an exemplary fashion (vv. 16–24). In chapter 9 the apostle continues to stir the Corinthians to action by stressing how embarrassed they would feel if, after all, they proved unprepared when some of the Macedonians arrived, for Paul had earlier boasted to them about the Corinthians’ readiness (vv. 1–5). He strengthens his appeal for action by emphasizing that God loves the cheerful giver and ‘whoever sows generously will also reap generously’ (vv. 6–7). Finally, Paul reminds his audience that God is able to provide them with every blessing so that they may abound in their generosity, and by responding positively they will demonstrate their obedience to the gospel (vv. 8–15).
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.
The second proposition rests upon the belief that the change in tone which occurs at 10:1 is so great that it is psychologically improbable that chapters 1 – 9 and 10 – 13 were written at the same time to the same people. In the earlier chapters, especially chapters 7–9, the apostle expressed his joy and relief upon hearing how the Corinthians had shown their loyalty to him by disciplining the offender (7:6–11), affirmed his confidence in the Corinthians (7:14–16), and felt free to raise once more the matter of the collection with his hearers (chs. 8–9). At 10:1 the tone of the letter changes dramatically. Paul proceeds to warn of disciplinary action he may have to take (10:2, 5–6; 13:2–4, 10), counters accusations made against him and entertained by his audience (10:9–11; 11:7–11; 12:16–18), expresses his dismay at the Corinthians’ readiness to accept another gospel (11:3–4), and attacks vigorously the integrity of those who are seeking to turn his converts against him (11:12– 15). What we see then in chapters 1 – 9 is basically Paul’s response to a crisis resolved (a crisis that was precipitated by the action of one individual), whereas in chapters 10 – 13 we find the apostle’s reaction to a fresh crisis, one that was far from resolution at the time of writing (and that was brought on by a group of intruders whom Paul calls ‘false apostles’). These facts, it may be argued, are best accounted for by regarding chapters 1 – 9 as Paul’s response to the good news which Titus brought of the Corinthians’ reaction to the ‘severe letter’, and by seeing chapters 10 – 13 as a subsequent letter written by the apostle when news reached him of a far more serious crisis precipitated by the activities of the ‘false apostles’ in Corinth.
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.
These are important considerations and need to be taken seriously. In response, it must be said first that it is possible the change in tone that occurs at 10:1 is to be accounted for by the apostle receiving fresh disconcerting news from Corinth while in the process of writing his letter of relief, or that he was addressing a minority recalcitrant group. However, if this were the case, we would expect Paul to have written something to the effect that, while he had just been commending them for their loyalty, in the light of the latest news he was forced now to rebuke them for their disloyalty to him and his gospel, or that he was now focusing his comments on a minority group.
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.
Third, it is true that there are no extant manuscripts supporting the division of the letter as suggested, but this could be accounted for if we envisage two originally separate letters being copied on to one scroll very early in the history of the transmission of the text.
If we accept these two propositions (that chs. 8 and 9 belong together and with chs. 1 – 7, and that chs. 10 – 13 represent a letter written some time after chs. 1 – 9 were sent to Corinth), then chapters 1 – 9 might be regarded as Paul’s fourth letter to Corinth.
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.
A third advantage of this view is that it makes better sense of Paul’s references to Titus’ behaviour in 12:17–18. There Paul asks whether Titus and the others whom he sent to Corinth on the business of the collection had been instrumental in Paul’s taking advantage of the Corinthians. This question implies that chapters 10 – 13 were written after chapters 1 – 9, in which Paul tells his audience he is about to send these men to them (8:6, 16–24; 9:3–5).
Finally, this view recognizes the difference in the nature of the opposition to Paul that is reflected in chapters 1 – 9 and 10 – 13 respectively. In the former the opposition emanated from an individual (the offender of 2:5; 7:12), and it had been dealt with already by the Corinthians. In the latter the opposition came from a number of intruders whom Paul called ‘false apostles’, and this opposition, while present earlier, was at its height when these chapters were written. Furthermore, the outcome of the crisis precipitated by this opposition was by no means certain.
When seeking to understand a book of the Bible, it is important to be aware of its genre, the type of literature it is, for that determines the way we should interpret it. In the case of 2 Corinthians, the genre is that of an ancient Greco-Roman letter. However, it differs in nature from common personal letters insofar as it is addressed to a Christian community, not an individual, and is written by one claiming apostolic authority. Nevertheless, it follows the broad structure of ancient letters: it opens with the traditional address and greetings, followed by a thanksgiving section, the body of the letter, and concludes with final greetings.
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.
It is quite easy to see why these six verses have been regarded by many as an interpolation (within the larger interpolation 2:14 – 7:4). In 2:14 – 6:13 Paul stresses the nature and conduct of his apostolic ministry, apparently defending himself against the accusations that had been voiced by the offender and entertained by the congregation. He follows this defence with a heartfelt plea: ‘We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you… As a fair exchange – I speak as to my children – open wide your hearts also’ (6:11–13). This plea is then abruptly broken off and an exhortation to have no contact with pagans follows (6:14 – 7:1). At 7:2 the plea to the Corinthians to open their hearts to Paul is taken up once more.
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.
The purpose of this section of the Introduction is to discuss the identity of the opposition to Paul in Corinth, and this can be done conveniently under two main headings.
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).
Paul thus found himself without support in Corinth, and was forced to withdraw without resolving the problem, but not before uttering dire warnings of the action he intended to take subsequently (2 Cor. 13:2). He returned to Ephesus where he wrote the ‘severe letter’ ‘out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears’ (2 Cor. 2:4). It was a letter Paul regretted writing, and which caused much grief to the Corinthian believers. In it he apparently rebuked them sternly for their failure to act against the offender and support their apostle (2 Cor. 2:1–4; 7:8). However, the letter had the desired effect. The Corinthians were stung into action. They took vigorous disciplinary action against the offender. He was excommunicated and handed over to Satan, as Paul had demanded (1 Cor. 5:3–5, 13; cf. 2 Cor. 7:6–13). When he heard from Titus that the offender had been disciplined by the Corinthians, he was relieved and overjoyed because his confidence in them had been vindicated (2 Cor. 7:6–16). At the same time he became concerned for the well-being of the one who had been disciplined and had now presumably repented, fearing that he might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Paul was also concerned for the well-being of the church, fearing it may be disadvantaged by Satan through the permanent loss of one of its members. He therefore urged members of the church to reaffirm their love for the repentant offender and comfort him (2 Cor. 2:6–11).
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.
Second, it needs to be realized that there are no indications that 1 Corinthians, which contained the demand for disciplinary action against the offender, actually persuaded the church to carry through that action.
Third, it is possible, therefore, that when Timothy arrived in Corinth, he faced an unrepentant offender and a church still hesitating to carry through the action Paul had demanded.
Fourth, 2 Corinthians 2:5 describes the offender as the one who has grieved ‘all of you’. In 1 Corinthians 5:6–8, where Paul speaks about the effect of the incestuous man’s sin, he reminds his audience that ‘a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough’. It was impossible for the church to allow the continued presence of the incestuous person in its midst without all its members being harmed as well. There is, then, this possible link between the leavening of the whole batch of dough which Paul warned of in 1 Corinthians 5:6–8 and the grief caused to all members of the church by the offender spoken of in 2 Corinthians 2:5.
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 second phase of the opposition involved a personal attack upon Paul by those whom he called ‘false apostles’, and this is the opposition that Paul confronts in chapters 10 – 13. As noted above, the influence of these men may have already been felt at the time he wrote 1 Corinthians, and their muffled criticisms may have provided some of the ammunition used against Paul by the incestuous offender who attacked him during his ‘painful visit’. If so, we can understand why, in responding to the challenges of this man, Paul had to defend the fact that he carried no letters of recommendation as others did (2 Cor. 3:1–3). Also, knowing that the ‘false apostles’ laid great store by their Jewish connections (2 Cor. 11:22), we can understand the significance of Paul’s comparison and contrast between the glory of ministry under the new covenant and that under the Mosaic covenant (2 Cor. 3:4–18).
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).
What have just been listed are criticisms levelled against Paul by the ‘false apostles’. However, it is important that we also try to understand what these people stood for positively, so that we can fill in as far as possible the background to what the apostle says in chapters 10 – 13. Once again we are dependent upon hints available in Paul’s response to them which are found in chapters 10 – 13. From his response, we can deduce the following. They were proud of belonging to Christ (10:7). They preached a gospel different from the one Paul preached (11:4) and prided themselves on their speaking ability (11:6). They presented themselves in Corinth (perhaps only initially) as those who carried out their mission on the same basis as Paul did (11:12). They adopted an authoritarian stance and succeeded in imposing their authority upon the church (11:19–21). They were proud of their Jewish ancestry and that they were servants of Christ (11:21–23). They stressed the importance of having experienced visions and revelations from God (12:1), as well as the performance of signs and wonders, which they regarded as the marks of a true apostle (12:11–13). They also emphasized the need for evidence that Christ spoke through anyone who claimed to be his emissary, evidence that consisted of displays of power (13:3).
From the various hints provided in chapters 10 – 13, it emerges that Paul’s opponents were Jewish Christians who were proud of their Jewish credentials and that they were servants of Christ. If, as suggested above (p. 60), the demand for letters of recommendation to which Paul responded in 3:1–3 emanated originally from these men, it seems reasonable to assume that they themselves bore such commendatory letters, most likely from Jerusalem. If so, they would have had a natural affinity with the Cephas party, which had already formed in Corinth and which would have favoured the Jewish form of Christianity associated with Peter.
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’.
While this view which distinguishes ‘false apostles’ and ‘super-apostles’ in chapters 10 – 13 is quite attractive, there are a couple of factors which militate against it. First, in 11:1–6, where Paul first uses the term ‘super-apostles’, he does so in the context of reproaching the Corinthians for receiving a different Jesus, a different spirit and a different gospel. It is unlikely that Paul would so describe the content of the preaching of the ‘pillars’ of the Jerusalem church, for he and they had reached an accord recognizing the gospel they each proclaimed, as well as the mission areas for which they were each primarily responsible (Gal. 2:6–9). Second, in the same context (11:1–6) Paul concedes that he may be less skilled in speaking than the super-apostles, but claims that he is in no way deficient in knowledge. It is highly unlikely that Paul would need to concede any inferiority in speaking ability when comparing himself with the ‘super-apostles’ if the latter are to be identified with the Jerusalem apostles. None of them had received a formal education as far as we know (cf. Acts 4:13), whereas Paul, though possibly not highly skilled in the rhetoric of the Hellenistic world, had had the advantage of training under a famous Jewish rabbi (Acts 22:3). Therefore, when Paul concedes inferiority to the ‘super-apostles’ in speaking ability, he cannot be referring to the Jerusalem apostles. It is more likely he is referring to his opponents in Corinth, men who had gained some skill in the rhetorical arts as taught in the Hellenistic world.
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).
We have here, then, two quite different ways of evaluating authentic ministry. The one is triumphalist and stresses the manifestations of power and authority, without any place for weakness and suffering. The other‚ while also affirming the importance of power and authority, insists that these do not inhere in the apostle‚ but depend wholly upon the activity of God, who chooses to let that power rest upon his servants in their weakness and to manifest his power through the folly of gospel preaching (12:9–10; 1 Cor. 1:17 – 2:5).
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).
Paul refers to Jesus as the Son of God (1:19), the image of God (4:4) and the one in whose face the glory of God is displayed (4:6). He refers to Christ’s humility and gentleness (10:1) and his generosity in becoming ‘poor’ so that believers might become ‘rich’ (8:9). He speaks of Christ authoring a ‘letter’ of recommendation for his ministry, a letter inscribed with the Spirit in human hearts through the apostle’s own ministry (3:3). He says the life of Jesus is revealed in his body (4:10–11), that the power of Christ rests on him, making him strong despite his weakness (12:9–10), that the love of Christ compels him (5:14) and that Christ speaks through him (13:3). He teaches that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (5:19), that because Christ has died for all, God regards them all as having died (5:14), and that all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive recompense for what they have done ‘while in the body’ (5:10).
The Spirit is given by God to believers as a guarantee of their full salvation when they will be clothed with immortality (1:21–22; 5:4–5). It is by means of the Spirit that Christ authors a letter of recommendation for Paul’s ministry, a letter inscribed in human hearts through the apostle’s own ministry (3:3). The work of the Spirit comes to the fore in Paul’s treatment of ministry under the new covenant: the Spirit gives life, in contrast to the ‘letter’ that kills (3:6), and the ministry of the Spirit that brings righteousness is attended with greater glory than ministry under the old covenant that brings condemnation (3:8–10). Under the new covenant people experience the Lord as the Spirit, and where the Spirit is the operative power there is freedom (3:17). When people turn to the Lord, the veil over their minds is removed so that they see the glory of the Lord and by the Spirit they are transformed from one degree of glory to another (3:18).
Paul does not expound a doctrine of atonement in 2 Corinthians (as e.g. he does in Rom. 3:21–26), but there are a couple of places where he makes significant statements about it while dealing with other matters. In 5:14 he says, ‘we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.’ This is best understood to mean that Christ died ‘instead of all’, in a way similar to his statement in Galatians 3:13: ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.’ In that context, Christ clearly endures God’s curse instead of us, as there was absolutely no reason for him to endure God’s curse otherwise. It is most likely, therefore, that in 5:14 the words ‘one died for all’ mean that Christ died instead of the ‘all’. This interpretation preserves the logical connection with what follows: ‘therefore all died’. If Christ did not die instead of the ‘all’, then the ‘all’ cannot be said to have died.
In 5:21 Paul writes, ‘God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.’ Various interpretations have been suggested for the statement that God ‘made him… to be sin’, and these are discussed in the commentary on 5:21 below. Our preferred interpretation is that Christ was made to bear the consequences of our sins. This is supported by the fact that in Galatians 3:13 Paul interprets the work of Christ in terms of his bearing the consequences of our sins: ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.’ This interpretation is further supported by the fact that ‘God made him who had no sin to be sin’ (v. 21a) is balanced in antithetical parallelism by the words, ‘so that in him we might become the righteousness of God’. The former must be construed in such a way that the latter is understood as its antithetical counterpart. If becoming the righteousness of God means God has adjudicated in our favour and put us in a right relationship with himself, then to become sin, being the antithetical counterpart of this, will mean that God adjudicated against Christ because he took upon himself the burden of our sins (cf. Isa. 53:4–6, 12), with the result that his relationship with God was (momentarily, but terribly and beyond all human comprehension) severed (see fuller discussion in the commentary on 5:21 below).
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.
Paul insists that in the matter of reconciliation it was God himself, not humanity, who took the initiative: ‘God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ’ (5:19). It is important to note that there is no suggestion that Christ is the gracious one who had to overcome unwillingness on God’s part to be reconciled with sinful humanity. God initiated and effected the reconciliation through Christ. This he did ‘not counting people’s sins against them’ (5:19), something he could only do because he ‘made him [Christ] who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God’ (5:21).
While God took the initiative in reconciling the world to himself, for it to be effective in human experience people must respond. Accordingly, Paul says God entrusted him with the message of reconciliation, and through him God is making his appeal to people to be reconciled to God (5:19–20). Paul’s involvement in the ministry of reconciliation, while primarily expressed in his proclamation of the gospel, was also conveyed in the efforts he made to bring about reconciliation when relationships between himself and his converts were strained (6:11–13; 7:2–3) and when he urged them to reinstate the presumably repentant offender who had caused hurt and distress to both Paul and the Corinthian congregation (2:3–11).
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).
In 2 Corinthians we have a rich source of information of both Paul’s own ministry experience and practice and what he regarded as the marks of authentic ministry.
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).
In spite of the many afflictions and disappointments he experienced, Paul was confident that God was leading him in ‘triumphal procession’ and spreading abroad through him the ‘aroma of Christ’, an aroma of life to those being saved and an aroma of death to those who are perishing (2:14–15). To be faithful in this ministry was a weighty responsibility. He had to reject the temptation to ‘peddle the word of God for profit’ (2:17), and his competency to carry out such a ministry came from God (3:5–6). It was a ministry of the new covenant, one that he contrasted with the ministry of Moses under the old covenant. It was a ministry of the Spirit not the letter, it was accompanied with greater glory than Moses’ ministry, it was a ministry that brings righteousness not condemnation, and one that enabled him to act with much greater boldness than Moses had done (3:6–13). Paul did not proclaim himself, but ‘Jesus Christ as Lord’ and himself as a ‘servant’ of those he ministered to for Jesus’ sake (4:5). In this ministry he says he was ‘hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed… always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal body. So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you’ (4:8–12). Two things motivated Paul: a sense of accountability before the judgment seat of Christ (5:9–11) and a deep awareness of the love of Christ who died for all so that those who live might live for him (5:14–15).
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).
Paul spoke of his pastoral responsibilities for the Corinthian believers using betrothal/marriage imagery. Through his proclamation of the gospel and their response to it, he betrothed them, as it were, ‘to one husband’, to present them ‘as a pure virgin’ to Christ. Thereafter he felt responsible to ensure their thoughts would not be ‘led astray from [their] sincere and pure devotion to Christ’ as a result of the machinations of Satan operating through the false apostles who preached a different gospel (11:2–4). At the risk of seeming to reject tokens of friendship and be seen not to love the Corinthian believers, Paul did not accept their offers of support while ministering among them, even though he accepted support from other churches at that time. This he did so that he might proclaim God’s good news ‘free of charge’ (11:7–12; 12:13–15).
Because of the criticisms of the false apostles, Paul had to argue for the authenticity of his ministry as an apostle and a true servant of Christ. They claimed his ministry lacked what they regarded as the marks of authentic ministry and had persuaded his converts to judge Paul in the light of their criteria. Paul responded by defending his ministry in the light of their criteria, even though he did not agree with them. In responding, he also showed that what he regarded as true marks of authenticity were present in his own ministry.
What the false opponents regarded as marks of authentic ministry can be inferred by a judicious ‘mirror-reading’ of 2 Corinthians: they emphasized the importance of letters of recommendation (3:1–3), impressive speaking ability and an imposing presence (10:10), Jewish ancestry (11:22), having experienced visions and revelations (12:1), the performance of signs and wonders (12:11–13) and displays of power as evidence that Christ spoke through one who claimed to be his emissary (13:3).
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).
In 2 Corinthians 8–9 Paul urges his converts to follow through on their earlier intention to contribute to the collection being taken up among Gentile churches to alleviate the hardships being experienced by Jewish believers in Jerusalem. It must be remembered that this collection was a one-off ‘inter-church’ event, and therefore caution should be exercised when applying Paul’s teaching about it to regular Christian giving in the context of a local congregation. Nevertheless, there is much to learn from what the apostle had to say.
Paul regarded the call to participate in the collection as a test of the genuineness of people’s love (8:8; 9:13), and when they rose to the occasion he recognized it as evidence of God’s grace operating in their lives (8:1–5; 9:14). As a primary motivation for them to participate, he pointed to the example of Christ, who ‘though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich’ (8:9). In addition, Paul pointed out how humiliated both he and the Corinthians would be if they were not ready to contribute when those to whom he had boasted about their eagerness in the matter arrived in Corinth (9:1–5). He also spoke of how the bonds of affection between the Gentile churches and the Jewish church in Jerusalem would be strengthened by their gift and how this would result in much thanksgiving to God (9:11–14).
Paul made a point of emphasizing that his call to share in this ministry was advice, not a command (8:8). The Corinthians should not act under a sense of compulsion, but only as they had made up their own minds to do so, because ‘God loves a cheerful giver’ (9:7). He also made it clear that they were not being asked to do more than their resources allowed (8:12), nor to relieve others at the expense of undue pressure upon themselves, but only that their present relative abundance might assist those in need, so there might be ‘equality’ (8:13–15).
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).
In several places Paul speaks of the activities of Satan (also referred to as ‘the god of this world’ or ‘the serpent’). Satan blinds the eyes of unbelievers ‘so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ’ (4:3–4). He ‘masquerades as an angel of light’ and in like manner, his servants, the false apostles, disguise themselves ‘as apostles of Christ’ and ‘servants of righteousness’ (11:13–15). He seeks to lead believers astray from their ‘sincere and pure devotion to Christ’ through the work of the false apostles who preach a different Jesus and ‘a different gospel’ which Paul’s converts appeared to accept readily enough (11:3–4). He was allowed to afflict Paul with a ‘thorn’ in the flesh, but under God’s sovereign authority this was used to prevent Paul from becoming too elated as a result of the exceptional revelations that were given to him by God (12:7). And when Paul prayed repeatedly that the thorn be removed, God apparently did not do so, but said to him that his grace was sufficient for him and that his power is made prefect in weakness (12:7–9).