I. CORINTH IN THE TIME OF PAUL
At the time of Paul’s three visits (c. A.D. 50–56) Corinth was officially a Roman city.1
Ancient Corinth, symbolized by the remains of the Doric-columned temple of Apollo, rivaled Athens for supremacy as a Greek city-state and maritime power during the preclassical and classical eras (6th to 4th cents. B.C.). During the second century B.C., however, Corinth, with other states in the Peloponnese, sought protection from the invading Romans through membership in the Achaean league, but to no avail. In 146 B.C. a Roman army led by L. Mummius destroyed the city and killed or enslaved the population,2 causing the extinction, according to Cicero, of “the light of all Greece.”3
In 44 B.C.—almost a century before Paul’s arrival—Julius Caesar, recognizing Corinth’s strategic location, directed the creation of a Roman colony on the run-down site of the ancient city. It was named Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis in his honor, and the process of repopulation was begun. Unlike other colonies, new Corinth was not settled with Roman army veterans but with poorer Romans,4 many of whom were libertini, freed slaves, as well as with people from the eastern Mediterranean—Syrians, Egyptians, and Jews—who would have had some familiarity with koine Greek. The offense to other Greeks of the resettlement of Corinth with such inhabitants may be noted in the rather exaggerated remarks of a contemporary poet:
What inhabitants, O luckless city, hast thou received,
and in place of whom?
Alas for the great calamity of Greece!…
wholly abandoned to such a crowd of scoundrelly slaves …5
This opinion is confirmed, to some degree, by Strabo’s comment that the new inhabitants left no grave unransacked in their search for valuables from ancient Corinth, which they shipped to Rome.6
In this new city, built according to Roman town planning,7 Latin was the official language.8 Typical of Roman colonies elsewhere, Corinth was governed by four magistrates (two duoviri and two aediles, elected annually), along with other civic officials,9 and a city council (decurio) composed of elected citizens and former magistrates. As capital of the province of Achaia, Corinth was the home of the Roman Proconsul, who in the time of Paul’s first visit was L. Iunius Gallio (Acts 18:12).10
Such were the origins of the city to which Paul came a century later.11
In the meantime Roman Corinth had become at least as prosperous as the ancient city. Whatever the accidents of history, the wealth of Corinth was guaranteed by the city’s unique position. Corinth was located on the narrow isthmus that joined the Peloponnese to the mainland and separated the Aegean Sea from the Ionian Sea by a mere 6,000 meters at the narrowest, a remarkable geographical feature upon which contemporary writers often remarked. Strabo observed:
Corinth is called “wealthy” because of its commerce, since it is situated on the isthmus and is master of two harbours, of which one leads straight to Asia and the other to Italy: and it makes easy the exchange of merchandise from both countries that are far distant from each other … To land their cargoes there was a welcome alternative to the voyage to Maleae [a dangerous promontory at the bottom of the Peloponnese] for merchants from both Italy and Asia. And also the duties on what was exported by land from the Peloponnese as well as what was imported into it … to the Corinthians of later times still greater advantages were added, for also the Isthmian games, which were celebrated there, were wont to draw crowds of people.12
According to Strabo, the wealth of Corinth flowed from the exchange of merchandise, duties on goods transferred across the isthmus, and the crowds attracted to the Isthmian games. These games were held every two years, as compared with other games, which were held at four-year intervals.13
Other revenue was attracted by the constant two-way traffic of travelers whose route from Greece and western Asia to Italy took them through the port towns of Cenchreae and Lechaeum across the isthmus.14 Since Corinth was the capital of Achaia, many ambassadors and other officials came to it to wait upon the Proconsul. Not least, Corinth was made prosperous by the much-sought-after art works fashioned in the uniquely blended local bronze for which the city was renowned.15 Inevitably, wealthy Corinth became one of the most notable centers for banking and finance in the Roman world.16
The prosperity of Corinth and its constituent ports, so quickly acquired after its refounding, was manifested in a great array of splendid buildings and facilities—city walls, paved roads, harbor infrastructure, water supply, agora, shopping area, senate house, numerous temples, fountains and monuments, gymnasiums, baths, schools, administrative buildings, theatre, odeium, library, parks, and athletics fields—as described by professional tourists of the time, Strabo and Pausanias.17 Remains of some of Corinth’s illustrious past may still be seen today.
The wealth of new Corinth is spectacularly illustrated by an inscription commemorating one Lucius Castricius Regulus, an aedile, judicial prefect (iure dicundo) and duovir “who was [the first] to preside over the Isthmian games at the isthmus of Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis.… He gave a banquet for all the inhabitants of the colony.”18
There was, however, another side to Corinth. One traveler declined to enter the city proper, having learned of “… the sordidness of the rich there and the misery of the poor” and of a place “… abounding in luxuries but inhabited by people ungracious and unblessed by Aphrodite.” He comments that while “… the women have Aphrodite, Guardian of the City, as their cult goddess, the men have Famine.”19
The well-known notoriety of Corinth in sexual matters arises mostly from texts relating to old Corinth (i.e., the pre-Roman city two centuries before Paul’s time) that are, in the opinion of some, based on misinformation from jealous Athens.20 Recent commentators tend to play down the evil reputation of the city. Nonetheless, it would be surprising if new Corinth, as a recently founded, rapidly expanding and prosperous city, served by two seaports and with numerous short-term visitors, was not characterized by the sexual practices of the earlier era.
It is significant that Paul did not spend much time in the “university city,” Athens, whose glory had long passed. Corinth was far bigger—modern estimates reach as high as a million people—and equally important, strategically located as it was to take advantage of the considerable volume of passing traffic. It can be no accident that Paul positioned himself in Thessalonica, Corinth, and Ephesus, for they were bustling cities and formed a strategic triangle in the Aegean region, enabling the gospel to be spread along the busiest trading routes in the world.
Roman Corinth was destroyed by earthquake in A.D. 521.
II. PAUL AND CHRISTIANITY IN CORINTH
The apostle Paul came alone to Corinth from Athens in the autumn of A.D. 50.21 His assistants Timothy and Silvanus, who were still occupied with the churches in Macedonia, arrived sometime later (1 Thess 3:1, 6; cf. Acts 18:5; 2 Cor 1:19).
Paul immediately attached himself to Aquila and Priscilla, who, along with other Jews, had been expelled from Rome in A.D. 49 by decree of the emperor Claudius.22 He worked with them as a tentmaker23—a trade they shared—and he lived with them. It is probable, but not certain, that Aquila and Priscilla were already believers when they came to Corinth, and that they, with Paul, formed a nucleus of an ekklēsia in the city. They appear to have created a house church in other places as well (1 Cor 16:19; Rom 16:5).
The apostle spent a year and a half in this his first visit to the Achaian capital, a period that can be divided into two unequal parts.
At first he went to the synagogue24—composed of “Greeks,” that is, “God-fearers,”25 as well as Jews (Acts 18:4). There he argued that the OT scriptures had been fulfilled by the Messiah Jesus (Acts 18:4, 5; cf. 17:2–3; 1 Cor 15:3–4; 2 Cor 1:19). At this time the God-fearer Titius Justus (who is probably the “Gaius” referred to elsewhere as “host to the whole church”26) accepted Paul’s message (Acts 18:7). If Stephanas, “the first fruits” of Paul’s ministry in Achaia (1 Cor 16:15; cf. 1:16), was a Jew or a God-fearer, then he, too, would have been converted in the context of Paul’s synagogue ministry. After Paul’s expulsion from the synagogue, Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, “believed in the Lord” (Acts 18:8; cf. 1 Cor 1:15). Shortly afterward members of the synagogue accused Paul before the newly arrived Proconsul L. Iunius Gallio of promoting the worship of God contrary to the law, charges that Gallio dismissed.27
Paul’s ministry to Gentiles, which was the second and longer ministry phase, appears to have been based in the house of Gaius. Regrettably we are unable to identify those who accepted Paul’s message during this latter period. Other names are known to us—Chloe,28 Fortunatus, Achaicus, Lucius, Jason, Sosipater, Erastus, Quartus, Tertius, and Phoebe from Cenchreae29—but we do not know whether they became believers while Paul was in Corinth or after his withdrawal.
From the passing references in the Acts and the letters of Paul we may reconstruct a partial picture of church life in Roman Corinth during the fifties.30 We have an impression that, although Paul made the rhetorical disclaimer that “not many” of the believers were “wise by human standards … influential … of noble birth” (1 Cor 1:26), the reality was somewhat different. The tentmaking Jews Aquila and Priscilla are not merely humble artisans but, in all probability, traders who traveled to Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus (Acts 18:1–3, 18; 1 Cor. 16:19; Rom 16:3; 2 Tim 4:19). Gaius [Titius Justus?] was of sufficient means to own a villa large enough to accommodate the “whole church”31 (Rom 16:23; cf. 1 Cor 14:23), while Crispus was “ruler” of the synagogue in Corinth, a sign of local eminence. Stephanas is said to have a “household,”32 and it is probable that Fortunatus and Achaicus, whose names are bracketed with his, were freedmen who belonged to his retinue.33 Chloe also has a “household” whose members travel from Corinth to Ephesus.34 Phoebe is literally the “patroness”35 of the church at Cenchreae—in all probability the hostess of the church—who is described in terms resembling Iunia Theodora, the noted Corinthian patroness of that era.36 Erastus, the “city treasurer,”37 is clearly a leading member of the Corinthian elite.
At the beginning of the twentieth century A. Deissmann believed that the early Christians were of the lower class, that is, peasants, slaves, and artisans.38 More recently, however, E. A. Judge has shown that, “Far from being a socially depressed group, then, if the Corinthians are typical, the Christians were dominated by a socially pretentious section of the population of a big city.”39 Those whose names are preserved—because they offered leadership or hospitality or were able to travel from Corinth to Ephesus—appear to have been financially independent. The only people in Corinth whose names are to be found in the literature belonged to the middle class or above, or were among their retinues. There must have been many poorer people, however, since the Christian congregation at Corinth was large.40 Moreover, as he commented earlier, “not many … were influential … of noble birth” (1 Cor 1:26).
The Roman names [Gaius?] Titius Justus, Crispus, Fortunatus, Achaicus, Erastus, Quartus, and Tertius are consistent with the Roman character of new Corinth. At the least, Fortunatus and Achaicus are names appropriate to freedmen,41 and possibly the others as well. Chloe and Phoebe are names taken from Greek mythology, which may suggest that they were freedwomen named after Greek heroines. The Jews Aquila, Priscilla, and Lucius have Roman names, suggesting that they had been slaves who had been given their freedom and taken on the names of Roman masters.
This sample of names from the church appears to represent a reasonable cross section of Corinthian society as it emerges from the ancient sources. It was a community composed of former slaves and freedmen that was significantly Roman, but with eastern Mediterranean folk as well, people who had made good in a city that quickly became wealthy after its refounding. From Paul’s Corinthian correspondence, supplemented by the Acts of the Apostles, we have identified the names of men and women of substance—Jews and Gentiles—some of whom may have been freedmen (cf. 1 Cor 7:22). Yet Paul specifically refers also to the lower orders, to slaves and the poor within the circle of Corinthian believers (1 Cor 7:21–24; 11:21; cf. 8:10), and he may have identified himself with them (2 Cor 11:29).
This congregation drew a number of its members from the urban elite of wealthy Greco-Roman Corinth, where patron-client relationships were customary. E. A. Judge has drawn attention to a social phenomenon that he calls “status,”42 a position of power arising from wealth rather than official position or “rank.” Patronage occurred not only from those who held political appointment (“rank”) but also at a domestic and social level from men and women of wealth (“status”). It was quite common for citizens of rank and status to provide hospitality and financial benefits to visiting rhetoricians who might come to Corinth to participate in the poetry-reading and public-speaking competition at the Isthmian games held every two years,43 but doubtless at other times as well.
In refusing to accept such patronage by insisting on working (at a menial trade) to support himself,44 Paul identified with the lower orders. This nonacceptance represented an unresolved tension between Paul and the Corinthians.45 His studied refusal to exercise the techniques of the rhetorician while at Corinth was also a point of serious criticism.46 Paul’s rejection of patronage and his unwillingness to fulfill their expectations of a public speaker were, according to Judge, in deliberate repudiation of patronage based on “status.”47 He argues that while Paul called for subordination to those with rank, that is, to those who held an official position whether in society or the church, he rejected the conventions associated with status.
As converts were added to the community of believers in Corinth, they probably clustered around the villas of the wealthier members like Aquila, Stephanas, Crispus, Erastus, Chloe, and Phoebe (at Cenchreae), with Gaius providing his house for the meeting of “the whole church.” These are the only names of household leaders known to us. It would be remarkable if there were not many more. From archaeological investigation of the few remains of Corinthian villas it appears that they could not accommodate more than fifty guests,48 though the insulae of Roman Ephesus are more spacious by far.49 The seeds of the divisions that soon characterized the Christian community in Corinth (1 Cor 1:10–17; 4:6; 2 Cor 2:6) may have been sown in these semi-independent house churches. Not least, the wealthier members in whose houses subcongregations met would have given hospitality and patronage to other ministers who came to Corinth. From the First Letter to the Corinthians we know of Apollos, Cephas, and possibly the “brothers of the Lord” who visited the city (1 Cor 9:4–6),50 and from the Second Letter, of the “false apostles” who received a welcome (2 Cor 11:4–5, 13–15). These house meetings would have been influenced by the views of their wealthy hosts and hostesses as well as by visiting ministers who would have stayed there as guests.
III. PAUL’S LATER RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE CORINTHIANS
The incoming Proconsul in succession to Gallio would have taken up his post on July 1, A.D. 52. It seems likely that Paul timed his withdrawal from Corinth to avoid facing further accusations from the Jewish community before a new governor.
Sometime in the summer of A.D. 52 Paul set out from Cenchreae to Judaea. On the way he stopped for a brief sojourn in Ephesus, in anticipation of an extended ministry there later (Acts 18:18–21). Arriving in Caesarea, he apparently visited the church in Jerusalem51 before returning for a time to the original sending church at Antioch in Syria (Acts 18:22–23; cf. Acts 13:1–3). Paul then traveled overland from Antioch through Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening the disciples who had turned to the Lord during the first missionary journey (Acts 18:23; cf. Acts 13:13–14:24).
It was probably not earlier than the summer of A.D. 53 that Paul at last returned to the Aegean region for his three-year ministry in Ephesus (Acts 19:1; 20:31; cf. 19:8, 10), resuming once more his relationships with the Corinthians.
In the meantime the Corinthians had received a visit from another Christian leader, the gifted Alexandrian Jew Apollos (Acts 18:27–19:1). While there is no hint that Paul’s relationship with Apollos was other than cordial,52 his coming to Corinth must have demonstrated to the Corinthians that Paul’s was not the only expression of the gospel and that some, at least, probably regarded it as inferior to Apollos’s.53 Before long Corinth would be graced by a visit from no less a person than Cephas,54 the leading disciple of the Lord, who had previously assumed the leadership of the Jerusalem church (1 Cor 9:5; cf. 1:12; 3:22).55
If the visit of Apollos raised the question of Paul’s rhetorical abilities, the coming of Cephas prompted the even more fundamental question that would cloud all subsequent relationships with the Corinthians, namely, was Paul truly qualified to be an apostle?56 The recent arrival of the “false apostles” reflected in 2 Corinthians will raise the issue of Paul’s apostleship even more sharply.57 Whatever the dynamics of the Corinthians’ relationships with one another, the surviving correspondence is also characterized by questions associated with Paul’s own relationships with them, and the basis of his relationships with them.
Paul’s ministry at Ephesus was punctuated by periodic communications by both delegation and letter to and from Corinth that expose the emerging problems within that community and between that community and Paul.
First came the news (by letter or by personal report?) of the failure of some of the Corinthian believers to separate from people within the believing community who were sexually immoral.58 Paul responded by a letter that has not survived (the “Previous Letter”). The Corinthians misinterpreted the letter to mean wholesale separation from wider Corinthian society.
At about the time of that letter59 Paul sent Titus to Corinth to establish the collection for the Judaean churches (8:6, 10; 9:2; cf. 1 Cor 16:1–2).
Soon afterward the Corinthians wrote to Paul seeking clarification about a range of matters60 relating to sexual conduct, local temple worship, food sacrificed to idols, speaking in tongues, and the collection for the saints in Judaea.61 Their letter appears to have been brought by Stephanas, accompanied by Fortunatus and Achaicus (1 Cor 16:17).
At about the same time as the arrival of their letter, a delegation came from Chloe bringing news of the fragmentation of the Corinthian church into separate factions. This was to be the first problem Paul addressed in canonical 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 1:11). That letter also deals with reports of other serious difficulties, such as gross immorality, litigation among the members, irregularities at the plenary meeting of the congregation, and doubts about the resurrection of the dead.62 It is not clear, however, which of these issues were raised by Chloe’s delegation as opposed to those raised by Stephanas’s group. Whatever the source, it is evident that matters had seriously deteriorated at Corinth since Paul had been there. Paul’s dispatch of Timothy to Corinth at about that time (1 Cor 16:10; cf. 4:17) appears to have been for the unenviable task of explaining Paul’s letter to them, as well as to provide Paul with a reliable report on the Corinthian problems (1 Cor 16:11–12).
In the First Letter Paul told the Corinthians that he wished to withdraw from the region soon (1 Cor 16:6). As the apostle to the Gentiles, he was keen to go to Rome, the capital of the Gentile world (Rom 1:13; cf. Acts 19:21). As a Jew, he would probably not have been free to do so until the death of Claudius; Claudius had expelled Jews from Rome in A.D. 49.63 The death of Claudius in A.D. 54 cleared the way for Paul to come to Rome. As part of his withdrawal from the region he planned to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost (late spring, of A.D. 55?), travel through Macedonia (during summer and autumn), and spend the winter in Corinth before finally journeying to Judaea (1 Cor 16:6–8; Acts 19:21; cf. 2 Cor 1:16, early in 56?), accompanied by provincial delegates who would take the collection to Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:3–4).
Before he could leave Ephesus for Macedonia, however, more bad news arrived, almost certainly brought by Timothy on his return from Corinth after the delivery of 1 Corinthians (in early spring, A.D. 55—with Titus?). So serious was this news that Paul himself now had to go immediately to Corinth, almost a year earlier than he had planned. The crisis in Corinth is shrouded in mystery; the only sources of information are the passing references in canonical 2 Corinthians. Evidently there had been a significant falling away into “impurity, sexual sin and debauchery” (12:21; cf. 13:2). When Paul sought to rectify the situation, this led to “quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder” (12:20). Paul also writes of a man “who caused grief … who did the wrong” and “the injured party” (also a male), the latter almost certainly Paul himself (2:5; 7:12).64 Paul’s second visit to Corinth was, he says, “painful,” a source of “grief” to the Corinthians (2:1) and probably also to himself (2:1–4; cf. 12:21).
While present in Corinth at that time, Paul disclosed a change of plans (cf. 1 Cor 16:5–7). Doubtless due to his perception of the deterioration in the church as he found it, he felt he had to return to the Corinthians directly, then travel to Macedonia, and come to them again before making his final withdrawal from the Aegean region. The new plan meant that he would see them twice, whereas the original plan provided for only one final visit. Paul’s announcement of these revised travel arrangements was to have serious consequences for his relationships with the Corinthians (1:15–24).
Upon his return to Ephesus,65 however, Paul decided to abandon that plan and to revert to the original itinerary, which would take him from Ephesus through Macedonia to Corinth. This change meant that he would now visit the Corinthians only once (more), and later than he had said. Evidently, upon reflection, he decided that a return visit to the Corinthians in the near future would create further grief for them as well as for him (2:1–2; 1:6). Rather, he chose to write a letter, now lost to us, and known only by references in 2 Corinthians (2:3–4; 7:8–12), which we will refer to as the “Severe Letter.” Having sent the letter, Paul experienced regret at its severity. Anxious months followed as he awaited a reply, first in Troas and then in Macedonia, which Titus, the bearer of the “Severe Letter,” would bring back to him (cf. 2:12–13; 7:5–7). Paul may have feared that the “Severe Letter” would spell the end of his relationships with the Corinthians.
So Paul left Ephesus for Troas, the nearest port in Asia to Macedonia, where he had planned to engage in some evangelism (2:12). He would then proceed to Macedonia, where Timothy and Erastus had been sent on ahead (Acts 19:22). If Titus did not arrive in Troas by late autumn—when the weather closed the seas to sailing—Paul would meet him in Macedonia (Philippi?).
When Titus did not arrive at Troas by the agreed deadline, Paul sailed for Macedonia, where, we assume, he was reunited with Timothy66 (1:1) and where, after more anxious waiting, Titus finally appeared (7:5–6). On his arrival Paul found the churches in Macedonia to be subject to “severe trial” so that Paul himself suffered “conflicts on the outside” (8:2; 7:5). It appears that Paul had extensive contact with the Macedonian churches (Philippi, Thessalonica, and Beroea) during this period (8:3–4, 18–9:5; Acts 20:2). Moreover, it is possible that before he made his way to Corinth he engaged briefly in mission work in the northwest of Macedonia toward the borders of Illyricum (Rom 15:19).
To the apostle’s great relief Titus brought the good news that (the section of) the church that had failed to support Paul in public against his aggressor had now responded positively to the “Severe Letter” and had taken disciplinary action (7:7–16).
Not all the news, however, was encouraging: (1) Some took the view that Paul’s vacillation over his travel plans confirmed him to be a “man of flesh” (1:12, 17), whose sequence of misfortunes marked him out as inadequate in ministry (2:14–16; 3:5, 6), having lacked the capacity to resolve the problems in Corinth during the second visit (10:2, 7; 12:20; 13:3).67 (2) The collection, established by Titus during the previous year, had lapsed (8:6, 10; 9:2). (3) Despite his second letter (canonical 1 Corinthians) and the second (“painful”) visit, a section of the church remained entangled in the cultic and immoral life of the city (6:14–7:1; 12:2–13:2). (4) The criticism that Paul supported himself and declined to receive money from the Corinthians was a continuing source of unhappiness (cf. 1 Cor 9:1–23), not least that he showed no sign of changing his policy (11:7–11; 12:13–16a). Some, however, thought that he did receive money, “craftily,” through his coworkers, in order to gain some moral advantage (12:16b-18; cf. 4:2; 7:2). (5) The worst news, however, was that in recent times the Corinthian congregation had been infiltrated by a group of Jewish Christian “false apostles” whose influence threatened to destroy altogether Paul’s relationship with the Corinthians (2:17–3:2; 5:11–13; 10:12–12:13). In the six years of Paul’s association with them, this was by far the most serious problem that had arisen.
Titus’s reunion with Paul in Macedonia, bringing this good and bad news, became the occasion for Paul to write the present letter, perhaps sometime in the winter of A.D. 55. Whereas the First Letter was his response to a cluster of questions in a letter and verbal reports from one or more delegations, the Second Letter was his response to Titus’s news about a range of matters in Corinth. Above all, this letter would prepare the Corinthians for Paul’s third and final visit (2:2–3; 9:4; 10:2; 11:9; 12:14, 20, 21; 13:1, 2, 7, 10).
Thus it appears that Paul finally arrived in Corinth at the beginning of A.D. 56, and, according to the Acts 20:3, spent three months there. It is generally agreed that Paul wrote his letter to the Romans while staying at Corinth, as he prepared to accompany the collection to Jerusalem (Rom 15:25–26). It is probable that this letter, his most carefully structured statement, arose out of the issues raised by his most recent problems with the Corinthians, as more hastily expressed in 2 Corinthians. Did Romans have its genesis in lectures given in Corinth in the light of the recent problems there?
Corinth was the planned point of departure for the collection, the place to which the delegates carrying the contributions from the churches of Macedonia, Asia, and Galatia would converge. From Corinth this group was to set out for Jerusalem, where Paul planned to arrive by Pentecost (late spring—Acts 20:2–3, 16). His original plan was to travel by ship (Acts 20:3–4), but this intention was thwarted by news of a Jewish plot to be activated while Paul and his companions were at sea. By a revised itinerary, Paul and the provincial delegates—including those from Achaia (Rom 15:26)—were forced to travel north to Macedonia and thence to Judaea via Asia.
Paul’s relationships with the Corinthians may be summarized as follows (the dates are tentative):
A. Literary
2 Corinthians is very different from the letters between which it was written, 1 Corinthians and Romans. Whereas each of those letters is, in its own way, systematic and orderly, 2 Corinthians is, on the face of it, uneven and digressive. It is no surprise, therefore, that many scholars have suggested that 2 Corinthians is really a collection of letters put together later as a single letter.69
In particular, it is widely held that chapters 10–13 were written by Paul separately from and later than chapters 1–9.70 Doubt has also been cast whether 2:14–6:10 and chapters 8–9 are original to chapters 1–9. Many scholars also believe that 6:14–7:1 is a non-Pauline fragment that has been inserted into the text. Some have identified 6:14–7:1 as from the lost “Previous Letter” and chapters 10–13 as the lost “Severe Letter.” Further, a number of scholars regard chapter 9 as a replica of chapter 8 and not continuous with it. Clearly there is widespread conviction that the letter as received originated as a series of letters subsequently amalgamated into our 2 Corinthians.
Before commenting on these views, I should make clear that, as it stands, 2 Corinthians consists of six sections of uneven length.
1. From 1:1 to 2:13 Paul recounts his movements in Asia, defending himself for writing the “Severe Letter” rather than returning directly to Corinth.
2. In 2:14–6:13, the longest section of the letter, Paul describes and defends his ministry under the new covenant.
3. Somewhat abruptly (6:14–7:4) he admonishes the Corinthians to separate themselves from unbelievers.
4. Resuming his account of his movements (7:5–16), he describes his joyous reunion with Titus in Macedonia and expresses thanks that the Corinthians have taken to heart the “Severe Letter.”
5. Continuing to bring the Corinthians up to date, he appeals to them to complete the collection in view of the coming of Titus and the two Macedonian delegates (8:1–9:15), observing that the poor Macedonian churches have contributed generously to it.
6. Finally (10:1–13:14), Paul exhorts the Corinthians to prepare for his impending third and final visit. Within this section his interaction with various sources of criticism and opposition may be discerned, in particular, from the “false apostles.”
This commentary is written from the conviction that, despite its apparently uneven and disordered character, 2 Corinthians possesses an intrinsic unity.71
In broad terms the subject matter of 2 Corinthians is consistent with Paul’s historical situation in the period between his second and third visits to Corinth. Second Corinthians, as outlined above, is a window into Paul’s soul and expresses his feelings about the Corinthians as he prepares to make his final visit to them. Thus, in terms of the above summary, (i) he answers their criticisms of his spiritual integrity, (ii) he defends his ministry in the new covenant against those who question his “sufficiency,” (iii) he admonishes them to separate themselves from Corinthian temple worship, (iv) he rejoices in their acceptance of his discipline through the “Severe Letter,” (v) he exhorts them to complete the collection, and (vi) he urges them to correct false attitudes to him as they prepare for his third visit. Viewed in this way, the letter is written against the background of an unsuccessful second visit in the light of new difficulties that have now arisen (especially the arrival of the Jewish Christian “false apostles”) with the intent to make the Corinthians ready for Paul’s last visit, when he and they can be reconciled before he finally leaves the Aegean region.
1. The Unity of Chapters 10–13 with Chapters 1–972
There are several reasons for viewing these sections as belonging to one letter.
First, rhetorical criticism has pointed to a similarity of format between a number of Paul’s letters, including 2 Corinthians, and certain literature of the period.73 Scholars have drawn attention to a letter from Demosthenes (384–322 B.C.) in exile to Athens (Ep. 2), that is really a speech in his defense written in epistolary form74 and whose structural outline broadly resembles 2 Corinthians. It should be noted that 2 Corinthians, like other NT literature and indeed all literature from the period, was written to be read aloud to the audience to whom it was sent.75
In “apologetic” epistles the exordium (prooimion) raises the issues that will be developed, but in subtle ways, seeking the sympathetic attention of the audience. The narrative (diēgēsis)—which is not invariably included in such works—recounts the events leading to the court case whose decision is being contested. The proof (pistis), which is the heart of the speech, cites witnesses for the defense who refute the charge, introducing emotional argument to arouse pity or character witnesses to support the probity of the accused. The concluding peroration, in contrast to the quiet exordium, is emotional in tone, geared to arouse anger at the injustice of the case.
I am not suggesting that Paul was familiar with the writings of Demosthenes, but rather that he was acquainted with popular rhetorical conventions reflected in that author and others like Dionysius of Halicarnassus or Quintilian, who were closer to Paul’s times.76 Furthermore, I am insinuating that these conventions had become sufficiently commonplace that ordinary folk, not classically educated, were unconsciously aware of them.
Paul begins, as in the classical exordium, with thanksgiving and mutual encouragement (1:1–11). The narrative begins within the exordium with the apostle’s account of his trials in Asia (1:8–11) and periodically surfaces in various travel details (2:3–13; 7:5–16; 8:1–6, 16–23; 9:2–5; 11:22–12:10). The proofs, by which he answers various accusations, are closely connected with the narrative at a number of points. Broadly speaking, Paul is defending his personal integrity in his actions (1:12–18, 23–2:11) and his “sufficiency” in ministry against the perception of weakness (2:14–4:15). Finally, the peroration is an emotional recapitulation of the argument of the letter, appealing for a verdict in favor of the writer (chaps. 10–13), in particular within the main part of the “Fool’s Speech” (11:21–12:13). Paul reproaches them for failing to “commend” his ministry (12:11).
Pseudo-Demetrius, an analyst of ancient letter writing from Paul’s general era, lists twenty-one types of letters, of which the eighteenth is described as: “The apologetic … one which brings against charges the opposite arguments with proof.”77 Paul specifically acknowledges the “apologetic” nature of his letter, even if apology did not exhaust his intentions in writing to the Corinthians (12:19, q.v.). If we accept 2 Corinthians as an “apologetic” letter, the powerfully rhetorical chapters 10 through 13 need not be considered as a separate letter but as a peroration, gathering up previously mentioned elements and making a final emotional appeal to the hearers. Certainly those final chapters contain rhetorical elements like comparison and boasting that have many parallels in the literature of the period.78 Not least, the letter throughout is marked by powerful appeals addressed directly to the Corinthians (5:20–6:2; 6:11–7:1; 10:1–2; 12:11–13; 13:5–11). Paul the pastor also uses tones of warm confidence within critical “bridge” passages where he moves from one difficult topic to another (7:2–4; 7:13–16; 10:1–2), and he concludes the letter on a very positive, confidence-inspiring note (13:5–14).
Second, throughout the letter Paul foreshadows his pending final visit. To be sure, these references come thick and fast in the later chapters (10:2, 6; 11:9; 12:14, 20, 21; 13:1, 2, 10). But they are also to be found in the early chapters (2:1, 3), as well as in the middle chapters (9:4). In each case Paul is alluding to some attitude to correct or action to take before he comes: (1) That the Corinthians and Paul should be reconciled over the man who had wronged Paul (2:1, 3). (2) That the Corinthians should complete the collection so as to avoid shame when he and the Macedonians arrive (9:4). (3) That the Corinthians turn from their cultic/sexual practices (also 12:20, 21; 13:1, 2, 10). (4) That the Corinthians accept that Paul will continue financially to support himself in ministry despite pressure from the Corinthians and the intruders (11:9, 12; 12:14). The observation that the references to the future visit are found in all parts of the letter contributes to the case for its unity.
There is, in fact, an overarching logic to Paul’s argument throughout the letter. Having explained and defended past behavior (1:1–2:13) and having expounded the new covenant ministry (2:14–7:4), he encourages the Corinthians about their response retrospectively to the “Severe Letter” (7:5–16) and prospectively to the collection (chaps. 8–9). In the last section (10:1–13:14), in view of his pending visit, he responds to the charge that he is powerful only by letter (10:2–10), arguing, however, that his power is realized and recognized in weakness (12:7–10), indicating thereby that, as a “minister of Christ,” he is “better” than the “superlative” apostles (11:23). Seen in this light, 2 Corinthians, as it now stands (and thus originally written), is all of a piece.
Third, we find distinctive vocabulary distributed throughout the letter that is said to have originated independently.
a. In chapters 1–9 Paul refers to “the ministry that brings righteousness,” to “this ministry … the ministry,” and to himself as “a minister of God” (3:9; 4:1; 6:3, 4). In chapters 10–13, which most interpreters regard as not belonging to the earlier chapters, however, he pointedly speaks of the newcomers as “ministers [of Satan who] masquerade as ministers of righteousness” (11:15; cf. 1:23). Since Paul nowhere else in his letters juxtaposes “ministry”/“minister” with “righteousness,”79 these references, which contrast two “ministries of righteousness,” support the notion of the unity of the two main parts of the letter.
b. A keyword in this letter is “commend”80; it appears to originate in the debate over Paul’s ministry as compared to that of the newcomers. “Commend” does not occur in a letter written by Paul prior to 2 Corinthians. This word occurs throughout the letter (3:1; 4:2; 5:12; 6:4; 10:12, 18; 12:11), in both of the parts that are said to have arisen separately. In particular, his “I ought to have been commended by you,” his plaintive climax to the “Fool’s Speech” (12:11), ties that part of the letter to all that has gone before.
c. Words rarely used by Paul, which appear together in 4:2 (“we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God”), recur in a closely related parallel in 12:16 (“crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery”).81 In no other place in Paul’s writings do these words appear together.
d. Paul’s combination “I appeal … I beg” (10:1, 2) matches closely his earlier exhortation “God making his appeal … we implore you” (5:20).82 In no other letter does Paul connect these two verbs.
e. “Confidence,”83 another word rarely used by Paul, occurs in chapter 10, as well as in the earlier chapters (1:15; 3:4; 8:22; 10:2).
f. The phrase “before God in Christ we speak”84 is found in 2:17 and 12:19; it occurs nowhere else in Paul’s writings.
Repetition of vocabulary is also found within the four “sufferings” passages scattered throughout 2 Corinthians (1:7–11; 4:8–10; 6:4–10; 11:23–12:10), the fourth of which occurs within chapters 10–13. “Sufferings” passages in themselves do not conclusively prove the unity of 2 Corinthians since there are similar passages in other Pauline letters.85 Vocabulary common to these passages, however, is evidence for the overarching unity of 2 Corinthians. For example, the Greek words from the first passage, “surpassing … power,” reappear in the second as “surpassing power” and are repeated in the fourth passage as “surpassingly great revelations” contrasted with “power … in weakness.”86
There are other verbal linkages. The closely related Greek words that are translated “crushed”/“distresses”/“difficulties”87 appear in the second, third, and fourth lists. No fewer than seven words are common to the third and fourth lists.88 This argument is more powerful still because four of these seven words do not appear elsewhere in Paul’s writings.89 Other linguistic considerations add cumulatively to an impression of epistolary unity.90
Fourth, a reference late in the letter (12:19) appears to be a summary of the whole letter, including the “apologetic” early chapters:
Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to you? We have been speaking in the sight of God as those in Christ; and everything is for your strengthening.
For the reasons following it is likely that Paul has in mind the entire letter to this point and not merely the immediate context relating to financial matters: (1) His reference to “have you been thinking all along” and to “everything,” (2) his “we have been defending ourselves to you” (which calls to mind his initial defense of his actions—1:3–2:13), and (3) his “double oath,” “before God in Christ we speak” replicates exactly an earlier passage (2:17). Because Paul appears to be reviewing the letter as a whole, the partition theory is rendered unlikely.
Fifth, the reasons given for partitioning the supposedly independent letters are capable of other interpretations.91 The argument for the separation of chapters 10–13—the most serious case—rests principally on Paul’s assertion in 12:18 that he “sent our brother with [Titus]” to Corinth, whereas in 8:18, 22 Paul is “sending with [Titus] the brother … and our brother.” On this basis it is argued that 12:18 belongs to a letter written later than the earlier letter, to which 8:18, 22 is said to have belonged.
Each of the earlier aorist references “with [Titus] we are sending the brother” (8:18) and “with [Titus and the brother] we are sending our brother” (8:22) appears in its context to be an epistolary aorist,92 and is so taken by the translations.93 On the other hand, the latter aorist “I sent the brother with Titus” (12:18) is to be understood in a historic, as opposed to an epistolary, sense. But it is by no means clear to us to which “sending” Paul is here referring, though it would have been to the writer and the original readers.
We know of three occasions on which Paul “sent” Titus to Corinth: (1) to establish the collection in Corinth sometime in the previous calendar year (8:6, 10; 9:2), (2) to deliver the “Severe Letter” (2:13; 7:6), and (3) to deliver the present letter (8:16, 18, 22). The reference to “the brother” (12:18; cf. 8:16, 18) probably points to Titus’s visit (3) referred to earlier (8:16, 18, 22).94
The use of the aorist “sent” in 12:18 does not demand a visit earlier than the writing of 12:18. The aorist as aspectivally understood does not require a past meaning so much as a completed meaning.95 From Paul’s and the Corinthians’ viewpoint the aorist “I sent” could be understood to refer to the visit that is in prospect at 8:18, 22, when, it is supposed, the present letter was brought to the Corinthians (8:6), but which is now a completed reality in the context of 12:18. An epistolary understanding of the aorists in 8:18, 22 and a historic understanding of the aorist in 12:18, which is grammatically cogent, are arguments for the unity of chapters 1–9 with 10–13.
What, then, may be said to explain the change in tone from joy and confidence in chapter 7 and encouragement in chapters 8 and 9 to the irony in chapters 10–13?
The joy and confidence expressed at the end of chapter 7 needs to be understood in terms of Paul’s pastoral method.96 His positive expressions about the Corinthians are not absolute but relative, circumscribed by (1) his thankfulness that the “Severe Letter” has been effective in achieving its major objective, that is, their expression of loyalty to Paul in disciplining of the wrongdoer (7:12), and (2) his preparation of the Corinthian mind for his appeal that the Corinthians complete the collection by the hand of Titus whom Paul is sending back to them for that very purpose and which he will immediately raise with them (8:6; cf. 7:13b-16).
Moreover, the change of tone is well accounted for if 2 Corinthians is regarded as an “apologetic” letter whose later chapters are a peroration where more intense rhetoric was customary.97 But, as we have noted earlier, this peroration is based on the foundation of confidence and encouragement in chapters 7–9.
Those who see chapters 10–13 as fundamentally different from chapters 1–9, but whose approach is generally conservative, tend to resolve the problem in several ways. On the one hand, they suppose that Paul received news of a deteriorating situation in Corinth during the writing of the letter, which dramatically affected the character of chapters 10–13.98 (But would Paul have sent a letter the first part of which would now be redundant?) On the other hand, they suggest that chapters 10–13 were written as a separate letter not too long after the dispatch of the letter represented by chapters 1–9. By this explanation chapters 10–13 were editorially attached to the earlier letter as a kind of canonical appendix at some later time.99 (But it may be questioned whether in copying his manuscripts the early Christians would have felt at liberty to discard the concluding sentences of one and the opening sentence of another of Paul’s letters.)
2. The Unity of Passages within Chapters 1–9
We will now consider briefly passages within chapters 1–9 held to have originated separately.100
a. The long passage 2:14–7:4 is deemed to be extraneous on account of the references to Macedonia (“So … I went on to Macedonia”—2:13; “When we came into Macedonia”—7:5). But this proves too much. It is less likely that someone else has inserted a long, seemingly unrelated, passage between two references to Macedonia, the second of which does not easily follow the first, than that Paul himself, conscious of a long digression, has reintroduced “Macedonia” to signal that he has resumed his recapitulation of events.
b. Because 6:14–7:1 has a large number of hapax legomena and appears to interrupt the line of Paul’s argument, many have regarded it as a non-Pauline insertion. Verbal parallels with Qumran literature have led some scholars to argue for its origin in the writings of the Dead Sea sect.101 But the passage is a powerful call for separation from Gentile temple worship and may reasonably be seen as a logical continuation of Paul’s exhortations in 1 Corinthians.102 The listing of OT texts, some of which were employed at Qumran, to drive home his point may only illustrate a dependence on the OT shared by the apostle and the sectaries. The demand that the Corinthians break with Gentile practice, so far from interrupting Paul’s line of thought on the subject of the new covenant, is actually a pointed appeal to them that forms a fitting climax to the whole passage begun at 2:14.
c. Some commentators have argued that since chapters 8 and 9 cover the same ground, one of them arose independently and was inserted later.103 In 9:1 Paul says that he has no need to write about this matter, though the previous chapter is devoted to it. But given Paul’s defensiveness toward the Corinthians about matters dealing with money,104 it is quite understandable that he would retrace his argument to establish his policy. Repetition was a well-known rhetorical device in the writings of ancient authors.105
In summary, whether in regard to the major question of the unity of chapters 10–13 with chapters 1–9 or the lesser questions of unity within chapters 1–9, there are several good reasons for upholding the unity of 2 Corinthians and no conclusive arguments for rejecting it.
In our view 2 Corinthians is not a pastiche of letters of independent origin. Rather, the letter was always a unity, written in the cultural mode of an apologetic letter and controlled from beginning to end by the following simple aims:
a. To explain and defend (1) Paul’s actions since he was last with the Corinthians, that is, that he wrote to them but did not return to them directly (1:1–2:13; 7:2–16), and (2) his refusal to accept payment, while appearing to accept payment through his colleagues (7:2; 11:7–11; 12:13–18).
b. To explain and defend his new covenant ministry as nontriumphalist (2:14), yet, despite its sufferings, effective (3:6), the evidence of which is the presence among them of the Spirit of the living God (3:3, 6, 8, 18; 5:5).
c. To encourage them to resolve various difficulties in advance of his final visit (13:10): (1) the finalization of the collection (8:1–9:5), (2) the repentance of those still involved in sexual immorality/cultic practice (12:20–13:3; 6:14–7:1), and (3) the rejection of the intruding “false apostles” (10:12–12:13).
d. As a pastoral opportunist, to teach the Corinthians a number of important doctrines while dealing with matters of immediate concern.106
3. Cultural Diversity within 2 Corinthians
Within this letter, as in no other by Paul, one may see evidence of the diverse cultural influences on the writer. Consistent with his assertion that he is a “Hebrew” (11:22), we note echoes from the liturgy of the synagogue in various benedictions (e.g., 1:3–11, 20; 11:31), thanksgivings (e.g., 2:14; 9:15), and asseverations arising from the OT (e.g., 1:12, 23; 11:10). Paul peppers his text with quotations from and allusions to the OT (e.g., 3:3–6, 16; 4:13; 5:12, 17; 6:1–2, 14–7:1; 9:6–8, 9–10; 10:17; 11:2; 13:1). The vocabulary and thought of Isaiah 40–55 appear to underlie 5:14–7:1. Both the well-developed midrash on Moses’ veil based on a passage from the Pentateuch (3:7–18) and the dualistic apocalypse arising from the division of the ages (4:16–5:10), hinged around the general resurrection (4:14; cf. 1:14; 5:10),107 arise from the religious culture of contemporary Judaism.
On the other hand, increased awareness of the Greco-Roman culture of the period indicates that Paul was familiar with, and prepared to express himself in terms of, that culture. It has been long understood that 2 Corinthians is written in educated koinē in the format of a Hellenistic letter. More recently, however, similarities in Pauline epistolary layout and expression have been detected in (1) Hellenistic forensic political speeches, with, for example, their exordia (cf. 1:12–15) and encomia (cf. 1:15ff.), and (2) the so-called peristaseis, whereby lists of sufferings and achievements, often stated contrastively (cf. 4:8–9; 6:3–10; 11:23–33; 12:7–10), are given.108 The contrasts—negative and positive (2:17; 11:22–23a; cf. 10:12)—between himself and his opponents and the catalogues of weaknesses that serve to disclose a God-given power to overcome them (4:8–9; 6:3–10; 11:23b–12:10), and which legitimate his ministry in the face of rivalry, appear to have numbers of parallels within Hellenism, including Hellenistic Judaism. Attention has also been drawn to Paul’s use of paradox,109 metaphor,110 invective,111 and comparison.112 The “Fool’s Speech” (11:1–12:13) probably remains the most striking example of Hellenistic cultural influence in regard to “boasting,” which, however, he subverts by his use of irony.
The veil-midrash (chap. 3), on the one hand, and the “Fool’s Speech” (chaps. 11–12), on the other, serve to symbolize that Paul was both Hebrew and Hellenist. By birth, upbringing, and profession he was a Hellenistic Jew of intense commitment to the pharisaic ideal. More fundamentally, however, the thorough christological permeation of these forms—whether the Hebraic midrash or the Hellenistic “Fool’s Speech”—reveals the profound degree by which the Hellenistic Jew, Saul of Tarsus, had been converted in heart and mind to Jesus as Messiah and to his Spirit who had now come to them.
B. Historical
Second Corinthians is no abstract piece of theology, as if written in a vacuum.113 Rather, it is Paul’s response to reports brought by Titus to him in Macedonia about the state of the church in Corinth, in particular the attitudes of the Corinthians to him at that time. When he refers to “the daily pressure of my concern for all the churches” (11:23), he is likely thinking primarily of the chaotic state of that church from whom he has recently heard and which he must visit next, the church in Corinth.
Above all, 2 Corinthians mirrors the current unhappiness of the Corinthians toward Paul. His defensive tone throughout (cf. 12:19) indicates that he faced a cluster of negative attitudes.
Attempts to reconstruct the contemporary Sitz im Leben of the Corinthian church, however, though worth the effort, are bedeviled by several problems: (1) While Paul frequently addresses the Corinthians globally, he nowhere identifies or addresses directly particular individuals or groups who oppose him, though he does occasionally refer to them in the third person (2:17–3:1; 5:12; 10:2, 7, 10; 10:12–12:13 passim).114 (2) Only rarely do we hear Corinthian words against or about him (10:10); we are driven to deduce their complaints from his rebuttals. “Mirror” exegesis is a limited tool. (3) His pastoral/theological method, whereby he deals with matters topically (e.g., the new covenant ministry—2:14–7:4), makes it difficult to know precisely who is being addressed within the particular passages.
1. Issues Addressed in 2 Corinthians
Broadly speaking, the issues Paul addresses in 2 Corinthians fall into three categories: (1) those problems evident in the the church discernible in 1 Corinthians that continued to be problems and are reflected in 2 Corinthians, (2) those matters associated with the Second Visit and the follow-up “Severe Letter,” and (3) more recent problems.
a. Problems That Continued from First Corinthians115
Although specific evidence is lacking, the factionalism evident in the First Letter probably did not cease, but continued to be a characteristic of the Corinthian congregation. Paul specified that factionalism (1) in terms of rich versus poor at the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:18–19), and (2) in relationship to particular leaders (“each one of you says, ‘I am of Paul,’ or ‘I am of Apollos,’ or ‘I am of Cephas,’ or ‘I am of Christ.’ Is Christ divided?”—1 Cor 1:12, 13). Doubtlessly these various leaders—Paul and Apollos, who had visited Corinth—and, in all probability, Cephas too—continued to have their supporters in Corinth. There was, as noted above, only a brief period between the two canonical letters. When the direct references to “divisions” and “factions” in the First Letter (schismata and haireseis—1 Cor 11:18–19) are read with the apostle’s warnings and encouragements (1 Cor 3:1–4, 16–17; 12:25), they give a picture of partisanship within the Corinthian congregation.
Hints of discrete groups are to be found in the Second Letter. The “majority” who punished the offender implies a minority who did not (2:6), and a division between the two. “Those who sinned earlier and all the others” (13:2) suggests a definable group that, in some way, is against those who have remained pure. In the Second Letter the present need for unity within the church is appealed for by a verb (“be restored”116—13:11; cf. 13:9, “What we pray for is your restoration”) that, significantly, is found in the First Letter where Paul begins to admonish them about their factionalism (1 Cor 1:10).
Particular matters raised in the First Letter that remained matters of contention in the church include (1) unhappiness (among wealthier members?) over Paul’s refusal to be supported financially (1 Cor 9:15–18; 2 Cor 11:7–12; 12:13–16), and (2) criticism (from the pro-Apollos group?) over his inadequacy in rhetoric (1 Cor 2:1–5; 2 Cor 10:10; 11:5).
The difficulties between Paul and the Corinthians implicit in these issues appear to have been intensified by later events, namely, (1) his own perceived failures (during the second visit, his nonreappearance in Corinth, and his dispatch of a letter instead), and (2) the arrival of the “false apostles.”
b. Problems Associated with the “Painful” Visit and the “Severe Letter”
A significant, though unspecified, problem arose in Corinth between the writing of the First and the Second Letters that necessitated the Second (“Painful”) Visit, which in turn required the writing of the (lost) “Severe Letter.” What was that problem? In my view Paul’s reason for making his second visit may be deduced from the final section of the Second Letter (10:1–11; 12:14–13:14), where he warns about matters to be set right before he arrives for the third time, namely, that a number of the Corinthians have not repented of the sexually related practices of “impurity, sexual sin and debauchery.”117 It is clear that not all the Corinthians were involved. He refers to “many who have sinned earlier” and “those who sinned earlier and all the others” (12:21; 13:2).
This suggests that these were the matters about which he had issued severe warnings during that visit (13:2). It is probable, therefore, that the reason Paul made his second visit to Corinth was to deal with a crisis of unrepented sexual immorality within the Corinthian church. It appears that the persistent sexual immorality, that characterized certain believers from the beginnings of the church in Corinth has put the spiritual survival of those believers in jeopardy.118
Likewise, Paul’s powerful call for separation from temple worship and idolatry (6:14–7:1) may well repeat a similar admonition made during the second visit, and which still awaits repentance by (a section of?) the Corinthian church at the time of writing 2 Corinthians. As with sexual immorality, the Corinthian believers had long-term problems with Gentile cultic worship (1 Cor 8:4–10; 10:7–22). Temple worship and sexual immorality were often culturally connected in Greco-Roman cities of the period.119 Failure to disengage from the one would have meant ongoing involvement with the other.
In his attempts to deal with these problems Paul was apparently subjected to a personal attack during that second visit. This is almost probably what he means when he speaks of a man “who did the wrong” (7:12), a man who has “caused grief” to Paul (2:5), and “the wronged party” (7:12).120 The majority of the Corinthians, though theoretically siding with Paul, did not take practical disciplinary action against the offender at the time, so that Paul left Corinth humiliated. They failed to indicate their active support for Paul against the wrongdoer until the arrival of the “Severe Letter” (2:9; 7:12). This assault on Paul may have been provoked by Paul’s insistence that some Corinthians utterly abandon their gross sexual immorality. The minority (2:6),121 who have not given their support to Paul at the time of the writing of 2 Corinthians, may be the ones he calls “all the others” who are associated with the unrepentant sexual offenders whom Paul admonishes in the light of his prospective third visit (13:2). His fear that the third visit will provoke “quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder” (12:20) appears to be based upon his memory that precisely these things occurred when he attempted to resolve the immorality issue at the last visit.
While a majority of the members agreed with Paul, their support was passive (2:9; 7:12). It is reasonable to conclude that the Corinthians felt some disappointment with Paul’s apparent indecisiveness during his second visit. His approach to the sexually immoral—and perhaps to the aggressor—had been not at all what people living in Roman Corinth might have expected. He came neither with the legal might of a Roman magistrate nor in the power of a charismatic personality but “in the meekness and gentleness of Christ” (10:1), as one who “grieved” and who “humbled” himself “before” the congregation (12:21). But this seemed to speak only of weakness (10:2–6), not strength.
Further, his failure to return to them in the immediate future in a follow-up visit, as he had promised (1:15–16, 23), and his dispatch instead of a letter, appear to have had very damaging consequences that Titus had the painful duty to convey to the apostle when they were finally reunited in Macedonia (7:6–7).
Beyond that, however, it seems that particular collectives within the wider church community were sharply critical of Paul’s actions.122 Those long-term critics of his inadequacy in rhetoric and in physical presence (10:10; cf. 11:5)—a pro-Apollos group? (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 2:1–5)—appear to have been incensed at his nonarrival and the arrival instead of a letter, which was “frightening” (10:9), which caused them much “sorrow” (2:4; 7:8–9), and which was, in part, obscure (1:13–14).
Moreover, Paul appears to be under constraint to answer the criticism that in failing to reappear he has acted out of “fleshly wisdom” (1:12), that he made his plans “according to the flesh” (1:17), and that, while recently in Corinth he had “wage[d] his warfare according to the flesh” (10:3) and “ha[d] weapons” that were “fleshly” (10:3). The criticisms that Paul’s ministry had proved to be “flesh” occur in a passage where Paul writes defensively, “If any one is confident that he is of Christ, let him remind himself that as he is of Christ, so are we” (10:7, RSV).123 When he reacts later, “Since you desire proof that Christ is speaking in me …” (13:2), it is possible that some (most?) thought they were “of Christ,” but that Paul had, by his recent visit, shown that he was not “of Christ” but, in fact, a man of “flesh,” one whose “bodily presence is weak and his speech beneath contempt” (10:10).124
But such an opinion of Paul—though now accentuated—may not have been novel. The First Letter reveals the belief that, over against Paul, the Corinthians—in his words—“already have all they wish, already are rich” and, without Paul, “rule as kings” and, again—against him—are “wise … powerful … honored” (1 Cor 4:8, 10; cf. 14:36).125 While a heightened eschatology appears to have been characteristic of the church as a whole, it is possible that those who say, “We are ‘of Christ’ ” (1:12), may have been particularly associated with that eschatology. Those who had such an outlook may have been confirmed in their low estimate of Paul by his ineffectual approach to the moral crisis in the church during the second visit and by his subsequent failure to stick to his plans to return to them (“… you desire proof that Christ is speaking in me”—13:3). They felt that he was a fundamentally “weak” person (10:10; cf. 11:21–13:4 passim), altogether lacking in “competence” (3:5; cf. 2:16). He seemed to have been subject to an endless list of misfortunes and difficulties (cf. 4:8–9). Surely his morale is low, even to the point of giving up his ministry (4:1, 16).
c. Three New Problems
In addition to the problems that had arisen during and since the “Painful Visit,” Titus also brought reports of worrying new developments.
(1) The first of these—the cessation of the collection for the “saints” (in Jerusalem)—was probably a direct consequence of Paul’s loss of standing in Corinth through the “Painful Visit” and the “Severe Letter” (see B.1.b. above). Paul had established the collection in Corinth during Titus’s visit the previous calendar year (see on 8:6, 10; 9:2), a visit that probably raised issues that Paul must answer in 1 Corinthians (see 1 Cor 16:1–2). Later, having dispatched Titus with the “Severe Letter,” Paul left Ephesus, arriving eventually in Macedonia. In his ministry to the Macedonian churches he had informed them, on a false assumption, and now to his embarrassment, that the Corinthians were “ready” with their collection (9:2). Paul addresses this major problem in chapters 8 and 9.
(2) A further problem was also in relation to financial matters. It was a sharpened version, now bitterly felt, of a complaint that went back to the first visit (1 Cor 9:3–18), namely, his unwillingness to accept financial support from the Corinthians, in breach of existing conventions governing the patronage of visiting teachers. To make matters worse, the newly arrived Jewish-Christian ministers of Christ were prepared to accept payment (cf. 11:20), something we infer the newcomers were not slow to exploit against Paul (cf. 11:12). To the Corinthians it was a “sin” that Paul “lowered” himself to work to support himself (11:7), declining their payment, a “wrong” (12:13) he inflicted on them.126 They felt slighted that he had accepted money from the Macedonians but not from them (11:8–9).
There was also a new twist to this matter. Some Corinthians now believed that his refusal to accept money during the first (and second?) visit was motivated by guile, that he was hiding behind a mask of altruism. Paul was now accused of being a “crafty” man acting out of “cunning”127 who had taken moral advantage of the Corinthians (12:16–18; cf. 4:2; 7:2). Some pointed to his coworkers’ accepting support as evidence that, after all, Paul did receive money from the Corinthians, despite his disclaimers (12:16b-18). This is why he must reassure them that he will not be a “burden” when he comes for the third time (11:9; 12:14–18), that he does not seek their possessions (12:14), and that his coworkers had not taken advantage of them on previous occasions (12:17–18).
(3) Arguably the most important problem reported by Titus to Paul relates to the newly arrived “false apostles” in Corinth.
Scholars have devoted considerable effort to identifying these opponents. So critical is the question of their identity that C. K. Barrett declared it to be “one of the crucial questions for the understanding of the New Testament and the origins of Christianity.”128
Closely linked is the question whether or not the “false apostles”129 and the “superlative” apostles130 are to be distinguished or equated. F. C. Baur argued that the “false apostles” were newly arrived ministers in Corinth, whereas the “superlative” apostles were the Jerusalem apostles from whom they had come.131 The view taken here is that the differentiation of the two is arbitrary, the transition from the former (11:1–4) to the latter (11:5) being too abrupt to make sense.
Moreover, the one explicit reference to “false apostles” is sandwiched between the two references to “superlative” (hyperlian) apostles (11:5; 12:12)132 in that part of the letter (chaps. 10–12) where Paul makes extensive use of the preposition hyper (“better”) as an ironical instrument against the pretentious claims of the “false apostles.” Paul uses words prefixed with hyper to attack the “false apostles”—for their missionary intrusiveness (over-extending themselves133) into lands beyond,134 for their boast of abundance of revelations,135 and the resulting superelation.136 To expose their boastfulness Paul himself boasts ironically of being a “better” (hyper) minister of Christ in terms of the sufferings that he catalogues (11:23ff.). The close association of hyper words with “false apostles” makes it likely that the “superlative” (hyperlian) apostles and the “false apostles” were the same people.
2. The “False Apostles”
a. Their Identity
Who, then, were these “false apostles”? It is evident from 2 Corinthians that they were a group (“many”—2:17; 11:18; cf. 10:12) of men (probably)137 who had “come” to Corinth (11:4–5) from outside (“letters of commendation”—3:1) and who had trespassed into Paul’s “field” of ministry (10:15–16), where they and their message had been “received” (11:4, 20).
The key to their identity is to be found in Paul’s questions in 11:22–23a:
Hebrews |
are they? |
So am I. |
|
Israelites |
are they? |
So am I. |
|
Seed of Abraham |
are they? |
So am I. |
|
Ministers of Christ |
are they? |
I am better. |
|
Like Paul these men are “Hebrews” and “Israelites,” physical descendants from the patriarchal fountainhead, Abraham. They are Jews.
That they have come to the Greco-Roman metropolis Corinth makes it almost certain that they were Greek-speaking Jews, as Paul also was. A significant level of competence in Greek is implied.138
Where have they come from? His allusions to “the limits God has apportioned us, to reach even to you” and “not overextending ourselves” and “our field among you” (10:12–16, RSV) appear to be to the Jerusalem Concordat whereby it was agreed that the Antioch delegates Saul and Barnabas should “go” to the Gentiles and the “pillar” apostles of Jerusalem, James, Cephas, and John, to the circumcised (Gal 2:7–9). Granted that a connection between these passages makes it likely that the newcomers were from Jerusalem, is it possible that they could have possessed the linguistic fluency sufficient for a ministry in Corinth? It is now understood that Palestine was Hellenized139 to such a degree that these “Hebrews … Israelites” may well have been capable of displaying proficiency in the rhetorical arts of “boasting” and “comparison” that are mirrored by Paul’s rebuttals within this letter (see on 10:12). Paul will not concede inferiority to these men in the fundamentals of apostleship, but he does in language (11:5–6; cf. 10:10).
But what of their interest in paranormal ecstasy, visions, and revelations (and miracles—12:12?), on which they depended (5:11–13; 12:1–6), in part at least, for their acceptance in Corinth? Are these things compatible with Jews from Judaea? Judaea in the period A.D. 44–66 was subject to political disintegration, revolutionary activism, and apocalyptic fervor expressed in prophetic inspiration and miraculous signs (see, e.g., Josephus, J.W. 2.258–59). It is quite possible that Judaea at this time represented the kind of religious environment from which these “ministers of Christ” with their “visions and revelations of the Lord” (12:1) could have come. Mirrored elsewhere in Paul’s own writing is the Jewish preoccupation with miracles: “Jews demand signs …” (1 Cor 1:22).
We conclude that these newly arrived ministers are Jews, Greek-speaking Jews, Jews from Judaea who also recognized Jesus to be the Christ (they were “ministers of Christ”—11:23).
b. Their Mission
If these men are “ministers of Christ” (11:23a), what was their “ministry,” their mission? A few verses earlier Paul called them “ministers of righteousness,” which, when read with the contrast between the “ministries”140 of the “old covenant” (i.e., of Moses) and the “new covenant” (i.e., of Christ/righteousness and the Spirit), suggests that their purpose in coming to Corinth was to “minister” the “righteousness” associated with Moses and the law (“on tablets of stone … the letter”—3:3, 6), as opposed to the “righteousness” issuing in “reconciliation with God” based on Christ’s death (3:9; 5:21), which was the “ministry” of Paul (3:6; cf. 2:17–3:4; 5:18, 19, 20).
Since their “ministry” was predicated on “tablets of stone,” that is, on the law of “Moses” (3:6–7), we take it that these “ministers of righteousness” were “Judaizers”141 and that their version of the “righteousness of God” lay at the heart of their message and was their chief point of difference with the apostle to the Gentiles.
It is not altogether clear in what terms and with what nuances the intruders presented their message about “Moses.” As those who were both “ministers of Christ” (11:23a) and “of the written code” (3:6), did they preach as their gospel that “Moses” along with Christ was foundational to faith, that Christ belonged to the covenant of Moses with no discontinuity? Alternatively, did they claim that having begun with Christ, the believer was perfected by “Moses”?142
Paul’s use of the word “righteousness” may assist us to understand the mission/message of these “ministers of Christ.” The single appearance of “righteousness” to this point in a letter written to a Greek church (1 Cor 1:30)143 suggests that the issues associated with “righteousness” had not been raised in Macedonia or Achaia until the writing of 2 Corinthians in c. 55.144 Paul’s use of the word appears to have been conditioned by its use by his opponents. Paul’s understanding of “righteousness” is thoroughly spelled out in Romans (see the key text 1:17),145 which, by general agreement, was written in Corinth not long after the writing of 2 Corinthians from Macedonia. Since it is likely that in Romans Paul is defining “righteousness” polemically against the same opponents, it would follow that their view of “righteousness” is mirrored in reverse in that letter. Although Paul makes no mention of circumcision in 2 Corinthians, it is quite possible that circumcision was part of the dispute at Corinth; it was prominent in Romans.146
Why did Paul refer to these “ministers of Christ” as “false apostles … deceitful workmen … ministers of Satan [in disguise]” (11:13–15)? The connected reference to “[disguised as] ministers of righteousness” insinuates that it was their alternative teaching on “righteousness” that provoked such strong language from the apostle. Was it because they appeared to promote “righteousness” through ceremonial/law-based behavior, which had the appearance, as it were, of “light,” rather than through the “righteousness” of the one “who was made sin” (5:21), that message which was so offensive to Jews and foolish to Greeks (1 Cor 1:23)?
The problem was not that they denied Paul apostleship. Rather, it was that they claimed (1) the same apostolic basis as he (11:12), (2) in regard to which (see 10:12–12:13), however, they said they were “superior” (hyper) and he “inferior” (hyster-). Nonetheless, although these men come on a “Christian” mission, as “ministers of Christ,” Paul saw them as pseudo, as “false apostles” (11:13) and “false brothers” (11:26) who put his life in danger and whose ministry would reap terrible consequences for them (11:15).
A number of elements that occur immediately in his apologetic excursus on new covenant ministry (2:14–7:4) call for explanation and may, in that regard, suggest certain lines of their attack on Paul. Even the casual reader is struck by the following: (1) his immediate and surprising presentation of himself in the humiliation of his sufferings (2:14), (2) his assertion of the greater glory of the new, as contrasted with the old, covenant (3:7–18), and (3) his concession that, to some, his gospel is “veiled” (4:4).
His connecting the themes of suffering, glory, and veiling, which simply appear, without introduction, does indeed raise questions in the mind of the reader.147 Where do these themes come from and why is Paul discussing them?
Our reconstruction, which is of necessity conjectural, is as follows:
(1) On arrival in Corinth, the newcomers challenged Paul’s teaching to the Corinthians on a number of matters, for example, his fulfillment eschatology (15:3–4) and his separation of those “baptized into Moses” (1 Cor 10:2; “them”—10:6) from “us … upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor 10:11). As Jews who were also Christians, they reject Paul’s inference of the supersession of the old covenant, asserting it to be still operative.
On the other hand, Paul’s claims to be an apostle are based on having “seen” the glorious Lord, the man of heaven (1 Cor 2:8; 9:1; 15:49). But this would surely demand that he be, in some sense, a “glorious” figure as Moses had been, who had seen the glory of the Lord at Mount Sinai. But, to the contrary, he is a weak, suffering figure, one lacking “glory.”
(2) The newcomers argued that Moses’ undiminished glory, as it was popularly believed to be,148 is a sign of the continuing applicability of the Mosaic covenant. In their view Paul’s preaching that the old dispensation had been fulfilled, thereby discontinuing it, is quite unacceptable.
(3) Paul’s sufferings reveal him to be anything but “glorious”; therefore, his theology of “fulfillment” must be questioned. Paul is the living denial of what he preaches.
(4) Paul’s focus on Jesus as a crucified Messiah effectively “veils” his gospel from Jewish audiences, for whom the notion of a humiliated Messiah was unimaginable (cf. 1 Cor 1:23; Mark 8:29–33).
Such a line of attack on Paul would go some distance toward explaining his theological emphases in the critical passage 2:14–4:12 with which he commences his apologia on new covenant ministry:
(1) In his humiliation in suffering Paul is “the aroma of Christ to God” (2:15), that is, he replicates the sacrificial death of Christ and so is acceptable and pleasing to God.
(2) Whereas the old covenant written on stone tables brought “condemnation” and “death,” under the new covenant there is “righteousness” and “the Spirit” (3:7–11). Glorious as the old covenant had been, its glory had only been anticipatory; it is now deglorified by the greater and permanent glory that “ends” it, the glory of the new covenant.
(3) Paul, who on the Damascus Road saw this greater glory in the face of Jesus Christ the Lord, is the bearer and, through the preaching of the gospel, the mediator of that light to all who will receive it (4:4–6). Nonetheless, he is himself a frail vessel, a mere jar of clay (4:7). His missionary sufferings and God’s deliverances from them replicate the dying, on the one hand, but also the resurrection of Jesus (4:8–12), on the other. His “death” is for the Corinthians’ “life.” But such frailty is not limited to Paul but is endemic to all who live in this age (4:16–5:10; cf. 12:19).
(4) Against their theology of Moses’ glory as the touchstone of truth and Paul’s self-evident lack of glory, Paul asserts a theology of the glory of the Crucified, in whom there is righteousness from God in place of condemnation and through whom has come the long-awaited life-giving and life-transforming Spirit of God (3:3–18; cf. 5:18–21).
(5) Moreover, the Crucified Messiah gives “cruciform shape” to a ministry that is offered in his name. The “ambassador of Christ” (5:20), like the One he represents, suffers in place of the suffering Christ for the sake of/in place of the people (12:10, 15) and is their “slave,” giving himself in death for their life (4:5, 11–12), raising them, and making them rich, as Christ had done (6:10b; 11:7).
d. Their Alliances and Method
Fortuitously for them, these men appear to have arrived in Corinth after Paul’s second visit, when his stocks were low.
But with whom did they stay? Who among the Corinthian assembly “received” these people (cf. 11:4)? Since they were “Hebrews … Israelites … Abraham’s seed” (11:22), it is almost certain that their hosts would have been Jews, possibly those who said, “I am of Cephas” (1 Cor 1:12). Whoever they were, as Hellenistic Jews domiciled in the Greco-Roman city of Corinth, they would have been able to brief their guests both about the shortcomings of Paul and about the qualities the Corinthians valued in their ministers.
Quite possibly the newcomers exploited to their advantage the low Corinthian opinion of Paul at that time,149 in several areas.
(1) As men who accept financial support for their ministry (11:20) they appear to have forged an alliance against Paul with those Corinthians who criticized Paul for not accepting payment. If Paul would receive payment, he would acknowledge their ministry to be on the same basis as his (see on 11:12).
(2) Less certainly, they have presented themselves as superior in public speaking and self-presentation, capitalizing on Paul’s perceived inferiority in these areas (10:10; 11:5; cf. 1 Cor 2:1–5).
(3) Again, less certainly, their mystic/ecstatic “visions and revelations” (5:11–13; 12:1–4) may have resonated with the ecstatic pneumatikoi of Corinth (1 Cor 4:8, 10; 14:12, 36).
One thing is clear. For their part, these newcomers legitimated their “ministry” in Corinth—over against Paul—by “commending” themselves, by “boasting”150 (10:12–12:13 passim) of their achievements, and by “classifying [and] contrasting”151 (10:12) their strengths with his perceived weaknesses. They have “letters of commendation” (from Jerusalem?); Paul has none (3:1–3). They are “self-sufficient,” “triumphant” figures; Paul is inadequate, a sorry figure as he limps from place to place in defeat (2:14–3:5; 4:1, 16). They are men of divine power (“beside” themselves—5:13; “caught up … out of the body … into Paradise,” where they see “visions” and hear “revelations” of what “cannot be told”—12:1–5152), whereas Paul is mundane, a minister without power, worldly and weak (10:3–6; cf. 1:12, 17; 5:12–13). Possibly they performed “the signs of an apostle” (12:12), whereas Paul was unable even to heal himself (12:7–9). They are powerful in speech (11:5–6) and in wisdom, whereas he is “unskilled” in speech and in general “a fool” (11:1–12:13). In all things he is “inferior” (hyster—cf. 11:5; 12:11), whereas they are superior, “better” (hyper—11:23).
To all of this “boasting” Paul responds with his “Fool’s Speech” (11:1–12:13), in which he daringly accepts their characterization as “weak” and “inferior” and in which he ironically calls them “superlative” apostles (11:5; 12:11). They are, metaphorically speaking—in their own minds—“over-uplifted” (hyperairōsthai—12:7), but according to him, it is in pride.
In all of this the Crucified One is in his mind. In his utter powerlessness in the face of his “thorn,” reminiscent of the powerlessness of Jesus on the cross, Paul learns of the prevailing grace and power of Christ (12:7–9). He willingly accepts “weaknesses” such as the “thorn” because he does so hyper Christou, “on behalf of Christ” (12:10), and, hyper … hymōn, “for your sakes” (12:15).
C. Theological153
As noted earlier,154 Paul appears to have three interlocking objectives in writing this letter: (1) to explain and defend his recent actions; (2) to exhort the Corinthians to rectify a number of matters ahead of his impending farewell visit; and (3) to take the opportunity to teach various doctrines as he pursues (1) and (2).
Clearly the theological objective was very important to Paul. After all, he could easily have dealt with (1) and (2) quite briefly. But it was important that the Corinthians understand the matters raised from a theological perspective. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that the letter is addressed to “all the saints in the whole of Achaia,” not just to the Corinthians. It was his expectation that his letters would be copied and exchanged among the churches. Although they were provoked by particular circumstances in specific churches, the theological character of this and other letters by Paul indicates that his letters were to have a use beyond those immediate circumstances.
Paul’s theology is encountered in the text of the letter, which I take to be one piece, a unity.155 His doctrines are not found under the text but in the text. To be sure, the historical questions must be asked, and, to the extent that we can answer them, they contribute to our exegetical and therefore to our theological understanding. But in the end the locus of the theology is the text itself.
1. Three Theological Themes
Are there key themes within the overall theological exposition of the letter? Given the intense and complex apologetic and polemical elements in 2 Corinthians, it is no easy task to identify them. Nonetheless, we discern three bright strands running through the letter.
a. The Eschatological Centrality of Christ
Even the casual reader of this letter is immediately struck by the words appearing early in the book, “in him … through him” (1:19–20), which point to the centrality of Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God fulfills all the promises of God under the old covenant (1:18–20), thereby bringing that covenant to its appointed “end” (3:7–11). Through Jesus Christ, the church, which has been gathered by the apostolic word centered in him, utters its “Amen” as it draws near to God in prayer and thanksgiving (1:20).
In a unique and cosmic event he has died and been raised for all, bringing the old order to an end (4:16–18; 5:17) and dividing history into “no longer” and “now” aeons (5:15–16). The “day of God’s salvation” has dawned. The blessings of the end time—the righteousness of God, reconciliation with God, and the Holy Spirit, at least by “deposit”—have come into the present (1:20–22; 5:18–6:2).
Jesus Christ is called “Lord” and preached as “Lord” (4:5). On his great coming “day,” all will be raised from the dead, all will be made manifest before his judge’s tribunal (1:14; 4:14; 5:10). The church, like a virgin daughter, is pledged to her Lord for consummation on that day (11:2–3).
Yet in his gracious incarnation, “rich” though he was, he made himself poor to enrich the impoverished (8:9). In his death, without sin though he was, he so embraced sins as to bestow the righteousness of God on all who belong to him. In “meekness and gentleness” of life (10:1) Jesus Christ was a “slave” for his people, “handed over to death” for them (4:5, 11).
In Jesus Christ, God has gathered up the past and anticipated the future. All the promises of the past are fulfilled in him; all the blessings of the future are found in him. In the light of the eschatological centrality of Jesus Christ the message of the apostle to the wayward Corinthians is simple and direct, “Be reconciled to God …” now, because “now is the day of salvation” (5:20; 6:2).
Paul does not allow the reader’s eyes to leave Jesus Christ.
b. The Apostolic Ministry in the New Covenant
But this call to be reconciled to God in this his eschatological “day” cannot be separated from the call to the Corinthians to acknowledge Paul as God’s ambassador, spokesman, and coworker (5:20; 6:1, 11–13). When God reconciled “us” (i.e., his people) to himself through Christ, he also gave “us” (now referring to Paul as apostle) the ministry of reconciliation (5:18).
Paul’s view of his ministry in this the day of God’s salvation is a strand that runs through the letter from beginning to end. That doctrine is in direct response to the negative attitudes toward him in the church at Corinth at that time, whether by local detractors or newly arrived “superlative” apostles, as he calls them, or by alliances of both local and visiting opponents.
While the precise sources of the detractions and opposition are impossible to clarify at this distance, the broad criticisms are clear enough from Paul’s answers to them, namely, that (1) he lacks resolution and integrity (1:17–22), (2) he is “inadequate” in ministry (cf. 2:16; 3:5–6), in particular, in his alleged ineffectiveness in disciplining moral offenders during the Second (“Painful”) Visit (10:1–11; 13:1–3), (3) he is self-commended (3:1; 4:2; 5:12; 6:4; 10:12; 12:11), (4) he is “inferior” to the newly arrived Jewish missioners (10:12–12:13, especially 11:5; 12:11–13), and (5) he declined their financial support or, alternatively, deviously secured it through his coworkers (4:2; 7:2; 11:7–12; 12:13–18). His apologetic tone in relation to sufferings (i.e., 2:14; 4:7) and the various sufferings lists suggest that he must explain these. How can a gospel preached by a sufferer supersede Moses when Moses was and remains a glorious figure whereas Paul, who claims to have seen the glorious man from heaven, is not?
Paul’s references to his ministry throughout the letter are conditioned by this barrage of detraction and criticism from Corinth.
(1) He is “an apostle of Christ by the will of God” (1:1), as the Corinthians should know; “the signs of the apostle were wrought among [them] … signs, wonders and mighty works” (12:12).
Undergirding this confidence is God’s historic call of him as indicated by his use of verbs in the aorist tense to point to the moment of that call. It is God who has made Paul competent156 as minister of a new covenant (3:6) and, in a probable reference to the Damascus event, he says that “God made his light shine157 in our hearts” (4:6). Twice he writes of “the authority the Lord gave”158 (10:8; 13:10). He speaks of “the field which God assigned”159 (10:13).
In a number of passages Paul makes a studied connection between the present tense, reflecting his ongoing ministry, and the aorist tense, pointing to the moment when that ministry began. Having “been convinced [at or soon after the Damascus Christophany] that one died for all,” Paul “persuades men … [being] compelled by Christ’s love”160 (5:14, 11). Again referring to his commission in the past, he writes, “God gave us the ministry of reconciliation … committed to us the message of reconciliation”161 (5:18, 19). This he contrasts with his ongoing ministry “representing Christ … God making his appeal through us. We [continue to] implore you … working with God we [continue to] to urge you”162 (5:20; 6:1). Three times Paul uses the present tense “we [continue to] speak”163 to characterize an ongoing ministry that arose from God’s unique and specific call to him to do so (2:17; 4:13; 12:19; cf. 13:3).
Mindful of the impact within him of the Damascus event, he solemnly asserts that “the truth of Christ is in [him]” (11:10), referring almost immediately, and by contrast, to “false apostles” who disguise themselves as “apostles of Christ” (11:13). Paul “speaks [the word of God] … from God” (2:17). He is a true apostle of Christ.
(2) It is not Paul, but the Lord (Christ), who commends his ministry (3:3; 10:18). Paul appeals to the Corinthians’ experience of the Spirit of the living God in their hearts (3:3, 18; 5:5; 13:14), which is theirs in consequence of his preaching in their midst (1:19–22; cf. 11:4), whereby they are a “temple of the living God” (6:16). Since this is the Spirit promised in fulfillment of the new covenant (Jer 31:31–35; Ezek 36:26–27), this is now the era of the “ministry of the Spirit” (3:8) and Paul is a minister of the new covenant, “made competent” for it by God (3:5–6; cf. 2:16). That the Corinthians have the Spirit, that Jesus Christ is “in” them, a matter they can “prove” (13:5–6), is evidence that Paul is a minister of the new covenant. Paul is not “incompetent” in ministry, but “made competent” by God. The presence and activity of the Spirit in them shows that he is not self-commended, but commended by the Lord (10:18).
(3) But yes, he is “superior” to the “superlative” apostles, though in an astonishing way. Fools boast, and Paul will boast of the foolishness, even the madness, of—of all things!—“weaknesses.” Many times in the letter (1:8–11; 4:8–11; 6:3–10), but especially in the “Fool’s Speech” proper (11:23–12:10), he will point to afflictions and sufferings sustained in the course of his ministry. The repeated sufferings-catalogues (peristaseis) show that, unlike the “superlative” apostles, the true apostle of Christ displays no triumphalism (2:14). Nor was there any triumphalism in the Christ, who was “crucified in weakness” (13:4). Paul’s sufferings replicate, extend into history, the “sufferings of Christ” (1:5; 2:15; 4:10–12; 12:10), showing that he is, in fact, a “better minister of Christ” than the “superlative” apostles (11:23).
The climax of those “weaknesses” was the “weakness” of the “thorn in the flesh … the messenger of Satan” (12:7–9). Paul had experienced a “vision and revelation” from the Lord, which had transported him to Paradise, where he had heard words that he was not permitted to utter (12:1–6). God’s “gift” of this unidentified and protracted “weakness,” however, pinned him to the earth in humility and dependence on the Lord to whom he prayed. The inference is clear. Through their “visions and revelations” the newcomers are uplifted in religious pride; they are, in Paul’s grimly ironical words, “superlative” apostles. With the “thorn” unremoved, Paul exercises his ministry in humility and patience, lacking power of his own, utterly dependent on the Lord, who himself had been powerless at Golgotha. God’s power is made perfect in weakness.
For Paul Christ in his sufferings is the model for ministry. It is “on account of Jesus”164 that Paul is the Corinthians’ “slave” (4:5), that he is continually “handed over to death” in the course of his ministry. It is “on behalf of”165 Christ that he comes as an envoy, “on behalf of” Christ that he pleads, “Be reconciled to God” (5:20), and “on behalf of” Christ that he must be content with “weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, difficulties” (12:10). Even his discipline of offenders in church is by the “meekness and gentleness of Christ” (10:1), although they took this to be “weakness” (10:10). As Jesus’ ministry was nontriumphal, so, too, was Paul’s. Paul replicated the life, but more particularly the death, of Jesus.
As the “minister” of the “Minister” (11:23; Mark 10:45), Paul “lowers” himself in arduous labor of self-support to “elevate” them in salvation (11:7), he is “spent for their souls” (12:15), and “though poor [he] makes many rich” (6:10). The “superlative” apostles, by contrast, are lords who enslave and exploit the people (11:20).
(4) Despite current allegations to the contrary, he is a man of holiness and godly sincerity (1:12; 2:17), he is true to his word (1:18), he has rejected deceit and guile (4:2), and he has not manipulated or cheated the Corinthians (7:2; 12:16–18). His life is an open book before God (12:19), and he trusts also before the Corinthians (4:2; 5:11), in the light of the coming judgment (1:14; 1:23; 2:17; 5:10).
The eschatological texts “Be reconciled to God … now” (5:20; 6:2) and “God has given to us the ministry of reconciliation … entrusted to us the message of reconciliation” are critical to this letter. It follows that the ministry and the message of reconciliation, as exercised by the apostle Paul, must be regarded as articles of faith, which the Corinthians—and all readers since—are challenged to acknowledge.
Whereas the doctrine of Paul the apostle as minister of the new covenant is a strand running through the entire letter, his teaching on the hope of the glory of God is contained within the excursus on apostolic ministry (2:14–7:4). It appears in two passages, 3:12–4:7 and 4:14, 16–5:10, both of which are universal in character and flow out of passages focused on Paul’s ministry (2:14–3:11 and 4:7–13, 15).
(1) Paul sees the glory of God as “permanent” (3:11), the ultimate goal (3:18), and beyond the universal resurrection (4:14) and the universal judgment (5:10). This glory is eternal and weighty (4:17).
(2) By contrast, within this present aeon humans are blinded to God by the god of this aeon, and perishing (4:3–4). Each is a mere earthen vessel (4:7) whose outer form is withering away (4:16) under the impact of “affliction” (4:16), a mere “tent” to be dismantled at death (5:1).
(3) By the light of the gospel, however, God shines his light into human darkness, in the face of Jesus Christ (4:6). As one turns to the Lord, there is the inner illumination of understanding that anticipates the ultimate glory of God and the believer’s conformity to the image of the Lord (3:16, 18). The present experience of glory corresponds with the present “deposit” of the Spirit, in anticipation and promise of his fullness in the end time (1:22; 5:5).
(4) Overwhelming though “such a hope” of future glory is, Paul does not minimize the dark realities of the present life. Those who are still “in the body” are not yet “at home with the Lord” (5:6, 8). The intervention of death prior to the onset of the end time will mean a time of nakedness, something that provokes a “burdened sighing.” Beyond that the tribunal of Christ the judge faces every believer with its revelation of deeds done in the body and divine recompense for them (5:10).
(5) It is likely that Paul deliberately emphasizes the painful realities of the present to bring about an appropriate sobriety to the Corinthians. It appears that they had an overrealized spirituality, along with pride, based on the evident manifestations of the Spirit among them (1 Cor 1:7; 4:7–8; 14:36). Now, additionally, they have welcomed “superlative” apostles, who boast of “visions and revelations of the Lord” (11:5; 12:1, 11).
(6) It may be no coincidence that Paul’s sober portrayal of ministry, as sketched above, corresponds to his candid presentation of the dark realities of mortal existence. Apostolic ministry is exercised in the power of God, but in the midst of weakness. But “weakness” is also every believer’s experience (cf. 4:16–5:10). To be sure, the future is laden with glory, but the present is, frankly, painful, and death is not to be romanticized. Christ was raised and lives in power, but only subsequent to the weakness of death. Only after death is there life. There is power, the power of God, but it rests upon apostles and people not in power, but in weakness. And there is glory, which is glimpsed now through hearing the gospel, but it is not yet fully realized. The children of God walk by faith, not by sight (5:7).
2. Theological Background in Isaiah 40–55
The critical eschatological text in the letter—2 Cor 6:2—is a quotation of Isa 49:8 (LXX), which belongs to an important passage within Isaiah 40–55, namely, Isa 49:8–13. When examined (in the LXX), the passage reveals a number of words—“salvation,” “covenant,” “comfort,” “lowly”—that prove to be significant within the structure of 2 Corinthians.166 Not only are individual words from this passage in Isaiah reproduced, but we also find some groupings of words in 2 Corinthians (“salvation” and “comfort” in 1:6; “comfort” and “lowly” in 7:6; cf. 10:1). This short passage in Isaiah appears to have been a quarry for a number of ideas employed by the apostle in this letter.
However, when Isa 49:8–13 is examined in the light of the wider background of Isaiah 40–66, it appears that Paul has been significantly influenced by themes found there in what he writes in 2 Corinthians.167 The themes of “new creation” and “reconciliation,” so prominent in 2 Cor 5:17–21, appear to arise out of Isaiah’s twin themes “new creation” and “restoration.”168 While there is no verbal equivalent to “reconciliation” in the Isaianic passages, the prominent concept of “restoration” bears a similarity to it. Israel’s exile in Isaiah approximates humanity’s alienation from God. In Isaiah 43 the “new creation” and “restoration” are achieved by the “ransom” of people “in exchange” for Israel (Isa 43:3–4) and by Yahweh’s “blotting out the sins” of his people (Isa 43:22–28), themes that are expressed—as fulfilled in Christ—in 2 Cor 5:17–21.
In 2 Cor 5:20–6:2, Paul views himself (and, we presume, the apostolic circle) as “Christ’s ambassadors,” “God’s fellow-workers” exhorting the Corinthians to “be reconciled to God,” and, in the knowledge that this is “the day of salvation,” not “to receive God’s grace in vain.” But then, in a short space, the apostle also urges the Corinthians to be reconciled to him, “to open wide” their hearts to him (6:11–13). Between (6:3–10) these two exhortations—one related to God, the other to himself—Paul applies to himself as a “minister of God” language evocative of the suffering “servant of Yahweh” found in Isaiah 40–55. As the apostle the Corinthians are close to rejecting, Paul reminds them that he is the divinely “sent” messenger who announces that “now” is “the time of God’s favor” and that they must be reconciled to God through aligning themselves with the message brought by his apostle. The language of suffering as embodied in an apostle (6:3–10) serves to legitimate Paul’s ministry because it was first fulfilled in the vicarious sufferings of the true Servant of the Lord, the Messiah, Jesus (5:14–21).
It seems likely that he meditated on Isaiah 40–55 in the light of the crisis in Corinth and, as it were, prophesied from it, exhorting the Corinthians—in particular the wayward groups—to align themselves with God’s “day of salvation,” which Paul had heralded.
D. Pastoral Ministry from Second Corinthians
Second Corinthians presents many inspiring texts and passages to the reader and teacher of God’s Word. A quick survey reveals approximately eighty individual verses lending themselves to extended meditation and exposition, apart from the sixty or so constituent paragraphs of the letter. This letter is a rich lode for the edification of God’s people.
But how are those who stand outside the ranks of the initial recipients of the letter to interpret and apply it to themselves?
In addressing this question two considerations should be kept in mind. One is Paul’s own pastoral method by which he was not content merely to deal with immediate issues. This he could have done in a few pages. Rather, we see Paul taking those issues and allowing them to form the agenda for a treatise of theological weight, whose application, therefore, transcends the immediate and somewhat mundane problems in Corinth of the mid-fifties.
The other consideration is that the author was not writing merely to one group of readers, the troublesome assembly at Corinth, but together with its members, “all the saints in the whole of Achaia” (see on 1:1; cf. 1 Cor 1:2). If the letter addresses issues in terms beyond the immediate, it is also directed to a broader readership than the particular target group. That Paul intended his letters to be read and passed from church to church (cf. Col 4:16) signals that their purpose, though occasioned by particular factors, was not limited to or exhausted by those particulars.
How, then, should those outside the original addressees read, interpret, and apply this letter?
The preliminary question for every reader and congregation is: Does this writer have any claim over my thinking and behavior? If Paul’s words lack a dominical authority, this letter is of only relative interest, with no power in the conscience of individual or church. No issue in this letter is more important to resolve than this. The view taken here acknowledges the unique place of the apostle to the Gentiles, authorized as he was to edify the churches (10:8; 12:19; 13:10). This letter comes to us with the full weight of canonical Scripture.
Once the canonicity of this letter is recognized, the admonitions the apostle made to that church readily carry over to churches and their members in other places and times. Throughout history churches have struggled with their relationship with their secular environment, with a tendency to stray from revealed truth and a lifestyle in accord with it, resulting in fragmentation and division. Given this fact, it is helpful for us to place ourselves in the Corinthians’ shoes and be reconciled to the God who has reconciled us to himself, who is faithful to covenantal promise, who comforts the downcast, and who raises the dead. It is also necessary to remain focused on Christ, in whom there is forgiveness and upon whom all hopes rest, and to be encouraged that the Spirit who seals believers is transforming us from glory to glory. May the churches seek the “mending” and the unity that come only through the grace of Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.
But 2 Corinthians will not permit a narrow congregationalism. The powerful appeal to complete the collection (chaps. 8–9) will not allow the Corinthians to regard themselves as the only island in the sea. Rather, they are to see themselves as part of an archipelago stretching across the world. It is, indeed, a test of their grasp of the gospel that they recognize the need for “equality” in material things among the far-flung people of God, despite the distances involved and the differences of theological emphasis and tradition between the churches of the Pauline mission and the churches of Judaea.
In one passage late in the letter Paul declares that he has not been defending himself, but speaking for the edification of the readers (12:19). It is likely that Paul is, in particular, pointing to passages about himself. Given the triumphalism of the “superlative” apostles and, indeed, the spiritual pride of the Corinthians, it is likely that Paul has in mind those passages about himself in which the nontriumphalist, “slave”-like character of his ministry has been set forth (e.g., 2:14–16; 4:1–15; 6:3–13). Above all, there is Paul’s own example, the model of one who might well have been inflated in pride through his extraordinary visions and revelations but who was forced to learn the lesson of humility and deep dependence on the Lord in the thorn that was not removed (12:1–10). Here is a rebuke for triumphalists and proud “Corinthians” of every generation.
A further matter for their edification is the triumph of the power of God in human weakness to which he has repeatedly referred. Here Paul applies to himself the motif of the death and resurrection of Christ. The message that he preached, focused on that death and resurrection, also gave shape to his own experience. His sufferings in ministry corresponded to those of Golgotha, and his deliverances to Christ’s Easter victory over death. This motif recurs, whether in reference to the deadly perils in Asia from which he was delivered (1:8–10), various unspecified missionary sufferings from which he was rescued (4:7–11), or the unremoved “thorn for the flesh,” in which, however, he was given power to persevere (12:7–11). Paul’s defense of himself to the Corinthians, in terms of God’s resurrectionlike deliverances from crosslike afflictions, is ultimately for the Corinthians’ edification, and, indeed, ours. He is the God who raises the dead (1:9), who comforts the downcast (7:6).
What, then, of the more specialized reader whose vocation is missionary or pastor? Here we face the problem that 2 Corinthians is, in particular, the apologia for Paul’s person and for his apostolic ministry. Apart from the chapters devoted to the collection (8–9), the other major passages (1:1–2:13; 2:14–7:16; 10:1–13:14), despite their diversity, are united by the common theme of Paul’s defense and exposition of his apostolic ministry. Even the plural pronouns “we … us,” with few exceptions,169 are expressive not of coauthors Paul and Timothy (1:1), nor of fellow proclaimers Timothy and Silas (1:19), but of Paul alone, Paul as apostle.170 Thus the “we” who are, for example, “Christ’s ambassadors … God’s fellow workers” (5:20; 6:1), who “preach … Jesus Christ as Lord” (4:5; cf. 11:4), to whom God gave “the ministry … the word of reconciliation” (5:18, 19), is Paul, who worked “the signs of an apostle … signs, wonders and miracles” when present in Corinth (12:12). It was in Paul’s heart that God shone his light that his apostle might reveal Jesus Christ to others (4:6), and it was he to whom the Lord gave his authority to edify the churches (10:8; 12:19; 13:10). How, then—if at all—is the missionary or pastor able to apply to himself or herself passages that Paul originally related deliberately to himself?
The answer is that the ministry of the new covenant was not confined to the generation of the apostle, but continues until the Lord comes. To be sure, Paul as apostle stood uniquely as a pioneer of that ministry, following hard on the Lord who commissioned him en route to Damascus. As revelator Paul as apostle cannot be replicated, and his insistence on self-support in ministry was peculiar to him and for unique reasons. Few are called on to suffer as he did, establishing and caring for the churches.
True, God “appointed” Paul as “apostle … teacher of the Gentiles” (1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11). But the apostolic message did not cease with Paul but was to be entrusted to others (2 Tim 2:2), so that the gospel torch is passed from generation to generation until the Lord comes.
Thus the greater part of his teachings about ministry stand as a model and an inspiration to subsequent generations of missionaries and pastors. His comments about ministry—that at its heart lie endurance and patience, sacrifice and service, love of the churches, fidelity to the gospel, sincerity before God, and, above all, a rejection of triumphalism with its accompanying pride—remain throughout the aeon to shape and direct the lives of the Lord’s servants. Paul’s ministry as sufferer and servant is precisely modeled on that of Jesus, and finds it legitimacy in the face of detraction and opposition for just that reason, as also must ours, if that is our calling. Thus 2 Corinthians may be bracketed with the Pastoral Letters in its applicability to the work of those whose vocation it is to serve God as his ministers.
E. Text for the Commentary
The text printed for this commentary is the New International Version. At many points, however, the author’s own translation is set forth, particularly where some rhetorical emphasis occurs within the original text. The Greek text underlying this commentary is the Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.; ed. K. Aland et al.; Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1993).