v. 17	What	I speak
		I speak	not according to the	Lord
			but as in foolishness,
			in this self-confident	boasting.
v. 18		Since many are
				boasting
		according to the flesh …

For the sake of this rhetorical exercise Paul casts himself in the role of his opponents. What they do he will do. If they “boast in … self-confidence, in the flesh,” then so, too, will he. “But,” he declares, it is “as in foolishness.”8 This is a two-edged comment. It is “foolish” for him; but since he is playing their part, it is “foolish” for them, too. By his parody Paul reveals their “foolishness” while at the same time positively expounding the authentic “foolishness” of God’s ways, which he, Paul, is following.

What others—Paul’s opponents—“boast” of, and their “self-confidence” in doing so, is open to question (but see on v. 18). But—by implication—Paul’s “boasting” is securely based in reality. By exposing their “foolishness” in such self-confident boasting, let them see his sanity.

18 Since “many,” indeed, do “boast according to the flesh,”9 so, too, will Paul. It is probable that the apostle is here pointing to the “many” newcomers (cf. “so many”—2:17; “some”—3:1; “some … they”—10:12) and their “boasting.” He may be thinking of their distinctive route to “righteousness” (v. 15) by means of the moral and ceremonial observances of the Mosaic dispensation (see on v. 15), which would be a ground for “boasting” (cf. Rom 3:27; Eph 2:9). On the other hand—and this would not exclude the previous consideration—he may be referring to their “boasting” in regard to the elements of ministry in which they regard themselves as “superior” to Paul as they “classify and compare” themselves with him (see on 10:12; 11:5).10

Now it is precisely because these people “boast”—for the reasons suggested—that Paul, too, “boasts.” Because they “boast,” he “must boast” (11:30; 12:1). Such “boasting” is, of course, “foolish” (see on v. 16). Their “foolishness” in “boasting” has “forced” Paul also “to be a fool” (12:11), forced him “to boast” (11:30; 12:1).

If such people can boast “according to the flesh,” so, too, can Paul (cf. “For if I wish to boast, I will not be a fool”—12:6). But his “fleshly” boasting will take a surprising turn; it will be of his “weakness[es]” (see on 11:30; 12:9).

19 The connective “For”11 introduces the basis—delayed by some verses—on which he has made the original statement (v. 16). “Receive me as a fool,” he says, “for you gladly12 put up with13 fools.” “Put up with” (vv. 1, 4, 20), along with the “fool” vocabulary (v. 1), again picks up the threads of the “Fool’s Speech” introduced earlier (v. 16; cf. v. 1).

On the face of it he is speaking of himself, as indeed he is, but with irony. The “Fool’s Speech,” especially as it intensifies in 11:21b–12:13, is focused on the “foolishness,” even “madness,” of the apostolic life. Yes, he is the “fool” (i.e., “the unwise”), whom these “wise,”14 these theologically gifted Corinthians (8:7; cf. 1 Cor 4:10; 10:15), “put up with.”

But are these who “put up with” the “unwise” Paul “wise” in fact? By a subtle twist Paul proceeds to say that they—the “wise” Corinthians—“put up with” dreadful abuse (v. 20). So are they not “unwise,” “fools”?

20 With one more explanatory “For,”15 Paul introduces the climax of vv. 16–21a. Once more Paul uses the keyword “put up with,” which, as we have seen, is capable of several nuances (see on vv. 1, 4, 19). The Corinthians are the subject of the verb “put up with,” and the object, understood, is “it.”16 When, however, he lists five situations in which the Corinthians (“you”) are the object of abusive behavior by “anyone,” it is clear that the “false apostles” are the subject and the Corinthians the object of their actions.

Instead of “putting up with” a “fool” like Paul, he cleverly reverses the object. The Corinthians themselves are “fools” who put up with (it) when the newcomers inflict indignities on them.

Again, he speaks of the newcomers (i.e., plural, as in 10:12; 11:5, 12, 13, 15, 18) in the singular, and in an impersonal manner “anyone” (so also 10:16, 18; 11:4). Five times he uses the rhetorical “if anyone.”17 Now follow the five evil actions18 of the newcomers that the “foolish” Corinthians have “put up with.” The intruders “enslave” the Corinthians, that is, subject them to the kind of domineering leadership Paul himself was careful not to impose (cf. 1:24; 12:14; cf. 4:5). Second, they “exploit” them, or, more literally, “devour”19 them, a probable reference to securing financial support from the Corinthians. Third, the newcomers “take advantage of” them, in all probability amplifying the first action, “enslave.” This speaks of exerting complete control over the Corinthians. The word “catch”20 is sometimes used of snaring a bird or catching fish (cf. 12:16; Luke 5:5). Fourth, they “push themselves forward,” again, more literally, “lift themselves up” in a superior way (cf. 10:5). Fifth, these men “have slapped [the Corinthians] in the face.” While many commentators regard this as metaphorical for “humiliate,”21 it may point more literally to some physical violence against the Corinthians.22 Of the five actions listed, this alone is specific in character, adding weight to the possibility that Paul is referring to a well-known incident in Corinth in the recent past.

Whatever the exact meaning of these five elements they represent the antithesis of the godly minister of the new covenant modeled on the “meekness and gentleness of Christ” (10:1). Such a minister gives himself to and for the people—as Christ did—in a spirit of self-sacrifice. The contrast is the more pointed because Paul will immediately relate how he has fulfilled such a ministry, and at considerable personal cost (11:21–12:13). This evil description serves as a dark backdrop against which the bright goodness of Paul’s own ministry may be seen. The exploitative and manipulative actions listed here have become all too familiar in the treatment by leaders of both adults and children in a number of highly publicized modern cults.

Paul’s subtle use of “foolish” (i.e., “unwise”) and “wise” in vv. 16–20 should be noted as applying (1) to his opponents, who, because they “boast,” show themselves to be “fools” (v. 16), whom the Corinthians also “put up with” (v. 19); (2) to Paul, who, because he, “too,” “boasts,” shows himself to be a “fool” (v. 16), and whom the Corinthians “put up with”; and (3) to the “wise” Corinthians, who are “fools” to “put up with” the “fools” who misuse them (v. 20).

21a Paul’s irony now reaches its most biting expression. If the opponents say23 he is “weak,” as apparently they do (see on 10:1), let them know that it is just as they say: “we are [too] weak24 [for that].” That is, he was too weak to treat the Corinthians as the newcomers have (v. 20). It is “to [his] shame”25 to admit it, but he does.

This ironical admission of “weakness” signals the introduction proper of the “Fool’s Speech” in the next verse, reaching its climax in the famous “power-in-weakness” passage (12:7–10). The vocabulary of “weakness[es],”26 which has been employed only once to this point in the letter (10:10), will be used constantly from this point to the end of the “Fool’s Speech” (11:21b–12:13). Because “many” have “boasted” (11:18), Paul, too, “must boast” (11:30; 12:1), but it will be in his “weakness” (11:30; 12:9); hence the importance of the introduction here of the vocabulary of “weakness.” He has been forced to be a “fool” (12:11; cf. 11:16).

b. The “Fool’s Speech” Proper (11:21b–12:10)

It is probable that this “Speech” mirrors, but so as to parody and also correct, the claims of the newly arrived false apostles. From what appear to be his responses to them, his opponents “boasted of”: (1) their Jewish heritage (11:22), (2) their accomplishments that accredited them as ministers of Christ (11:23), and (3) extraordinary “visions and revelations” (12:1–4). It is quite likely that they pointed to Paul’s evident misfortunes and humiliations in the pursuit of his ministry as signs of inferiority and incompetence. Paul will not attempt to match them in their favorable comparisons of themselves with him. Rather, he will daringly boast of “weaknesses,” the very weaknesses they deplore, so as to mock his opponents’ crassness in boasting while at the same time establishing that it is his ministry that authentically replicates the suffering ministry of Christ. The true trajectory of Christ’s ministry is to be seen as continued in Paul and his ministry and not in the ministry of these men.

In the “Fool’s Speech” proper Paul (1) exposes the triumphalism of the “false apostles,” whose keyword is hyper (they have “more” to offer than Paul, whom they are “above,” or “better” than), but also (2) “boasts” of his “weaknesses,” that is, of those sufferings incurred in the course of ministry in replication of the sufferings of Christ. This is Paul’s “foolishness,” his “madness,” which is the “foolishness” and “madness” of Christ himself. As such this part of the “Speech” is profoundly antitriumphalist and must be read with the antitriumphalism of the striking prisoner-of-war image at the beginning of the excursus on new covenant ministry (see on 2:14).

(1) Comparison: The Opponents and Paul (11:21b-23a)

21bWhat anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. 22Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. 23Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more.

This “speech” is Paul’s “daring” (v. 21b) reply to the apparent jibes that he is “weak” and a “fool,” as contrasted with them, who are are strong and wise! So, remarkably, he not only accepts their labels but expands and elaborates upon them in an astonishing catalogue of “weaknesses” and “foolishnesses.”

This, however, is not merely an ingenious disarming rhetorical device. Profound theology lies at its base. Such weaknesses and foolishnesses demonstrated in suffering in gospel ministry reveal him to be a genuine minister of Christ (“a better [minister] of Christ”—11:23) and, indeed, to be identified with Christ, who was “crucified” in weakness (13:4). If Christ is seen most definitively in his suffering on the cross, then his minister is seen most definitively in foolish weakness, not in power. In these sufferings Paul had identified with the weak as no one else had. Grimly he will ask, “Who is weak and I am not weak”? (11:29, RSV). But, then, he is able to go on, climactically, to share his experience of the power of God resting on him in his most profound experience of weakness, the “stake/thorn” (12:8; cf. 13:4).

Thus the “Speech” proper has elements of antitriumphalism as well as of triumph, characteristics that inexactly replicate those in the remarkable victory parade metaphor set out in 2:14.

21b In this brief sentence Paul begins the “Fool’s Speech” proper. It is cast in the first person singular (“I”/“me”), unlike much of the first nine chapters of this letter, which is in the first person plural (“we”/“us”). The first two verses establish this intensely personal presentation by his fourfold “I also”1 (vv. 21b-22):

In whatever anyone			is	bold
	—	I am speaking in foolishness—
		I also	am	bold.

Paul’s vocabulary—“boldness” and “foolishness”2—appears to echo a polemic against him in Corinth—the former from the Corinthians (see 10:2), the latter from the “false apostles” (see on v. 16). His own manner of life and speech as a man “in Christ” is disciplined, circumscribed by the “meekness and gentleness of Christ” (10:1, RSV). This, however, together with his well-known sufferings, appears to have led to the interpretation of him as “weak”3 (i.e., lacking “boldness”) and “foolish,” suggestive of slogans used against him.

His assertion “I am bold”—in the face of whatever it is that “anyone is bold” [about]—takes us back to a denial made earlier, “Not that we are bold to class or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves” (see on 10:12). In spite of that denial, in the catalogue following (11:22–12:10), he is indeed bold “to class and compare” himself with those who deem themselves “superior” to (hyper—lit. “over”—see on 11:5) him. But his comparisons, unlike theirs, are a tragic-comic parody of self-commendation, Paul’s “fool-speak.” So far from listing achievements that might commend and legitimate him as a minister of Christ, as the newcomers apparently have, he lists his sufferings and humiliations.

Who are these persons? Based on information scattered throughout the previous chapters, it appears they are the “self-commended” ones (10:12, 18), the “superlative” apostles (11:5), who have “come” to Corinth preaching “another Jesus … a different gospel” (11:4), those “false apostles” who as “ministers of Satan” have “fashioned themselves as ministers of righteousness” (11:13–15) and who have captured and abused the Corinthians (11:20). But in the next verses Paul will supply the piece of the jigsaw that, more than any other to this point in the letter, will assist in establishing the profile of these opponents.

22, 23a These verses are critical in the exposition of Paul’s “Fool’s Speech” (11:21b–12:13). By means of these four rhetorical questions he “classes and compares” himself with the “false apostles” (see on v. 21b; cf. 10:12).

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.

This fourfold “comparison”4 (see on 10:12) yields critical data as to (1) the identity and (2) the mission of these newly arrived opponents of the apostle. By identity these men are “Hebrews”5 and “Israelites,”6 pure members of that race descended from its patriarchal fountainhead, Abraham,7 whose “seed”8 they are.9 Of such persons (of “the people of Israel”) he writes elsewhere,

Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ. (Rom 9:4–5)

These men—like Paul—belong to God’s unique people, whom he chose and redeemed, with whom he made covenant, to whom he sent his prophets, and from whom the Messiah would come.10 They are clearly Jews.

The designation “Hebrews,” as contrasted with “Hellenists” in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 6:1), is usually taken to imply people of Aramaic speech.11 Does Paul’s present racial reference “Hebrews” (cf. Phil 3:5) also carry that linguistic import here? To the contrary, that these “Hebrews … Israelites” have come to Corinth, a Greco-Roman metropolis, makes it almost certain that they were Greek-speaking, as Paul was, even though he, too, was “of the people of Israel … a Hebrew” (Phil 3:5). For them, a significant level of competence in the Greek language is implied.12 Paul will not concede inferiority to these men in the fundamentals of apostleship, but he does in speech (11:5–6; cf. 10:10).

So these men are Jews, Greek-speaking Jews, who have “come” (see on 10:13–15; 11:4), bearing “letters of commendation” (3:1), to Corinth. But what was their purpose, their mission? Paul’s question, “Ministers of Christ13 are they?” when read alongside “such men are false apostles … fashioning themselves as apostles of Christ” (see on v. 13), supplies the answer. These men come on a “Christian” mission; their representation of themselves, apparently, was as “ministers of Christ.” But Paul saw them as “pseudo,” as “false apostles … ministers of [Satan]” (v. 13) and as “false brothers” who put his life in danger (see on v. 26).

Thus from the data scattered throughout this letter it emerges that these opponents of Paul who have come to Corinth are Jewish Christian—from their point of view, if not from Paul’s—“ministers.” What was their mission, their “ministry”? A few verses earlier Paul called them “ministers of righteousness.” When read with the contrast between the “ministries” (diakoniai14) of the “old covenant” (i.e., of Moses) and the “new covenant” (i.e., of righteousness and the Spirit), this suggests that their purpose in coming to Corinth was to “minister” that “righteousness” associated with Moses/the Law (“on tablets of stone … the letter”—3:3, 6), as opposed to that “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).

Paul does not here deny outright that they are “ministers of Christ”;15 rather, he claims to be “better,” which he proceeds to argue by the catalogue of his greater sufferings in the “Fool’s Speech” following. Indeed, his “I am better”16 controls the list of weaknesses following, including the climax, the “thorn in the flesh” (12:9).

It is noteworthy that while he condemns them as “false apostles, evil workmen … ministers [of Satan]” a few verses earlier (11:13–15), in this verse he calls them “ministers of Christ.” What is the explanation of this apparent contradiction?

Two comments are offered. First, from their viewpoint they were “ministers of Christ.” They presented themselves as “apostles of Christ” (v. 13), “preaching Jesus … a gospel” (11:4), and they came bearing “letters of recommendation” (presumably) from Christians elsewhere. Yet from Paul’s perspective as a pioneer minister of the new covenant theirs was “another Jesus … a different gospel,” belonging to a now-superseded dispensation (see on 3:6–11). The content of their doctrine found no approval in Paul’s eyes.

Second, their self-presentation was triumphalist (see on 2:14), the foil for which was Paul himself in his “foolishness” and “weakness.” They sought to legitimate their ministry by comparing themselves with Paul, pointing to their superiority and his inferiority. Paul, however, by implication, sees his ministry in its sufferings as an authentic extension of the sufferings of the crucified One. Hence his weaknesses, as listed in the passage following, point to his “superiority” as a “minister of Christ,” that is, the Christ who was “meek and gentle” (10:1), and who was crucified (13:3). Quite possibly the sufferings incurred in his own ministry as set forth in the “speech” as it unfolds were, in themselves, sufficient to discredit the ministry of these triumphalists without further comment.17

(2) Paul’s Catalogue of Weaknesses (11:23b-33)

23bI have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. 27I have labored and toiled1 and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. 29Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?

30If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying. 32In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me.2 33But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.

Paul’s catalogue of his sufferings,3 many of them related directly or indirectly to his travels,4 is his daring response to the intruders’ “classification and comparison” (cf. 10:12) of themselves as superior (hyper) to him. Such greater sufferings are not sufferings per se; they arise directly from the foolishness/madness of Paul’s missionary travels and accompanying labors. Above all, he is impacted daily by the pressure of anxiety from the churches.

The exposition of his “weaknesses” set forth here should be read with “God, who leads us in triumph in Christ” in the stunning metaphor of the Roman military triumph (see on 2:14). The details of his sufferings in the “Fool’s Speech” proper (11:23b–12:10) serve as commentary on that metaphor.

This list of Paul’s sufferings, extensive though it is, represents only part of Paul’s total story. It tells us nothing of Paul before he was a Christian. Insofar as the Acts of the Apostles relates to Paul’s life as “a man in Christ,” from the time of his call/conversion to the time of writing 2 Cor 11:23a–12:9 (i.e., Acts 8:1–20:1), a span of only twenty-five years is represented. Moreover, there would have been much more to Paul’s life than even the amalgamation of details from his letters and the Acts would suggest.

23b Paul’s elaboration of his “foolishness” (v. 21b) now begins as he “class[es] … compare[s] … measures” his ministry with that of his opponents (see on 10:12–13; v. 21a). Contrast with these “ministers of Christ” (v. 23a) is implied by the comparative “more abundantly”5 used with “labors” and “imprisonments,” by the comparative “surpassingly”6 used with “floggings,” and by the adverb “frequently”7 with “[exposed to] death.”8

This list of four sufferings—“labors … imprisonments … floggings … [exposed to] death”—summarizes in advance the matters on which he will elaborate.9 Thus he picks up “labors” in v. 27a (see on 6:5), “imprisonments” (by inference) and “floggings” in vv. 24–25a (see on 6:5), and “[exposure to] death” in vv. 24b-26. Whether on the road traveling from place to place or operating from a particular base of ministry, Paul faced suffering and danger to a greater degree, by implication, than those interlopers who have encroached into his “field” of ministry and taken advantage of his “labors” (see on 10:14–15). That they have come a considerable distance may not be denied, but at nothing like the personal cost incurred by the apostle.

It is significant that “labors” is the first-mentioned suffering (cf. v. 27). “Labors” were necessary because Paul steadfastly refused payment from the churches, offering the gospel freely (see on v. 7). This was the badge of his apostolate to the Gentiles as exercised, for example, in Achaia, which the intruders—because they accepted payment—could not wear (see on vv. 10, 12, 20). There is little doubt that had Paul accepted the patronage10 of the members of the churches—protection, payment, and gifts—many of the sufferings now listed would not have occurred. Thus refusal to accept such patronage and its concomitant, the necessity to “labor,” was not only a sign of his divine apostolate but also a significant instrument of his sufferings. But accepting such patronage would have reduced his ministry to their level, thus removing his distinctiveness (see on v. 11).

Unlike the verses preceding and succeeding, which use the generalized references “more abundantly” (v. 23), surpassingly” (v. 23), and “frequently” (vv. 23, 26, 27), vv. 24–25 give specific numbers—“five times,” “once,” and “three times.” In their statements of their exploits the great Romans appealed to statistics; for example, in his Res Gestae Augustus declared, “Twice I received triumphal ovations. Three times I received curule triumphs. Twenty times and one did I receive the appellation of imperator” (Res Gestae 4).11 The numerical details given here by Paul probably belong to that tradition, except that Paul’s catalogue points to his suffering and defeat.

24–25a Paul first expands upon the two kinds of “flogging” introduced in the previous verse: (1) “under Jews”12 (the “forty lashes minus one”13) and (2) at Roman hands (“beaten with rods”).

The former punishment arose from Deut 25:1–5, which provided for the flogging of an offender after being found guilty by judges in a court. In no case was the beating to exceed forty, administered to the man or woman bending down. The Mishnah tractate Makkoth, which corroborates Paul’s “forty lashes minus one,” nominates false witness (e.g., about a priest, that he was the son of a divorced mother—Mak. 1:1) as an offense for which this punishment was administered. The minister of the synagogue was to stand on a raised stone inflicting the blows “with all his might,” using a redoubled calf strap, to which two other straps were attached. Thirteen blows were delivered to the chest and twenty-six to the back. The severity of this beating can be inferred from the provisions made in the event the offender defecated, urinated, or even died as a result of their blows.

On no less than five occasions the apostle “received” this the most severe beating permitted by the Jewish scriptures, which Josephus called “a most disgraceful penalty.”14 Neither the Acts of the Apostles nor Paul’s letters refer elsewhere to these five synagogue floggings, so that we do not know the basis of these punishments that were inflicted on him. Perhaps they arose from false charges and were designed to deter his ongoing presence in a particular town or city.

The other kind of beating Paul received—the Roman—is set in balance with the Jewish. Such “beating with rods”15 must have occurred within those cities known to have been visited by the apostle that were Roman colonies, that is, Antioch of Pisidia, Lystra, Troas, Philippi, or Corinth.16 Clearly Philippi was one such (Acts 16:22, 23, 35, 37, 38); we can only guess the location of other two. In Roman colonia the praetors (stratēgoi) were preceded in public by lictors (rabdouchoi) who bore, as symbols of authority, bundles of elm or birch rods bound together (Latin fasces) as instruments of punishment. At the instruction of the praetor, the lictors would publicly beat malefactors to inflict summary and deterrent chastisement (Latin coercitio). As a Roman citizen Paul ought not to have suffered this indignity (cf. 1 Thess 2:2), though there are examples where the rights of Roman citizens were disregarded in this matter.17 The provocative nature of Paul’s ministry created public scenes, such as that recorded in Philippi, and resulted in the rough treatment described there (Acts 16:16–23).

25b, c, d In addition to the numerous “beatings” (vv. 23, 24, 25a), which might easily have proved fatal, Paul enumerates other occasions when he was “exposed to death” (v. 23).

The “once” he was “stoned”18 must be that occasion in Lystra (so Acts 14:1919), though an attempt was contemplated in Iconium beforehand (Acts 14:5). Jews inflicted stoning as a capital punishment on adulterers, apostates, and blasphemers (Deut 17:5; 22:22–24; m. Sanh. 7:6–7). Ironically, Paul himself had collaborated in the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58–59). When we add this stoning to the five synagogue beatings (v. 24), we are able to gauge the sufferings of the apostle at the hands of his “countrymen” (v. 26; cf., e.g., 1 Thess 2:15; Rom 15:31; Acts 9:23, 29; 13:50; 17:5, 13; 18:6; 19:9; 21:30–31).

Neither Paul’s letters nor the Acts of the Apostles casts light on Paul’s “three times I was shipwrecked”20; the famous shipwreck en route to Rome (Acts 27:12–44) occurred subsequent to the writing of 2 Corinthians. Nonetheless, Paul often traveled by sea in the course of his ministry before that journey,21 providing many opportunities for shipwreck. The leaky wooden vessels of antiquity had no life rafts nor meteorological early warning facilities. With good reason travelers faced sea voyages with trepidation. Maritime disasters were frequent.22

Finally, he specifies that he “spent23 a night and a day24 in the open sea,”25 doubtless the most desperate of the three experiences of shipwreck just mentioned. From this terse description it is likely that Paul then felt all hope was gone.

When the events of vv. 24–25 are added—the five synagogue beatings, the three Roman floggings, the stoning, the three shipwrecks, one involving twenty-four hours in the open sea—we find that on at least eleven occasions Paul was indeed “exposed to death” (v. 23). This list, however, is only by way of example; it is probably not complete. Within this very letter he mentions the near-death experience in Asia (1:8–10), which finds no reference here.

26 To the four extremities listed in v. 23—“labors … imprisonments … floggings … [exposed to] death”—he now adds a fifth, “journeyings frequent.”26 Such travels were implicit in God’s commissioning of Paul as his “apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom 11:13); he did not go as a tourist! From c. A.D. 34–4727 his movements were restricted to the eastern Mediterranean (Damascus—Jerusalem—Syria and Cilicia—Antioch—Jerusalem—Antioch), but thereafter the will of God bore him further afield, to the towns and cities of the provinces of Pamphylia, Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia and Asia.

Implicit in such “journeyings” were “dangers,”28 eight of which he now recalls, the first four of which appear to be grouped in pairs, all of which climax with an indirect reference to the false apostles.

The first pair of “dangers”—“of rivers … of robbers”—is an example of the hazards the traveler of those times might encounter along the way. Bridges in remote regions were rare; many “rivers” would need to be forded, which in times of flooding—including “flash flooding”—would have presented acute difficulties. The apostle does not indicate the names of the rivers, but, with their tributaries, they will have included the Jordan in Judaea and Trachonitis, the Orontes in Syria, the Cydnus in Cilicia, the Meander and Cayster in Asia, and the Strimon and Axios in Macedonia.

Once out in the country away from urbanized regions private travelers, as opposed to escorted official parties, were vulnerable to the depredations of “robbers.” This was true even in the era of greater stability provided by the Pax Romanum.29 The poverty of life drove many to join groups of brigands who ranged unchecked in many rural regions. Where times of acute food shortage coincided with times of political turmoil—as they did in Palestine during and after the late forties on account of the great famine—the ranks of the brigand bands were swollen dramatically, assuming a political significance, especially if there was a “charismatic” leader.30

By contrast with the preceding pair, the next—“dangers from my own countrymen,31 dangers from Gentiles”—reflect problems faced by the apostle in towns and cities. Not uncommonly such “dangers” to Paul arose from a combination of Jewish and Gentile forces against him, as, for example, in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Thessalonica, and Corinth, where Jews stirred up, or attempted to stir up, Gentile action (Acts 13:50; 14:2, 5, 19; 17:5–6; 18:12). However, Paul was also endangered by Gentiles independently of any Jewish action, as, for example, at the time of the uprising of the silversmiths of Ephesus, which forms the immediate background to this letter (Acts 19:23–41; cf. 2 Cor 1:8–11).

At this point the classification of the “dangers” in pairs breaks down. Paul now introduces a triad—“dangers in the city, dangers in the country, dangers at sea”—thus giving an expansive impression of the breadth of his missionary travels. Of these “dangers” those of the “city … country” make explicit—in reverse order—what was implied in the first and second grouping (“rivers … robbers … my countrymen … Gentiles”). Whether in “the city” or “the country,” Paul the missionary traveler faced distinctive perils. Added to that, however, was the danger he had faced from the “sea” (“three times shipwrecked, a night and a day in the open sea”—v. 25).

Anomalously, “dangers from false brothers”32 stands alone and unpaired at the foot of the list, thus giving it preeminence in this catalogue of hazards to Paul’s life.

Paul’s reference here to “false brothers” (pseudadelphoi) and to “false apostles” (pseudapostoloi) earlier in this passage (v. 13) is striking; he rarely uses words with the prefix pseud-.33 Some connection between the two is implied. In regard to “false brothers” the context of the only other reference (Gal 2:4) identifies them as believers (they were in some sense “brothers”) in Jerusalem who were revealed to be “false” by their attempt to make obligatory the rite of circumcision on the Gentile believer Titus, thus overturning “the truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:5; cf. 2:14). These same “false brothers” came from Jerusalem to Antioch, attempting to compel Gentiles “to live like Jews,” thus compromising the “truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:11–14).

Paul’s sole reference to “false apostles” is within this passage and points to those newly arrived persons who have sought to pass themselves off as “apostles of Christ” (see on v. 13). These “false apostles” are “Hebrews … Israelites … seed of Abraham … ministers of Christ” (v. 22) and are, in all probability, to be identified with the “false brothers” of v. 26 (and Gal 2:4). “False brothers” who are “false apostles” have—in some sense—been welcomed by believers in Corinth (11:4), and bring “danger” to the apostle. Paul’s life may have been indirectly imperiled by the action of members of the Corinthian assembly.

We can only speculate how such “false brothers” posed “danger” to Paul. Since they were observant Jews (from Jerusalem?) who had come to the cities in the Jewish Diaspora where Paul had established his Gentile-dominated assemblies devoted to the Messiah Jesus, their “danger” to him may have arisen indirectly from their contact with the synagogues that effectively put in negative contrast Paul’s insistence that no demands be imposed on Gentiles touching the ordinances of Judaism (cf. Gal 5:1). The presence locally of such Jewish Christian “brothers” may have sparked off a chain reaction34 whereby first Jews and then, in consequence, Gentiles35 opposed Paul, thus putting his life at risk.

27 Having indicated the various sources of hardship—“labors … imprisonments … floggings … [exposed to] death … journeyings” (vv. 23, 26), Paul now reflects on these from the perspective of their personal impact on him.36

Structurally, Paul sets forth three doublets that are separated by two examples of “frequently” experienced (see vv. 23, 26) privations.37

By labor and toil,

in sleepless nights frequently,

in hunger and thirst,

without food frequently,

in cold and nakedness

The apostle’s determination not to burden the churches—a point of dispute in Corinth (see on 11:7–12; cf. 1 Cor 9:12, 15)—is captured by his doublet “by labor and toil,”38 a phrase he uses elsewhere in relation to his work in supporting himself (1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:8). Night and day in place after place Paul labored at the exhausting and filthy task of making and repairing leather tents39 (see on v. 7).

This is followed logically by the punctuating privation “in sleepless nights frequently”; much of Paul’s “labor and toil” was done at night in order to permit his preaching the gospel by day (1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:8; see on 6:5, where “labor” and “sleepless nights” are paired).

The second doublet, “hunger and thirst,” probably evokes memories of sufferings associated with vast distances Paul traveled through the inhospitable and barren terrain of the eastern provinces. It was his lot to experience the extremes of flooded rivers on the one hand (v. 26) and, in all probability, dry creekbeds on the other. Moreover, many miles separated the towns along the way where the apostolic traveler might find work to do and food to purchase.

The second punctuating doublet, “without food frequently” is repeated from the earlier list, where it is also joined with “labor” and “sleepless nights” (6:5). It is probably to be associated with involuntary lack of food rather than with fasting, which finds no clear reference in Paul’s letters (see on 6:5).

The concluding doublet, “in cold and nakedness,”40 an illogical sequence, perhaps evokes memories of shipwreck, capture by robbers, or imprisonment.

So concludes the apostle’s list of his physical sufferings begun at v. 23b. He will turn now to speak of his emotional pain (vv. 28–30).

28 The opening words, “apart from everything else,”41 serve to tail off the sufferings listed in vv. 23b-27. They signal that the list is illustrative, not complete. Nonetheless, logically they belong with and introduce the two phrases following: (1) “the daily pressure on me,”42 that is, (2) “my anxiety for all the churches.” The location of this verse at the end of the list of privations suggests that his concern for the churches was the source of his deepest suffering. The questions of the next verse, “Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I do not burn?” clinch the point.

By “all the churches” Paul means the churches established by his apostolic mission and for which he bore an ongoing sense of “anxiety.” This sense of “anxiety” was fed by the daily “assault” (epistasis) of the reports about those churches that came to him, whether by letter or by personal contact. Paul’s letters are his response to the succession of communications that impacted him and provoked deep concerns for his fragile missionary assemblies. The extant letters to the Corinthians, for example, objectify and “freeze” for all time the “anxiety” he felt for them at the time in response to the news about them as it came to him.

Given the alienation of the world from God and its treatment of the One who came from God (cf. 5:18–21), it is no surprise that the apostle of Christ to the Gentiles should encounter the opposition and difficulties listed above in the course of his journeys proclaiming the word of God (cf. 2:14–17). However, we might have expected that, by contrast, the assemblies of believers called into being by that word would have been a source of unalloyed pleasure to him. To be sure, he acknowledges great joy arising from, for example, the Philippians and the Thessalonians (Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19), and he refers to the churches generally as “the glory of Christ” (see on 8:23). Nonetheless, not even those churches that brought him joy were without their shortcomings, to say nothing of the Corinthians! Thus he speaks of “pressure” on him with its resulting “anxiety” for these communities of faith, thus serving as a reminder that although the “day of salvation” has arrived (6:2), it is not yet perfected. The churches of God were and remain a source of joy, but also of anxiety, to those who are their pastors.

Thus Paul completes his list of sufferings. Under the general headings of “labors … imprisonments … floggings … [exposed to] death … journeyings” (vv. 23b, 26a),43 he has given numerous examples of grim events that impacted on him and that he sustained in the course of his mission work. But coming at the end of the list, as if to reach a climax, he cites “the daily impact on me, my anxiety for all the churches.” According to Chrysostom, “This was the chief thing of all, that his soul was distracted, and his thoughts divided.”44

The catalogue of hardships—general and specific, objective and emotional, physical and spiritual—that he has supplied provides an indelible image of Paul’s apostolic ministry. But Paul does not paint a freestanding picture of his apostolate; he intends it as a paradigm for the comparison of his ministry with those “ministers of Christ” who claim to be “better” (hyper—cf. v. 23a). If he is a “better” minister of Christ (v. 23), it is precisely because by this list of “weaknesses” he follows the paradigm of Christ. By their self-presentation the “false apostles” measured themselves as “superior” and Paul “inferior,” so as to disenfranchise him (see on vv. 4–6). But he will not engage in those comparisons, except to point to sufferings that surpass theirs. In an insight of modern applicability, Chrysostom noted long ago that Paul says nothing here about results, about the number of his converts; he counts only the sufferings incurred in missionary labor to prove the reality of his calling.45

29 Finally, and in direct response to v. 28, he asks rhetorically:

Who46	is weak,	and I am not weak?
Who	is made to fall,	and I am not indignant?

By these two questions, “am I not weak?… am I not indignant?” Paul spells out the “anxiety” of the previous verse. It is the “anxiety” of the pastor’s compassionate identification with “the weak” and with “those who have been made to fall.” Here is the greatest suffering of the apostle Paul.

But there is another level of understanding.47 Paul’s question effectively completes his “comparison” of v. 21b and establishes that he is a “better … minister of Christ” (v. 23), a “comparison” that he proceeded to illustrate by catalogues of “labors … imprisonments … floggings … [exposed to] death … journeyings” (vv. 23b, 26a; cf. vv. 23b-28). Thus the answer implicit in his question is: “No one compares with Paul in the ‘weakness’ of privations suffered in the pursuit of his ministry. The ‘false-apostles’ claim ‘superiority,’ but if the marks of true Christian ministry are suffering in Christ’s service, Paul is ‘better.‘”

Paul’s question takes us back to his biting attack on their exploitation and violation of the Corinthians (v. 20), in which he bitterly asserts, “To my shame we were too weak for that” (v. 21a). Thus Paul’s question, “Who is weak, and I am not weak?” declares his pastoral identification with and care for the “weak” in the churches, something that he elaborated in the First Letter (1 Cor 8:9–13; cf. Rom 14:1–23). Paul identifies with the oppressed and abused in the church against those intruding false shepherds who exploit them.

This identification is restated and painfully reemphasized in the second rhetorical question, “Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?” Paul’s concern lest the “weak” among the Corinthians are “made to fall”48 reflects his burden expressed elsewhere (1 Cor 8:13; Rom 14:21) and takes up the warning of the Lord, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin …” (Mark 9:42 pars.; cf. Matt 18:7; Luke 17:1). Here, paradoxically, Paul combines gentle pastoral identification with fiery indignation49 for the abused “weak” among God’s people. This combination of loving identification with and hot indignation for the misused among the people of God may be seen earlier in Jesus’ teaching (as above) and example (the expulsion of the merchants from the temple—John 2:16), and beyond that to the prophets’ denunciation of the false ministers of Israel for their assault upon the vulnerable members of the covenant people (e.g., Isa 28:7–9; Jer 23:9ff.; Ezek 12:21–14:11). Such passionate care is of a piece with the apostle’s “godly jealousy” for Christ’s bride-to-be, the (Corinthian) church, vulnerable to deflection from loyalty to her Lord (see on vv. 2–4).

Thus, this verse is very important within the structure of the “Fool’s Speech” because (1) it drives home to the Corinthians his greatest pain of all, his “anxiety” for the churches (v. 28), including the Corinthian church, and (2) it reintroduces the “weakness” theme of v. 21, so that “weakness” can be repeated in the next verse, but now as the object of another keyword, “boasting” (vv. 10, 12, 16, 17, 18). These two words provide the link to the great climax of the “Fool’s Speech,” Paul’s “boasting in weakness” (see 12:1, 5, 6, 9, 10).

30 As noted in v. 29, this verse—together with that verse—forms the base from which springs the climax of the “Fool’s Speech,” where Paul “boasts” of his “weaknesses” (12:7–10). Retrospectively, it goes back to the previous chapter, where Paul refers to those who would “classify or compare” Paul with themselves so as to “commend” and “boast” of their ministry (10:12–13) as “superior” to his (11:5, 23).

“If,” or, better, “since,” he “must boast,”50 he “will boast51 of [his] weaknesses.”52 In the struggle between the intruders and Paul, the founder of the church in Corinth, “boasting” by means of “classification and comparison” was employed to establish superiority (“better”—hyper—v. 23) and therefore legitimacy in ministry. Paul’s opponents, whom he calls “superlative” apostles (v. 5; 12:11), “boasted” of their superiority—but “according to the flesh” (v. 18), in professionalism in speech (11:5–6), and in “visions and revelations” (12:1).

But Paul will “boast” only of “weaknesses,” of those privations that arose from traveling from place to place, in “labor and toil” so as to offer the gospel “without charge,” the badge of his apostleship (see on vv. 10, 12). To “boast” of “weaknesses” and to “boast” of “not being paid” (v. 10) are closely related.

The rhetorical question (“Who is weak, and I am not weak?”) in the the previous verse demands the answer that Paul excelled all others in “weakness,” making him—in their terms—a “better” minister of Christ (v. 23). This is not the way Paul would have ordinarily expressed it. It is “fool’s speak” (vv. 1, 16 [twice], 17, 19; 12:6, 11), the talk of a “madman” (v. 23), by which he mocks and parodies their manner of seeking superiority over him. But because “many” have “boasted” (11:18) as a result of their “comparison” and “classification” of Paul with themselves, they have forced him to become a “fool” (12:11). Thus, he “must boast” (cf. 12:1), and so be a “fool.” As such he is the poor, stumbling, suffering prisoner-of-war led about by God in his victory triumph (see on 2:14).

31 “Foolish” though this speech is, it is nonetheless true, as he now proceeds to declare by this oath:53

The God and Father of the Lord Jesus,

who is blessed forever,

knows that I do not lie.

Here Paul speaks as both a Christian and a Hebrew. As a devoted Israelite (v. 22), he acknowledges the “God … who is blessed forever.” This devout ascription to God finds many parallels in the synagogue benedictions of that period (e.g., “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God and God of our fathers … Blessed art thou, O Lord, the shield of Abraham”54).

But as a Christian believer he now “blesses” the God of his fathers as “The God and Father of the Lord Jesus” (see on 1:3).55 This brief benediction testifies (1) to the conviction of Jesus of Nazareth that he was “son” of his abba-God (see, e.g., Mark 12:6; 14:36; Matt 11:25–27), and (2) to the remarkable conversion of the persecutor Saul of Tarsus in acknowledging that the crucified Nazarene was the “Lord,” the “son” of the God of Israel (1:19; 4:5; cf. Gal 1:15–16), whom he must now “bless” as the “Father of the Lord Jesus.”

In what he has been saying about his “weaknesses” (vv. 23–28)—and what he will yet say about them (12:5–10)—Paul adjures that “God … knows that I do not lie.”56 The oath asserting his truthfulness earlier in the chapter (“the truth of Christ is in me”—v. 10) must be seen as echoed, though inverted, in this oath denying deceit. These oaths are connected (see on v. 10). The former oath supports his “boast” in offering the gospel “free of charge,” while the latter oath sustains his “boast” of “weaknesses” (v. 30; cf. vv. 23–28). These “weaknesses,” however, significantly flow from his “labors” (v. 23; cf. v. 27), the direct consequence of insisting on a ministry without payment.

By his asseveration “God … knows” Paul is profoundly aware of God’s knowledge of his inner life (“what we are is known to God”—5:11, q.v.; cf. 2:17; 4:2; 12:19). The force of Paul’s denial of duplicity (“I do not lie”—ou pseudomai) is very pointed in regard to those whom he has called “false apostles” (pseudapostoloi) … . deceitful workers … false brothers (pseudadelphoi—vv. 13, 26). Paul’s truthfulness before God serves to emphasize their deceitfulness and falsity.

32–33 These verses strike even the casual reader as odd. Having given this list of grim privations, why does Paul now relate his being lowered down the city wall of Damascus and his escape from the Ethnarch who had set guard on that city to seize him? Numerous explanations have been offered for the description of this event, which appears so out of place in Paul’s argument.57

Two connected reasons that may best explain these verses58 and account for their location in relation to the passage following59 are (1) that being “lowered down” in these verses symmetrically counterpoises his description of the man who was “caught up” into the “third heaven/Paradise” (12:2, 4), and (2) that taken together his being “lowered down” and “caught up” form a comic-tragic parody of his opponents’ “boast” of “superiority” arising from their “visions and revelations” (12:1). By this hypothesis vv. 32–33 establish an ironic counterbalance (“lowered down”) that will be exploited in the passage following (“caught up”).

These verses primarily serve Paul’s rhetorical purpose as part of his “Fool’s Speech” against his opponents’ claims to superiority. Nonetheless, they also supply, firsthand, valuable historical detail that supplements the account of Paul’s ministry in Damascus found in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 9:8–25, especially 9:23–25).

After Christ’s encounter with him en route to Damascus, Paul entered the city; then, after an indeterminate period, he went to “Arabia,” before returning to Damascus (Gal 1:17). It is uncertain whether Damascus was under Nabataean (i.e., “Arabian”) or Roman control during the thirties.60 Either way the Nabataean king, Aretas IV,61 had an “Ethnarch”62 in the city, either as his governor (in the less likely case that Damascus was then under direct Nabataean rule) or as Aretas’s appointed leader to the Nabataean community within Roman jurisdiction (in the more probable case that the city was then under direct Roman rule).

Although Paul was sought by Nabataean authorities in the city, the historical uncertainty about the control of Damascus at that time leaves open the question whether his misdemeanors were committed inside Damascus or in “Arabia,” that is, within the Nabataean kingdom. Whatever the case, at some time after his return to Damascus, the Damascene Ethnarch of a Nabataean king set guards63 at the city gates in order to seize Paul. But Paul eluded the Ethnarch’s guards64 and made his escape through a window in the city wall65 from which he was lowered66 (by Paul’s “disciples”—Acts 9:25) in a “basket,”67 and so escaped his clutches.68 It is difficult to escape a note of ignominy here. No scaler of the wall bringing victory he; no crown of gold for his crowning victory. Rather, like a coward in battle, he “escapes” through the wall and is lowered to the ground in what may have been a fish basket! After Paul’s escape from the Nabataean Ethnarch of Damascus he went to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18).

The incident described in these verses impinges on our chronological reconstructions of Paul’s ministry. The death of Aretas IV in A.D. 40 establishes the latest date possible for Paul’s escape from Damascus, and therefore a latest possible date A.D. 37/38 for Paul’s conversion two to three years earlier (see Gal 1:15–18). It is quite likely, however, that, given A.D. 33 as the year of the crucifixion of Jesus,69 Paul’s Damascus Road encounter would have occurred in A.D. 34/35, and the flight from Damascus in A.D. 36/37.

(3) The Climax of Weakness (12:1–10)

Now we come to the climax of Paul’s “Fool’s Speech,” the point where he “boasts” of his most extreme “weakness,” the “thorn in the flesh … a messenger of Satan” (12:7–9). But here, too, we arrive at the climax of his exposure of the religious pride of the “superlative” apostles.

Through “visions and revelations” from the Lord, Paul had been transported to Paradise, where he had heard words that he was not permitted to utter (12:1–6). But God’s “gift” to him of a protracted and debilitating “weakness” pinned him to the earth in humility and dependence on the Lord. Notwithstanding repeated prayer, the “weakness” was not removed; Paul had to be content with Christ’s power to endure this suffering. The message is clear. Through their “visions and revelations” the newcomers are uplifted in religious pride; they are, indeed, “superlative” apostles. In the unremoved “thorn” Paul exercises his ministry in humility and patience, lacking power of his own, utterly dependent on the Lord. God’s power is made perfect in weakness.

(a) Visions and Revelations (12:1–6)

1I must1 go on boasting.2 Although there is nothing to be gained,3 I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows—4was caught up to Paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. 5I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what4 I do or say.

Paul’s “boasting” is an unprofitable exercise, something that the “boasting” of his opponents has forced upon him (vv. 1, 11). Indeed, much that follows appears to “mirror,” but so as to correct, the claims of these men. Thus he will come to “visions and revelations from the Lord” (v. 1), specifically the rapture of a man in Christ, some fourteen years ago, in which, however, the man “caught up” brought nothing back that he was free to tell (vv. 2–4). Should he choose to boast of that man, it would not be foolish; all that he says is true (v. 5). But he will boast of weaknesses, that is, about himself, lest they think “more” than they should of the man they have seen and heard (v. 6). Thus Paul does not deny the substance (that he had such experiences), but their significance! Contrary to the intruders’ hopes, such phenomena do not authenticate ministry.

1a Paul’s “I must go on5 boasting”6 serves as a reminder of the daring rhetorical exercise in which he has been engaged (as from 11:1, the formal beginning of the “Fool’s Speech”), in which “boasting” has played a critical role (see 11:16, 17, 18, 30).

But “boasting” is (1) the action of a “fool” (cf. 11:16), (2) is not speaking “according to the Lord” but “in foolishness” (11:17), and (3), by inference, “is not helpful”7 (NIV, “nothing [is] to be gained”). Why, then, does Paul “boast”? Because “many”—that is, Paul’s opponents, the false apostles—“boast” (11:18), Paul, “too, … must boast” (cf. 11:30). He has been “forced” to be “a fool” (12:11), given no alternative but to “boast.”

Thus this short opening statement serves (1) to remind us of the important “boasting” theme, as used to this point, and (2) as a platform from which will spring his remarks about “boasting” to bring the “Fool’s Speech” to its climax (v. 9).

1b Despite its questionable helpfulness Paul will speak about his visions and revelations. His use of the balancing particles8 sets in contrast the two phrases:

Although it is unhelpful,

nonetheless

I will come to visions and revelations from the Lord.

While on the one hand there is no benefit in it, yet on the other he will proceed to “visions and revelations.” Thus Paul signals immediately that such things are irrelevant in the present discussion on legitimacy in apostleship (“It is not helpful, but …”). It is only because the Corinthians have forced him to become a “fool,” that is, “to boast” (12:11; cf. 11:16), that he does so. But, as we shall see, boast of “visions and revelations” he will not, but of “weaknesses” (v. 9). Such matters as “visions and revelations” are private, between Paul and God; they are “for God,” not “for the Corinthians” (see on 5:13).

Did these “visions and revelations”9 emanate “from the Lord,” or were they “of the Lord,” that is, did they have the Lord as their object? Paul’s genitive (kyriou) could mean either “from the Lord” or “of the Lord,” or both. The view we have taken is that “visions and revelations” are “from the Lord”10 because (1) “Lord” is more likely to be subject than object since both nouns are connected to it, because (2) in vv. 2–4 no appearing of the Lord to Paul is involved, and because, (3) given the centrality of Paul’s Damascus road call (Gal 1:16, 18; 2:1), we would have expected a different form of words; “revelation” would have been singular, and it would have preceded “visions.”

That God gave Paul “visions and revelations from the Lord” is well attested within his own letters and by the Acts of the Apostles.11 However, the terminology is curious: (1) “visions” precedes “revelations,”12 and (2) both are plural. We suggest that the expression is offhand, and perhaps dismissive in intent.13 If, as seems likely, his opponents are claiming paranormal experiences14 to validate their apostolate (cf. on 5:12–13), the very vagueness of Paul’s reference may be his way of asserting the uniqueness of his apostolate. Having urged his apostolicity upon them in the First Letter (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8) on the basis of having seen the risen Lord, Paul may not wish to repeat such validation, or enter into “comparison” with them as if they were on equal terms with him (10:12; 11:12), as if he needed to reestablish his dominical calling. Rather, it appears that Paul wants that office to be accepted as a given, without further dispute.15

2–4 Since these verses have a delicate, integrated structure, they cannot be easily separated. It is best to treat them as a unit16 and comment on them together.

2	I	know a man17 in Christ
				who, fourteen years ago,
						whether in	the body
	I do not		know,
						whether out of	the body
	I do not		know.
	God		knows.
				Such a one
					[was] caught up to the third heaven.
3	And I	know
				such a man,
						whether in	the body
						whether out of	the body
	I do not		know,
	God		knows,
4			that	he was caught up to Paradise
			and	he	heard unutterable words,
					which are not lawful
			for	a man			to speak.18

In these verses Paul narrates19 the ascent of “a man in Christ” to the “third heaven/Paradise.” The tripartite structure—(1) introductory, (2) repetitive, and (3) climactic—corresponds approximately with these three verses.

In the Introduction (v. 2) Paul supplies the basic information that (1) he “know[s]” this “man,” (2) who was “caught up”20 to the third heaven fourteen years ago, and (3) that he does “not know” whether or not this rapture was bodily; only “God knows.” In the Repetition (v. 321) Paul repeats the previous three elements, except that (1) he now refers to “such a man,” and (2) he omits the first “I do not know.” In the Climax (v. 4) he completes the narrative of “a man in Christ … such a man” (vv. 2, 3), who was “caught up to Paradise,”22 where he heard “unutterable utterances,”23 words “not lawful” to speak.24

Paul’s “fourteen years ago”25 must be calculated (by internal reckoning) from the time of writing this letter (c. A.D. 55), suggesting that this vision/revelation occurred c. A.D. 42, at which time Paul would have been in his native Syria-Cilicia (Gal 1:18, 21; 2:1; Acts 9:29–30; 11:25).26 The nearest known supernatural parallels—(1) his visit from Antioch to Jerusalem “by revelation” (Gal 2:2), and (2) the missionary call from Antioch (Acts 13:1–3)—occurred c. A.D. 47, less than “fourteen years ago,” apart from the unlikelihood that those events were connected with this experience. In reality, no other occurrence in Paul’s life can be readily identified with his narrative in these verses.

As we have noted above (see on v. 1b), Paul was by no means unfamiliar with “visions and revelations from the Lord.” One such vision had occurred in Corinth during his initial visit (Acts 18:9–10). Why does he not refer to that? The answer may be that he placed so much importance on the Lord’s words spoken to him when the stake/thorn was given to him (v. 9). The experience of being “caught up” to the third heaven in apparent power was the necessary prelude to being brought down to earth in the weakness of the stake/thorn, where the dominical revelation of real power was given to him. Despite the grandeur of the experience, it was useless in authenticating his ministry; nothing he heard in Paradise was allowed to be told to others! Like the escape from Damascus, this event served to highlight his weaknesses. As it happens, the events reflected in 11:32–12:9 appear to have occurred in chronological sequence: Damascus (the escape down the wall), then Tarsus (“caught up to Paradise”).

By his brief story about “visions and revelations of the Lord” (v. 1; cf. “these surpassingly great revelations”—v. 7), Paul the narrator is attempting to establish the following: First, by his faintly humorous tone he is ridiculing his opponents’ attempt to achieve acceptance in Corinth by claims to paranormal experience. Paul the narrator knows this “man” because he is the man, yet he puts him at arm’s length from himself (v. 5);27 his rivals may have been quite person-specific and detail-specific. Loftily he disdains to “know” whether this man’s journey to the third heaven—the highest heaven28—was in or out of the body,29 a detail about which the counter-claimants may have made much capital. In any case, as he well knows, an event as distant as “fourteen years ago” is unlikely to compete with their more up-to-date claims. Rollercoaster-like, he has been “lowered down,” sharply “caught up,” then, finally and painfully, brought down and “buffeted.” He had been humiliatingly let down the Damascus wall in a net like so much merchandise (11:33), only to be powerfully whisked up to the heights of Paradise to hear the voice of God—the whole point of the experience30—where, however, upon his return, the things he heard were unutterable because he was not allowed (by God) to speak.

Though he employs a somewhat grim humor, yet by no means does Paul denigrate this experience; he simply regards it as private and incommunicable. The verse supplies his own elaboration of his earlier remark, “If we are beside ourselves, it is for God” (5:13, RSV). He had not—apparently—ever referred to it. The “foolishness” of the Corinthians (and the opponents?) has “forced”31 him to talk about it; nonetheless, he does not reveal the “unutterable utterances” he heard, which he was not allowed to speak.

Second, this essentially negative narrative serves as a foil against which he will construct his wholly positive narrative (vv. 7–9) in which he heard words of the Lord, revelatory words that, unlike the ones mentioned above, he is able to speak.

Hence, to return to the subject of “boasting”—the point of the whole passage (vv. 1–10; see on v. 1)—he will not “boast” of the powerful man who had been caught up to “Paradise” but of the man brought down in weakness by the “stake/thorn” (vv. 7–9). This may be quite pointed, indeed, in regard to those who “classify and compare” themselves with Paul on these very grounds and find him “inferior.”

5–6a Having narrated ironically his revelationless vision, Paul now proceeds to put it into perspective in terms of his “Fool’s Speech.” Thus he picks up the major themes of the speech (11:1–12:13)—“boasting” (11:10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 30; 12:1), “weakness” (11:21, 29, 30), and “fool[ishness]” (11:1, 16 [twice], 17, 19, 23), using them now to prepare the way for his “boasting in weakness” (v. 9), the climax of this passage and, indeed, of the entire “Fool’s Speech.”

Using the language of “boasting” from v. 1, Paul now applies it directly to the previous narrative, where he distances himself from the man caught up to Paradise. In nicely balanced clauses he says (ironically), “About such a person I will boast,” but “About myself I will not boast,” to which he adds, “except in my weaknesses,” thus echoing 11:30. This is followed by a double explanatory clause that says, in effect—and unexpectedly—that if he were to boast in his revelations, that would not make him a fool, for he would be speaking the sober truth. But “So what?” is his point since, as he will go on to say, the only boasting that counts is the latter—boasting in his weaknesses.

He has narrated the account of the “man in Christ … caught up to Paradise” (vv. 2–4); clearly the man is Paul. Now, however, in regard to boasting Paul distinguishes between “this man” and “myself.” On behalf of (hyper) “such a man”32 he “will boast,”33 but on behalf of himself he will not boast, except “in weaknesses.”34 Should he choose to boast on behalf of that man, however, he would not be a “fool” because35 he would be telling the truth.36

Here, then, is another nuance in Paul’s use of “fool”—(1) the opponents’ mockery of Paul as a “fool,” on account of his “weakness” (11:1, 16); (2) Paul’s ironic self-reference to the boasting he must do (11:16, 17), which is, however, an inverted boasting in weakness (11:21, 23; 12:11); (3) Paul’s reference to the adversaries’ ill-treatment of the Corinthians (11:19–20); and (4) Paul’s reference to the Corinthians as putting up with such treatment (11:19–20). To these he adds (5) that if ever he were to “boast” about such experiences, he would not be a fool (unlike them), because he tells the truth.

Let the Corinthians know that he was, in “truth,” “caught up” in that remarkable vision/revelation of the Lord. But as such it was a private experience between himself and God and was neither to be communicated nor capitalized on in legitimating his ministry; he was not at liberty to divulge what he had heard (v. 4). This was between him and God (5:13).

6b While Paul will not boast of the man “caught up to Paradise,” the strong inference is that he will boast of himself in another persona, that is, in the man the Corinthians actually “see” and “hear,” namely, the apostle in his “weakness.”

Whereas v. 6a is hypothetical (“If I shall wish to boast …”), v. 6b is dismissive of the very idea (“But37 I refrain38 …”). This, in turn, is followed by a negative statement of purpose:

lest anyone reckon				of	me39
	above	what he	sees	in	me
		or	hears	from	me.40

The “boasting” from which he refrains was in regard to “such a man,” the one “caught up to Paradise” (vv. 3–4), not “myself,” about whom he will not “boast” except in “weakness” (vv. 5, 9). As such this verse serves as commentary on and elaboration of 5:12: “We are … giving you a cause to boast of us [“that we persuade men … in our right mind”—5:11, 13], so that you may be able to answer those who boast in ‘face,’ not in ‘heart.’ ”41 For Paul to “boast” of “such a man … caught up to Paradise” would be to “boast” of “face,” to attempt to legitimate his ministry behind the mask of esoteric visions and revelations and their accompanying ecstatic speech.

Rather, let them relate to him (1) by ordinary observation, by what they “see” in him, that is, his “weaknesses,” and (2) by what they “hear” from him,42 that is, by his preaching of Christ (cf. 1:19; 4:5; 5:11; 11:3–4). These two things that they “see” and “hear”—“weaknesses” and his preaching of Christ—are connected.43 The “weaknesses” result from being the “minister of Christ” who suffers as a consequence of his preaching, as the catalogues of suffering make clear (4:5, 8–12; 6:3–10; 11:23–29).

Critical to this verse is the word “above” (Gk. hyper), the keyword to the extended passage in which the “superlative” apostles = the “false apostles” appear (10:12–12:13). Hyper, “above,” “superior,” appears to be their manner of self-presentation; hyster, “below,” “inferior,” their view and presentation of Paul. Ironically Paul turns their “boast” back on them; they are, in his ironic words, “superlative” apostles,44 to whom, however, he is not “inferior”45 (11:5; 12:11). Apparently, they boast that they are “superior” (hyper) in a number of ministry-related areas—fluency in speech (see on 11:5), and, in particular, in “visions and revelations from the Lord” (see on 12:2–4); Paul will “boast” of being “superior” only in suffering as “a minister of Christ” (“Ministers of Christ are they? I am better”—hyper; 11:23). Unlike them, he will not portray himself as a receiver of heavenly revelations so as to suggest that he is “above,” “more than” (hyper), by plain observation he is—a man of “weaknesses”—whose “weaknesses,” or sufferings, arise from his faithful preaching of Christ.

This part verse, when taken with 5:11–13, is important in establishing pointers to authentic Christian ministry. While individuals may, in the purposes of God, undergo various religious experiences, those experiences are between the person and God (5:13) and do not of themselves establish fitness for pastoral or missionary ministry. Based on these texts, the legitimating criteria include preaching Christ (5:12), which is not deterred by suffering and weakness (12:5), expressed out of a “right mind” (5:13). No one is to be judged beyond or apart from what one “sees” in or “hears” from that person (12:6b). What one sees in and hears from that minister is critical.

(b) The Thorn in the Flesh (12:7–10)

7To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations,1 there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.2 8Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my3 power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. 10That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Paul now brings the “Fool’s Speech” to a conclusion, spelling out by way of specific narrative why he will boast of his weaknesses rather than his (non)-revelatory experience. The latter might exalt the apostle himself; the former serve to exalt Christ. At the same time it is hard not to see in the opening disclaimer (“to keep me from being elated”) a final indirect jab at the “superlative” but fraudulent apostles.

Thus he declares that such an “abundance of revelations” (RSV) might have “over-uplifted” Paul in religious pride, as, apparently, they have so exalted his opponents. Against that possibility God has pinned Paul to the earth with the unidentified stake/thorn (skolops, v. 7). At that time Paul prayed for its removal and the Lord effectively replied in the negative, nonetheless promising his sustaining grace/power against his weakness (vv. 8–9). Thus having given them a revelatory story without a revelation, he now gives them a healing story without a healing. Finally, in an astonishing and unexpected turn, Paul declares that he boasts of his weaknesses, confident that this is the circumstance when Christ’s power will rest upon him; when he is weak, then he is strong (vv. 9–10).

In this passage there is a complete reversal of the religious pride and the religious triumphalism of the “superlative” apostles. Genuinely apostolic ministry sustains “weaknesses … on behalf of Christ,” replicating his sufferings yet finding power in ministry in dependence on him. There is no place for arrogance in ministry.

7 This complex sentence4 states (1) that,5 therefore,6 lest by an “abundance of revelations” Paul should be “over-uplifted” (in pride), a skolops (a “stake” or “thorn”) in (or for) the flesh, a messenger of Satan, was given to him, (2) to buffet him, (3) lest he should be “over-uplifted.” This verse is powerfully intentional; each of these elements is purposive7: the skolops was given to Paul lest he be “over-uplifted,” to buffet him, lest he be “over-uplifted.”8 It was God’s will for Paul.

The “abundance of revelations,”9 when read with “visions and revelations of the Lord” (v. 1), indicates a considerable frequency of such exceptional phenomena (see on v. 1 for known examples). It is likely, however, that both references also mirror the claims of his opponents; his generalized exaggerations probably ridicule their boastfulness. Paul will give only one example of his own, which occurred fourteen years ago (v. 2)! That he has not been “over-uplifted”—bodily airborne—appears to reflect their testimony that they have been so “over-uplifted,” by which Paul now means “uplifted in pride” (cf. 10:4–5). He is not, in truth, what they say they are!

The rarely used verb hyperairōsthai (“over-uplifted”10), like hyperlian (“very much more,” “superlative,” used with “apostles”11—11:5; 12:11), is compounded with the preposition hyper, “over,” “above,” which is critical within his sustained and ironic polemic against the intruders (10:11–12:13). Paul takes their word hyper and turns it against them to expose both (1) the falsity of their claims, and (2) their superinflated view of themselves.

Paul, indeed, may have been, but did not remain, “over-uplifted.” In this “abundance of revelations”—he does not say when (cf. v. 2)—there was also “given”12 him (i.e., by God—divine passive) the skolops, for the very purpose that he might not be “over-uplifted.” The verb tenses should be noted. The skolops was “given” (a completed action—aorist tense) in order that, as a messenger of Satan, it might continue to “buffet” (present tense) Paul lest he continue to be “over-uplifted” (present tense). Like his opponents, he has experienced “visions and revelations from the Lord … an abundance of revelations.” But unlike them he has not remained “over-uplifted”; God brought him down to earth by his skolops, and kept him there, buffeting him. Meekness, gentleness, humility, patience, and endurance—the Christlike marks of an apostle, of which he has much to say in this letter13—are connected with God’s “gift” to him of the skolops.

But what is the skolops14? Few questions in the NT have excited greater interest. From early times to the present scholars continue to give their answers.15 A substantial library of opinion as to the nature of Paul’s skolops has been created. However, two obstacles bar the way to a solution that can be confidently held: (1) the meaning of the word skolops itself is uncertain and, equally, (2) we can only guess at who or what Paul had in mind by his application of this word to himself. Indeed, it is possible that the Corinthians themselves did not know what he meant.

In regard to the first barrier, the meaning of the word,16 the difficulty is that skolops was used both for a “stake” and for a “thorn.” By derivation it meant “what is pointed,”17 hence a “stake,” and was referred to at the time as, for example, an instrument of torture or execution (possibly equivalent to stauros, as in crucifixion18), or for spikes to impede a siege force. On this basis the word carries connotations of violence. However, the references in the LXX to skolops mean only “splinter” or “thorn,” as, for example, when Moses warns of the consequences of not driving out the Canaanites: “… those you allow to remain will become barbs (skolopes) in your eyes” (Num 33:55; cf. Ezek 28:24; Hos 2:6). The context of v. 7 should help us decide between “stake” and “thorn” (or “splinter”), but the context itself is problematic.

Thus the second barrier to confident understanding is the point of the metaphor as used by Paul in this verse. Broadly speaking, Paul’s reference has been thought to be either physical ([a] an illness, disfigurement, or disability, or [b] moral temptation)19 or relational (opposition to his ministry or persecution). The context of vv. 7–8 marginally favors a relational interpretation of the metaphor: (1) Paul immediately adds “skolops for the flesh,”20 which is explained as “a messenger (angelos) of Satan”—angelos is generally personal in its use elsewhere by Paul; (2) the verb “buffet,”21 “beat with a fist,” as, for example, by the soldiers of Jesus prior to the crucifixion (Mark 14:65 pars.; cf. 1 Pet 2:20), is generally interpersonal (but see 1 Cor 4:11); and (3) because the verb “take away”22 (v. 8) is used in the NT of persons, the pronoun (understood) would probably be masculine (“[take] him [away]”).

If, indeed, the skolops is relational, what—specifically—might it have been? Less likely is the suggestion that the skolops is the Corinthian church23 (or a section thereof). More plausibly, Paul’s skolops is the rise of the Judaizing, anti-Paul movement, such as was then all too obvious in Corinth. In favor of this possibility, we note that (1) such a view would be consistent with the chronological sequence implicit in this passage—the escape from Damascus (11:32–33) c. A.D. 34/35, the “Paradise” experience (12:2–4) c. A.D. 42, and now, on this hypothesis, the rise of the anti-Pauline mission c. A.D. 47 (Gal 2:1, 4–5, 12–14); (2) the skolops as a “messenger of Satan” is matched by the false apostles who are “ministers of Satan” (11:15), false brothers who are the source of danger (see on 11:26); and (3) in the LXX, as noted above, skolops is used of the enemies of Israel (Num 33:55; Ezek 28:24), making the present opponents the enemies of the true Israel of God and of Paul his minister (cf. Gal 6:16).

On grounds of historical analysis, however, the truth is that we do not have enough unambiguous information to do more than speculate on the nature of Paul’s skolops. It is hard to choose between the chief options, the physical or the relational; there are weak points in both (e.g., [a] the difficulty that so robust a man as Paul evidently was (see on 11:23–33) could at the same time be physically debilitated, or [b] understanding that Paul’s “messenger of Satan” [singular] could apply to a group or movement, or [c] that Paul would say that God gave him something as evil as the Judaizing movement [see on 11:13–15]). Neither hypothesis is without questions, whichever one favors.

Doubtless speculations will continue to be made. Pastorally, however, it may be to our advantage not to know. The very openness of the identification allows wide possibilities of personal application to a broad range of personal suffering, which precise identification might limit.

This verse expresses a supreme paradox. A painful skolops—whatever it actually was—was “given” to Paul, and that by God! This is expanded upon as “a messenger of [or from] Satan.” The juxtaposition of “was given [by God]” and “messenger of Satan” recalls the early chapters of Job, where God allows Satan to afflict Job’s household (Job 1:12), then his person (Job 2:6–7). This language suggests (1) that Satan was the immediate cause of Paul’s difficulty—symbolized by the word skolops; (2) that, because the skolops was given by God, Satan is subject to God, not his equal (as in dualism); and (3) that in a profoundly mysterious way God was the ultimate source of that skolops. Paradoxically, God is the invisible source of this suffering in the life of Paul, his child and minister.

Such inferences demand justification and resolution such as have already been given (the twice-stated “that I might not be ‘over-uplifted’ ”) and which Paul now proceeds to elaborate further (vv. 9–10).

8 Now follows Paul’s account of his prayer to the Lord; his answer to the prayer will be given in the next verse. Edifyingly for his readers then—and now—Paul reveals that his response to the stake/thorn was to pray.

Concerning this
	three times
	I prayed24 to the Lord
		that
			he might remove [him]
from me.

Who is the Lord to whom he prayed, the “Lord Christ” or the “Lord God”? His reference to “my power … Christ’s power” (v. 9) indicates that it was to the Lord Jesus Christ that he turned in prayer. That Paul can make this statement without further comment shows that both he and his readers understood that they could pray to the glorified Jesus as well as to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ;25 Christ’s deity is implied by such a reference (see on 2:12; 3:16; 4:6; cf. 8:5, 19, 21).

His “three times” stands in parallel with Jesus’ threefold prayer to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:41).26 Possibly “three times” was a conventional symbol for repeated prayer (so Chrysostom). Threefold actions appear to have been customary in matters relating to piety (cf. John 21:17; Acts 10:16); prayer was offered three times a day (Ps 55:16–17; Dan 6:10, 13). The aorist tense “I prayed” matches the aorist tense “[a thorn] … was given”27; the singular onset of the stake/thorn was met with Paul’s singular (thrice-repeated) prayer to the Lord. That tense may also suggest that, in the light of the Lord’s answer, which he continues to hear (v. 9), the time for prayer had passed. It was now a matter of acceptance of the Lord’s will.

The content of that prayer was that God should remove “him” (i.e., the “messenger of Satan”—v. 8) from Paul. Given Paul’s use elsewhere, the verb “remove” requires a personal object (“him”28), not an impersonal object (“it”), supporting the possibility that the stake/thorn was relational in character (see v. 7).

9a Christ’s reply to Paul’s prayer must be seen as the climax not only of this passage (12:1–10) and of the “Fool’s Speech” (11:1–12:13), but in some ways of the entire Second Letter to the Corinthians. Whatever the stake/thorn was, and however great its pain for Paul, he testifies that the “grace” of Christ was “sufficient” in dealing with it. This was the Lord’s reply to Paul’s prayer.

Earlier Paul related that in Asia he had been “beyond power … crushed” (1:8), how, more generally, as a mere “jar of clay,” he was dependent on “the all-surpassing power of God” (4:7). Now he declares that “[Christ’s] power is made perfect in weakness.”29 Power in weakness, therefore, runs as a thread throughout the letter, reaching its most powerful expression here. Accordingly, we agree with Hughes that Christ’s reply to Paul is “the summit of the epistle” (451).

We do not know how, or by what process, that reply came to Paul, except that it was in the context of prayer, and, we suggest, also upon reflection on the central truths of the gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ proclaimed by Paul.

It is likely that Paul knew of and reflected upon the events of the last twenty-four hours of Jesus’ life, both his threefold prayer to his Father in Gethsemane (see on v. 8) and his (apparent) powerlessness to save himself as he was dying on the cross. The words spoken at the cross, literally “he saved others; himself he is not powerful to save” (Mark 15:31), resonate in Paul’s words that “Christ crucified” is “the power of God … the weakness of God” (1 Cor 1:21, 23–25). The powerful salvation of God had been wrought in the powerless crucified One.

In words evocative of Good Friday and Easter Paul observes that Christ, who was “crucified in weakness … lives by the power of God,” and that believers, “by God’s power, live with [Christ]” (13:4).

Christ’s death and life are reproduced in the lives of his people. God’s power through Christ’s weakness in death by crucifixion issues in the “crucifixion” of Paul’s inflated pride, by means of the thorn/stake. God’s power, which caused Christ to be alive in resurrection and believers with him, issues in the power of Christ experienced in the patience, endurance, meekness, and gentleness of Christ. Thus the Lord’s reply to Paul’s prayer for the removal of the thorn/stake is given in terms of the very gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ that the apostles proclaimed (as, e.g., in 1 Cor 15:1–4).

Unlike the earlier and esoteric “revelation” of “fourteen years ago” in which Paul “heard unutterable utterances” that he was “not permitted to speak” (v. 4), the Lord’s oracle to him is clear and communicable. And it is nothing else than the given word of God, the gospel of Christ, the death and resurrection of Christ. This was the Lord’s answer to Paul, and Paul has told his readers what the Lord said.

The opening words (“And he said to me”) tie together Paul’s prayer of the previous verse with the Lord’s reply in this verse. The verb tenses of both the prayer and the reply are important. Whereas God’s “gift” to Paul of the stake/thorn and Paul’s plea to the Lord are expressed in the aorist tense (“there was given … I prayed”), reflecting the singular nature of both, the Lord’s reply is in the perfect tense: “He said to me—and what he said continues to hold good …” Moreover, the content of his words to Paul is in the present tense: his “grace” “is sufficient” (present tense) and his power “is being made perfect” (present tense). The stake/thorn remains, and Paul continues to be buffeted. But the Lord’s reply stands: his grace is sufficient, his power is being made perfect in the unremoved “weakness” of the stake/thorn.

That reply is in the form of a couplet or parallelism:

	My	grace is sufficient	for you,
for	[my]30	power is made perfect in weakness.31

“Grace”32 here means that “merciful kindness” which is characteristic of God and of Christ particularly in regard to Christ’s impoverishment of himself for the sake of the enrichment in salvation of his people (see on 6:1; 8:9; cf. 1:12; 4:15). There is a close association between “grace” and “power,” because (1) these words appear in synonymous parallelism in different parts of the couplet, and (2) the explanatory connective, “for,”33 links the two (“my grace is sufficient, for [my] power …”). The grace that Christ displays toward his people is expressed in, and is inseparable from, his power. To be shown the one is to be given the other. But this power is “perfected,” becomes a reality, in weakness, of which the thorn/stake “given” to Paul is a concrete example.

The second half of the couplet may well mirror—but so as to correct—the doctrine of the “superlative” apostles, namely, that God’s power was brought to completion in the power of ecstatic experience, such as Paul could point to, but which he now discounts (v. 6). By that understanding it would be “power in power.” Christ’s power—as now imparted to him by the risen Lord—only arose out of his powerlessness in crucifixion. In the divine dispensation there had to be weakness (crucifixion) before there was power (resurrection). In the thinking of the triumphalist opponents, however, there is no crucifixion, no weakness, only a valuing of power (see on 2:14; 4:16–17). But the onset of the stake/thorn provoked Paul to pray, and, in all probability, to reflect on the weakness and powerlessness of Christ in crucifixion and the power of Christ in resurrection. In consequence the Lord told Paul that his resurrection power in this age is perfected in weakness, that is, in the weakness of the stake/thorn that is not taken away.

These words of Christ to Paul should not be limited in their application to Paul as an apostle (see on 3:18; 4:16–5:10) but apply to whatever experiences and circumstances of life render powerless the children of God (see on 12:19). The one thing denied to them, which is exactly what most people demand above all, is to control their own destiny. As children of Adam, despite such this-worldly instruments of power as they may wield—intellect, health, wealth, influence, or position—they do, sooner or later, become powerless and vulnerable. Upon such persons, who in their powerlessness—whether bodily, relational, financial, or structural—call out to the Lord, the grace of Christ is shown and the power of Christ rests. The words of the Lord spoken to Paul, then, are universally applicable. They do not, however, call for resignation, which is passive and impersonal, but for acceptance, which is active and obedient to the Lord, who, in response to our prayer, continues to say, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”

9b-10 The conjunctions “Therefore … wherefore”34 at the beginning of v. 9b and v. 10 respectively signal Paul’s own responses to the Lord’s reply to him (v. 9a). Because Christ’s power is made perfect in weakness, (1) therefore he will all the more gladly boast in weaknesses. (2) Wherefore he takes pleasure in weaknesses.

It should be noted that Paul does not boast in “weakness,” that is, in feebleness. The plural “in my weaknesses” (v. 9b35) points to the sufferings “for Christ” listed in 11:23–33, whereas the “weakness,” singular, of v. 9a, the stake/thorn “given” to him by God (v. 7), was the climactic example.

The words “I will boast rather”36 of weaknesses sound a comparative note. To what is he preferring this “boasting”? In all probability he is recalling once more his flight to Paradise (vv. 4–5). This experience truly occurred; Paul would be a “fool” to deny it. But that experience did not make Paul “more” (hyper) than he is in reality, either as to the “weaknesses” people “see” in him or the word of God they “hear” from him (v. 6). Such an experience, astonishing though it doubtless was, does not accredit his apostleship. He will make nothing of it, that is, “boast of it.” “Rather” than boast of his ecstatic, (non)-revelatory experience, he “will most gladly37 boast” of his “weaknesses.”

He then gives the purpose38 for his preferred boast, namely, that Christ’s power “may rest on”39 him. Remarkably, this is the vocabulary of the tabernacle of the old covenant as applied to God “pitching his tent” with his people (Exod 40:34). In turn, this imagery is employed within the NT to describe (1) the incarnate life of the Word of God (“The Word became flesh and dwelt [i.e., ‘pitched his tent’] among us”—John 1:14), and (2) God’s future dwelling with his people (Rev 7:14; 12:12; 13:6; 21:3). In what has been described as a “bold metaphor,”40 Paul teaches that Christ in his power “pitches his tent” with his saints in their weaknesses.41 Ecstasy has all the appearances of divine power; but the reality is otherwise. Christ draws near to us, and gives his grace and power to us, in weakness.

In v. 10 Paul expresses his “acceptance of”42 various difficulties, beginning with “in weaknesses,” which is repeated from v. 9b and refers specifically to the stake/thorn. Following “weaknesses” are: (1) “in insults”43—found only here in Paul’s writings (possibly they refer to the scandalous treatment of him as a Roman citizen by Romans and as an Israelite by Jews—see 11:24–25), (2) “in hardships”44 (lit. “necessities”—see on 6:4), (3) “in persecutions”45 (as described in 11:24–25; cf. Rom 8:35), and (4) “[in] difficulties”46 (lit. “tight corners”; cf. 6:4; the verb occurs in 4:8; 6:12).

Critical to v. 10 is the inferential “wherefore,”47 which picks up from the immediately preceding48 “I will boast … of my weaknesses,” which, “on behalf of Christ,”49 he accepts. The expression “on behalf of Christ I accept weaknesses, etc.” must be read alongside “we beseech you on behalf of Christ, ‘be reconciled to God’ ” (5:20). Because Christ is not physically present, in his place God “has given” the ministry and “entrusted” the word of reconciliation to the apostles (5:18–19). As Christ’s ambassador and apostle, Paul “beseeches” in Christ’s place and suffers in Christ’s place, as this list of sufferings shows (cf. 4:8–9; 6:4–5; cf. 2:16). Christ’s sufferings are replicated and historically extended in the sufferings or weaknesses of his apostle as he bids humankind “Be reconciled to God,” and it is of these—as opposed to triumphalist “visions and revelations”—that Paul “boasts” (v. 9b) and these that he “accepts.”

A connection should also be made between “weaknesses … on behalf of Christ” and his words “be spent on behalf of your souls,” a few verses later (see on v. 15). In both cases the preposition hyper is used. As apostle of divine reconciliation Paul suffers on behalf of the One he represents—though in a qualitatively different way (see on 5:21)—and he does so for the sake of those to whom he ministers. The keyword of the triumphalist “superlative” apostles (11:5; 12:11) is hyper (“more than,” “above”) Paul. It is Paul’s keyword, too. Madman that he is, his “weaknesses” are “more than” theirs (11:23), and those “weaknesses” replicate Christ’s sufferings, and do so on behalf of the churches. His nontriumphalist, servant ministry is again undergirded. He is their “slave” on account of (dia) Jesus (4:5).

Paul concludes the two parts of vv. 9b-10 with an aphorism: “When I am weak, then I am strong.”50 Such strength is not automatic to weakness. Rather, weakness (as of the unremoved stake/thorn—v. 7) creates the human context of helplessness and utter vulnerability in which Paul the minister of Christ pleaded with the risen, powerful Lord—who himself was once utterly “weak,” “sin-laden,” and “poor” (13:4; 5:21; 8:9) in achieving our reconciliation with God—who is now strong in resurrected power to give his grace and power to the one who calls out to him.

c. The “Fool’s Speech”: Epilogue (12:11–13)

11I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the “super-apostles,” even though I am nothing. 12The things that mark an apostle—signs, wonders and miracles—were done among you with great perseverance. 13How were you inferior to the other churches, except that I was never a burden to you? Forgive me this wrong!

In these few verses Paul applies the “Fool’s Speech” begun at 11:1. There is a reproachful tone to be heard here, similar to 11:7, 19; the Corinthians, who ought to have commended him, have forced him to speak like a “fool” in praising himself. Nonetheless, he is not inferior to the “superlative” apostles, God having wrought the signs of the apostle through him in Corinth. Because he is not inferior, the Corinthians have been at no disadvantage to other churches in “signs, wonders and miracles” of divine origin, attesting his apostolicity. Only in one respect have they been worse off; he has not been a financial burden to them!

The repetition of aorist tense verbs in the successive verses (“I am [not] inferior … [The signs of the apostle] were wrought … [How] were you inferior?”), each signifying singular action, points strikingly to Paul’s historic ministry in the Achaian capital. Paul is focusing the attention of the Corinthians on the fact and manner of the founding of the church in that place.

Here we see through a window into Paul’s apostolic ministry in Corinth: (1) God’s working “the signs of the apostle” attesting the apostolicity of Paul to the Corinthians, and (2) Paul laboring to support himself that he might not be a “burden” to them (see on 11:12). Both (1) and (2) mark the turning of the aeons, the dawn of the day of salvation (6:2) in which the apostle had a unique and unrepeatable role.

11 Here Paul completes the ring of references to “foolishness,” begun at the opening of the “Fool’s Speech” (11:1; cf. 11:16 [twice], 17, 19, 23; 12:6). This verse consists of (1) a reproach to the Corinthians (“I have become a fool”), as explained1 by (2) his reason (“For I ought to have been commended by you”), followed by (3) an amplification (“For in nothing am I less than the “superlative” apostles).

The reproach, which is deeply felt, is specifically directed from Paul to the Corinthians, as the emphatic pronouns indicate: “It was you who compelled me, for I ought to have been commended by you.”2 Poignant is his “I ought—I had a right3—to have been commended by you.” Paul needed no letter of recommendation; the Corinthians were Christ’s “letter,” known and read by everybody (3:2; 10:7; cf. 6:4). They themselves were the Lord’s commendation (cf. 10:18). Paul ought not to have been forced to speak as a fool in demonstrating his apostolate.4

Rather, the Corinthians have been drawn aside to these “superlative” apostles in preference to Paul (see on 11:5). In continuing his reproach to the Corinthians, Paul ironically mirrors the “superior”/“inferior” vocabulary of these opponents: “In nothing was I inferior to these ‘superlative’ apostles.”5 They are hyper and Paul hyster, a claim that Paul in no way concedes, as he will proceed to demonstrate in the next verse. The aorist tense of the verb “was I inferior,” being singular in import, points to the time of Paul’s sojourn in Corinth.6

Nonetheless, Paul must immediately qualify this comment. This he does by repeating the emphatic negative, “in no single thing.”7 He began the sentence, “in nothing am I inferior … ;” he now concludes, “even though I am nothing.” To be sure, he is inferior “in no single thing,” yet—in all humility—he is “no single thing.” This qualification flows into the next verse, where its real significance is seen. In fact, “the signs of the apostle” mark him out as an apostle, making him in fact superior to those he calls “superlative” apostles. Thus the disclaimer is a veiled claim in the form of litotes (understatement); in saying that he is nothing, at the same time he is saying that he is everything. Nonetheless, he upholds the canons of Christian humility (cf. 10:1), and as he proceeds to infer, it is God, not he, who validates his ministry because God is the source of what he does.

12 Paul proceeds at once to demonstrate how he was simultaneously “in nothing inferior” while he himself was “nothing.” He was “in nothing inferior” because, as he now reminds them, the “signs of an apostle” occurred in Corinth. But he is also “nothing” because these were performed by God in the context of Paul’s great endurance of weaknesses.

The initial “Truly” or “Indeed”8 introduces the explanation for the final part of the previous verse. Paul is not inferior in anything to the “superlative” apostles, though he himself is nothing, precisely because he is the instrument of God, no less. This is made clear by the (divine) passive of the verb “were done”9; God wrought the “signs” of which Paul speaks. Moreover, the three terms amplifying “the signs of the apostle” are in the dative case, indicating instrumental use, as if to say “by signs, by wonders, by miracles”10 did God attest Paul’s apostleship in Corinth. It is because God was the effective means of these “signs” that Paul can say (v. 11), paradoxically, that (1) he is “not inferior,” and that (2) he is “nothing.”

The carefully chosen words “the signs of the apostle” suggest that there was a class of persons known as “apostles” who were demonstrated to be such by “the signs.”11 Thus “the signs” accredit Paul as truly “an apostle,”12 one of the apostles, that unique body from the era closest to Christ, who, along with the prophets, were the foundation of the new covenant people of God (Eph 2:20). “The signs,” which are miracles pointing to God as their author,13 are the demonstration that Paul was precisely that, one of the select group of the apostles. He is exactly what the professed “apostles of Christ” now come to Corinth are not. They are “pseudo,” false apostles (11:13); he truly is an apostle. “The signs” establish that. His present reference to “signs, wonders and miracles” in Corinth was not, apparently, a point of superiority claimed by the “superlative” apostles. Rather, Paul, having denied any “inferiority” to them (12:11), can merely point to his apostolic miracles at the time he first came to Corinth to clinch outright, and without further argument, his claim to apostolicity. On this understanding, Paul’s miracles—and the “superlative” apostles’ lack of them—were an indisputable demonstration of his authentic apostleship.

But this claim is incomplete. To it Paul adds the very significant qualification that such “signs” were wrought (by God) “in all—preferably, utmost—endurance”14 (see on 6:4). The divinely wrought miracles occurred in the context of gospel ministry (cf. 1:19) and therefore of “weaknesses” (as listed in 11:23–33; cf. 12:9–10), and thus of “endurance” in the face of affliction. Miracles were one part of the badge of the apostle; endurance was the other. Thus the apostle replicates and continues the pattern of the Master who sent him; he, too, worked “signs”—though to an infinitely greater degree—with “endurance” in circumstances of suffering. Against the “superlative” apostles who may have thought that power alone accredited them as “apostles … ministers of Christ” (see on 11:15, 23; 12:2–4), Paul asserts that power—God’s power—is exercised in weakness.

Such “signs” were wrought … among you,”15 that is, in Corinth. The Corinthians to whom he now writes must have witnessed these,16 a further reason for his pained disclosure of the previous verse, “I ought to have been commended by you.” Thus the contrast between Paul and the “superlative” apostles explicit in vv. 11 and 13 must be between Paul and “apostles” who also have come to Corinth, that is, the “false apostles” (see on 11:13). Clearly, the “superlative” apostles are the “false apostles.” The other hypothesis, that the “superlative” apostles were the distant apostles of Jerusalem,17 makes no sense here.

Although Acts 18 records no miracle of Paul during his sojourn in Corinth, the amplifying phrase “signs, wonders and miracles” demands that a significant manifestation of miraculous activity occurred there at the hands of the apostle. The same three terms, “signs, wonders and miracles,” are also found together in Acts 2:22; 2 Thess 2:9; and Heb 2:4 (cf. Rom 15:19). “Signs and wonders” is a recurring phrase in the OT, often in connection with the great saving event of the Exodus.18 To this common OT duo Paul adds “deeds of power,” a term he uses elsewhere for miracles (1 Cor 12:10, 28, 29; Gal 3:5). The effect of giving this triad as “the signs of the apostle” is to tie the apostle to God’s great redemptive event under the new covenant, focused on Christ’s death and resurrection. “Signs and wonders” mark the Exodus; “signs, wonders and miracles” mark the death and resurrection of Jesus as at the first Easter and its apostolic proclamation.

13 Now appealing to their firsthand experience of “the signs of an apostle,” Paul asks, “For19 how were you inferior20 to the other churches … ?” Once more the aorist verb, signifying singular action, points to Paul’s historic sojourn in Corinth (cf. other aorists in v. 11—“… was I inferior,” and in v. 12—“were wrought”). “The signs of the apostle” were wrought by God in “the other churches,” including, and to no lesser degree, the church of Corinth (cf. 1:19).

His very question makes it clear that in regard to the divine outpouring of supernatural attestation of the apostle, the Corinthians did not come behind the other churches. Paul’s line of reason is apparent. “If you were not inferior” in “the signs of the apostle,” as clearly you were not, then I am not “inferior” (v. 11) in apostolicity, despite what the “superlative” apostles say and some of you are tending to believe (see on v. 11; 11:5).

Verses 12–13, when read with 1:19; 4:5; 5:20 (and 11:4), give a clear picture of apostolic pioneer evangelism in Corinth, marking the dawn of the day of salvation (6:2). Here, on the one hand, is the apostolic proclamation of the Son of God in fulfillment of all the promises of God accompanied by the anointing of the Holy Spirit (1:19–21; cf. on 3:3; 5:5; 11:4; 13:14); here, on the other, is the attestation from heaven of “the signs of the apostle—signs, wonders, miracles.” And all the while the apostle works to support himself so as not to burden the Corinthians, to which he now turns with powerful irony.

There is indeed an exception in one area of “inferiority.” He concludes his question: “except that I myself [stated with emphasis21] was not a burden to you?” In regard to financial support Paul is emphatic. He did not “burden”22 the Corinthians, though others—the “false apostles” (11:13, 20)—we infer, have done that. Here is the one place—or the second (he did not abuse them, either; 11:20–21)—where his ministry is inferior to theirs!

He completes the verse—and, indeed, the entire “Fool’s Speech”—with the heavily ironical supplication, “Forgive me this injustice.”23 This is closely parallel with the earlier, “Was it a sin for me to lower myself … ?” (see on 11:7). Since he “lowered himself” in self-supporting labor and received assistance from the Macedonian churches, the Corinthians felt that Paul had acted “unjustly” against them. While Paul had his own personal and theological reasons for refusing their support (see on 11:12), the Corinthians felt that it was their place to support him. Perhaps they felt demeaned by the humiliation of his labor. Culturally, the visiting rhetorician would assume a patronizing role, and the Corinthians appear to have been offended that he would not follow such conventions.

As is his method, Paul introduces into the end of a section a theme that he will pick up and expand upon in the new section,24 in this case that he has not been nor will he be “a burden” to them.

C. PREPARATION FOR THE IMMINENT THIRD VISIT (12:14–13:14)

1. I Will Not Be a Burden to You (12:14–19)

14Now I am ready to visit you for the third time,1 and I will not be a burden to you, because what I want is not your possessions but you. After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children 15So I will very gladly spend for you everything I have and expend myself as well. If2 I love3 you more, will you love me less? 16Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery! 17Did I exploit you through any of the men I sent you? 18I urged Titus to go to you and I sent our brother with him. Titus did not exploit you, did he? Did we not act in the same spirit and follow the same course? 19Have you been thinking all along4 that we have been defending ourselves to you? We have been speaking in the sight of God as those in Christ; and everything we do, dear friends, is for your strengthening.

The subject is now money, that is, payment for Paul’s ministry, and two issues are canvassed. One is his persistent refusal to be paid, which is inappropriate for him; he is their father and he provides for them, not they him. The other is the cynical view of some that Paul does receive money, but through the back door, via his coworkers.

This passage is deeply interpersonal and, indeed, animated (1) with references to “I … you” in every verse, (2) the emphatic “I” appearing in vv. 15–16, and (3) no less than five rhetorical questions (vv. 15, 17, 18 [twice], 19).

It is evident that Paul’s policy of self-support by manual labor was resented by many Corinthians, as is evident from Paul’s echoed replies (“Did I sin?”—11:7; “Forgive me this wrong”—v. 13; “Do I love you less?”—v. 15; cf. 11:11). But Paul was their father-provider (v. 14; cf. 11:2; 6:13), who will spend himself for them (v. 15), not their “client,” to “be patronized” in the conventions of that culture; it was important to follow the appropriate pattern. At the same time the more cynical opinion was expressed that, in reality, Paul was cunningly receiving their money indirectly through his associates while appearing to be self-supported (vv. 16b-18). Thus, he (1) reassures them that he does not seek what is theirs but them (v. 14), and then (2) puts three questions to them (vv. 17–18) that effectively expose the hollowness of their suspicions (vv. 17–18).

The final verse (v. 19) is an interim conclusion, not only of the section, but of the entire letter. Paul is not merely writing in self-defense, as a contemporary apologist might. Rather, he writes “before God” and “for the sake of” the “upbuilding” of the Corinthians. That verse, when read with 13:10, is very helpful in understanding Paul’s purpose in writing the present letter.

14 There is an air of finality as well as of anticipation in the formal-sounding opening words, “Behold,5 I am preparing to come to you for the third6 [time].” At the same time the sentence flows directly out of v. 13. As he has not burdened them in the past, so he will not burden them during the third visit. Two statements follow, each in explanation7 of its predecessor. First, “I will not burden [you], for” it is you yourself I care about, not your money. Besides, he further explains, “for I seek not yours’ but you. For children ought not lay up treasure for parents, but parents for children.”

Paul’s single most important reason for writing this letter was to admonish the Corinthians in advance of a prospective third visit, so that he would not have to exercise his God-given authority when he came (cf. 13:10). The letter is dotted with references to this critical final visit, appearing in the early chapters (2:1, 3), in the later chapters (9:4; 10:6), but increasingly from this point to the conclusion of the letter (12:20, 21; 13:1, 2, 10).

In each such reference Paul draws attention to some action or attitude he wishes the Corinthians to address prior to his coming. In this case it is their attitude to Paul and money, especially his not taking their money as support, but now asking for money for the poor in Jerusalem. Here, and in the verses following, we hear again his determination “not to burden [cf. v. 13; see on 11:9] [you].” He would not accept the Corinthians’ support. The reasons given earlier are, presumably, still in mind, that (1) he will not “burden” them (vv. 13, 16; cf. 11:9), and that (2) he does not wish to give the opponents—who did receive money from the Corinthians (11:20; cf. 2:17)—the opportunity to claim that they and he operated on the same supported basis (see on 11:12). In regard to the latter, Paul saw his ministry as a matter of simple obedience to God’s apostolic call. To make the gospel “free of charge” by his own self-support was fundamental to Paul (see on 11:7); he would not allow self-professed apostles to drag him to their level by accepting payment.

As an explanation of his determination to support himself, he declares:

For I seek not yours

but you.

In explaining his earlier policy, Paul appears to be giving a sidelong glance at his opponents, who did, indeed, seek the money of the Corinthians (11:20; cf. 2:17). Instead, unlike the intruders, Paul seeks the Corinthians—their own personal allegiance (“your souls”—v. 15) to Christ and to himself (cf. the Macedonians, who “gave themselves first to the Lord, then to us …”—8:5). In his apostolic ministry Paul is a “slave” to those to whom he preaches Jesus as Lord, seeking them, opening wide his heart to them, in order that, having given themselves to the Lord, they will also give themselves to the apostle (3:2; 4:5; 6:11–13).

This verse, like others in this section, is dominated by Paul’s address to the Corinthians in the second person plural pronoun (“I am ready to visit you … I will not burden [you] … I seek not yours but you”). By this very form of speech Paul is seeking their reconciliation with him ahead of the pending third visit. Such a sentiment is explained by his homely proverb of parents’ obligation8 to “lay up treasure for”9 children, not vice versa.10 We are reminded of the apostle’s role as the father-betrother of his daughter (the church) to her husband (the Lord—see on 11:2; cf. 6:13). He has united them to Christ; he will provide for them, not they for him. Such is his unique “paternal” role as apostle in the eschatological schema.

15 Still using the language of money (cf. vv. 12–13), Paul elaborates on his parental relationship with them. By his emphatic beginning, “But I,”11 he underlines his distinctive role in relationship to them. “On your behalf,”12 as he assures them, he will “gladly” spend [himself] and be spent.13 But the pain for Paul lies not only in his being spent for them, but in their lack of reciprocity (see on 6:13). Whereupon he asks, plaintively, “If I love you more, am I loved less?”

Here the conflict of models regarding Paul’s financial support comes to the surface. In keeping with cultural norms they have patronage expectations that Paul, by his independence of them, has thwarted (see on 11:7). They conclude that Paul does not love them (cf. 11:11, “Because I do not love you?”).14 But Paul has an eschatological outlook and thus a “paternal” view of his relationship with them. They are his children through the gospel. He, the father, has betrothed his daughter to the yet-to-appear Lord (11:2). As father, it is his role to provide “treasure” for them, not they for him (v. 14). It is important that the Corinthians change their way of thinking about their relationship with him. He is not dependent on them; they are dependent on him. Let them think in child-parent—not patron-client—terms. Self-support, making the gospel free of charge, is an insignia of his apostleship.

Here Paul continues with the financial image of the previous verse (“treasure … spend … be spent”). Speaking metaphorically of the toilsome labors of self-support and in ministry to them (see on 11:7–11), Paul will “spend … be spent.” As their father—begetter, betrother, provider—he will do this “very gladly”15; there is no resentment on his part. Did the Corinthians think there was?

Appropriately, this verse, together with other verses in this section, is very personal in character. Paul commences with the emphatic “I,” twice addressing the readers directly (“I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls … If I love you more, am I loved less?”). Let the Corinthians understand that his self-support by manual labor is not motivated by a lack of love, as if to demean them. To the contrary, his sacrifice expresses the depth of his love (cf. 2:4; 8:7; 11:11).

Paul’s vicarious note should not be missed: “I will very gladly … be spent for (hyper) your souls [i.e., ‘selves’].” As in his ministry Paul suffers for (“in place of,” “on behalf of”) Christ (see on v. 10), so Paul is “spent” for them. As an apostle of Christ, on Christ’s behalf Paul called on his hearers to “Be reconciled to God” (see also 5:20) and is, thereby, “spent” in “weaknesses” for the people. In his ministry Paul replicates the sufferings of Christ as he gives himself for the people. Paul makes no hint that he saves people, as Christ does; nonetheless, his sufferings, though nonpropitiatory, are in continuity with those of Christ. Such sufferings, indeed, validate his ministry as a ministry of Christ, as opposed to that of the triumphalist “superlative” apostles.

16 One might have expected Paul to let go of this issue with the plaintive question that concluded v. 15. But all has not been said. Apparently some have suggested that the collection is simply his way of getting money from them but deviously. The verse itself is in two sentences. In the first, he points back (v. 15) to the subject of his love for them, on which he comments, “Be that as it may,”16 adding emphatically17 that he had not “burdened” them. In the second, he echoes back a different Corinthian criticism regarding money, that, being a crafty fellow, he had taken them by guile, a criticism he will address in the next two verses.

Paul’s words in the previous verse can only mean that they see his self-support as evidence of his lack of love to them (v. 15; cf. 11:11), the reverse of which, however, is true. Thus Paul responds, “Be that as it may [whatever you may think about my love for you (v. 15), let me say—Paul is emphatic], I have not burdened you.” He will not (vv. 13, 14), and he has not. The verb “weigh down,”18 referring to ships’ ballast (cf. 1:8), is even more definite than the verb “burdened”19 in vv. 13 and 14 (which repeat his earlier words, “I did not burden anyone”—11:9). Once more the strongly interpersonal, conversational character of this passage is expressed (“I [emphatic] have not burdened you”).

The second sentence changes Paul’s tack.20 He now echoes a cynical view, as opposed to rebuffed feelings over his financial independence, held by some Corinthians. It is “since”21 Paul is a “crafty fellow” that he has “caught22 [lit. “taken”] [them] by trickery.”

This vocabulary is not new; earlier (4:2) Paul had specifically renounced “deception” and the “corrupting” of the word of God.23 What is this “cunning”24 of which some accuse him? The verses following supply the answer, namely, that Paul’s delegates received support from the Corinthians (“took advantage” of them—vv. 17, 18). On this view, Paul had stood on the high moral ground of self-support by manual labor, while having money slipped into his back pocket by Titus and others that they had received from the Corinthians. By appearing to be self-supporting he has “taken” them, that is, gained a moral advantage over them.25 Paul answers this assertion of craftiness over the next two verses, both of which are balancing rhetorical questions about those who have come to them as Pauline envoys.

17 Paul first asks a rhetorical question, stated in general terms (cf. the specific example following—v. 18), but so structured as to expect a negative reply.26 Thus (literally):

Any of those whom	I sent to	you,
through him did	I defraud	you?

The answer is emphatically “no,” as the Corinthians well know. Paul could not frame the question so confidently unless it were so.

Again we note the personal character of the interchange (“I sent to you … I defraud you?”; see generally vv. 14–19). The grammar of the sentence is pointed: (1) The pronominal structure “any of those whom … through him”27 focuses the Corinthian readers on each person of the number whom Paul sent to them, but on one in particular (Titus). (2) The perfect tense, “sent,”28 means “I have sent,” indicating Paul’s initial dispatch of [an] envoy[s], followed by others. (3) The contrastive singular event in the aorist tense “get the better of,” “take advantage over,”29 when combined with the pronouns, asks, in effect, “Of the many whom I have sent to you, did any one of them on any one occasion ever take advantage of you?”

Paul’s reply evidently mirrors the charge some are making. “True, he does not receive money from us directly. But what about the money he receives from us indirectly, through his envoys who have come here?” On this hypothesis Paul’s representatives, unlike him, were provided for by them, but—for his defense to carry weight—their support would have been minimal.

18 Paul now specifies what was expressed more generally in v. 17. The present verse is in three sentences: (1) The generalized question of the previous verse (“any one of those … through him?”) is now made a specific statement (“I appealed to Titus and am sending with him the brother”), as the basis for (2) a rhetorical question expecting a negative reply30 (“Did Titus take advantage of you?”), and (3) two consequent rhetorical questions expecting positive replies31 (“Did we not walk in the same spirit, follow the same steps?”).

Their questions in the previous and present verses demand replies that (1) Titus did not take advantage of them, and that (2) Paul has behaved as blamelessly toward them as Titus has. Titus is cited because Paul had “sent” him to Corinth on at least two earlier occasions prior32 to his current visit bearing 2 Corinthians and seeking to complete the collection. There had been ample opportunity for Titus to “take advantage of” the Corinthians. Titus, however, was known to be a man of considerable stature as a Christian leader (see on 7:15).

Both answers to his questions leave the Corinthians with little alternative but to agree that Paul did not abuse his relationship with them, whether indirectly “through” Titus (see on v. 17) or directly on Paul’s own account. Paul’s care to assert his and Titus’s probity in financial matters establishes an important model for pastors for subsequent generations.

Paul’s dispatch of the brother “with Titus” to Corinth poses an important question. Upon that answer hangs the question of the unity of chapters 10–13 with chapters 1–9. Specifically, if Paul’s dispatch of Titus, referred to here, is the same as that mentioned earlier (8:6, 18), then there are grounds for believing the present verse belongs to a later letter.

In our view the passages in question (8:6, 17–18; 12:18) point to one visit. In both chapters 8 and 12 Paul (1) “appealed” to Titus,33 and (2) dispatched with him “the brother.”34 Thus there can be little doubt that chapter 8:6, 18 and 12:18 refer to that visit to Corinth of the renowned brother with Titus which Paul initiated, at which they delivered canonical 2 Corinthians and during which they attempted to bring to completion the collection ahead of the arrival of Paul.

Does that mean that 12:18 belongs to a separate and later letter from the passage in which 8:6, 18 appeared? Certainly, the aorist, understood as a completed action tense, “I sent [with35] … Titus,” would readily support such a view. But the earlier aorist reference (8:18) cannot mean “we sent” but “we36 are sending37 … Titus” (see also 8:22), an epistolary aorist38 demanded by the context and so rendered by the translations. These earlier references employing the aorists in an epistolary manner point to the prospective “sending” of the brother with Titus to Corinth. The historic use of the aorists, “I urged” and “I sent [with],”39 in 12:18, however, when aspectivally understood, suggest the now completed dispatch to and arrival in Corinth of the renowned brother with Titus.40 On this reading of the contexts of the two passages 8:6, 18, 22 and 12:18, we conclude that they belong to the same letter, which has been delivered and which the Corinthians are now reading.41

The rhetorical question about Titus that follows and that is also expressed in the aorist, “Did Titus take advantage42 of you?” could refer to a past visit (see above) or to the present visit. Either way the answer is that Titus has not taken advantage of them. To that Paul adds a further question, driving the point home, “Did we not walk in the same spirit;43 follow in the same footsteps?” Titus they know well—better, indeed, than Paul; as Paul’s envoy he has made frequent visits to Corinth, including in the immediate past. As he had not taken advantage of them, no more had Paul. The cynical view that Paul is a cunning man who has appeared to be self-supporting while receiving assistance all the while through his associates (v. 16) is thus rebutted.

19 In a rather more personal tone, addressing them as “beloved,”44 Paul now asks a question and gives an answer. Have they45 been thinking throughout the reading46 of this letter that Paul has been defending himself to them?47 Despite their possible impressions to the contrary, Paul assures them that he has not been doing this, at least not solely or ultimately. Solemnly he assures them that he has been speaking “before God,” but48 that everything he has said has been for their “upbuilding.”

This important-sounding verse appears to round off a section. But which section—the present one relating to financial relationships (vv. 13–18) or something more extensive? For a number of reasons it is held that Paul has in mind the entire letter49 to this point: (1) his reference to “everything”50; (2) the question “Have you been thinking for some time?”51 suggesting a prolonged period; (3) his clarificatory “that we have been defending52 [ourselves] to you,” which calls to mind his defensive tone of the earliest parts of the letter chapters (see 1:3–2:13); and (4) his repetition of the words “before God in Christ we speak” from an early passage (2:17).

Paul is reassuring them that, although from his viewpoint he has, indeed, been writing an “apologetic” letter,53 he has also crafted it for their benefit. In any case, Paul must be careful not to give them the impression that he is commending himself, lest his detractors seize upon it (see on 3:1). Nonetheless, he has been concerned to explain and defend past actions, for example, (1) the writing of the “Severe Letter” instead of a direct return to them (1:12–2:4; 10:1–11), and (2) his determined commitment to self-support in ministry (11:7–12; 12:13–16; cf. 4:2; 7:2–4). But there is another dimension to what he has written, which raises the letter beyond a mere personal defense.

So far from merely offering a defense about himself to them, let them understand that he is speaking “before God and in Christ.”54 An oath55 is implied here (cf. on 1:12, 18, 23; 11:10, 31; 12:6). He is not merely a man arguing a case in his own interests, as one of their contemporaries might. He is speaking in the presence of God, as a Christian believer. The omniscient God is witness to the truth of the words that he has written to them. Paul is conscious that all that he has done will be revealed in the presence of Christ, his judge (see on 5:10).

With that solemn assurance let them know that everything he writes is “for”56 their “upbuilding,”57 that is, for the strengthening of their understanding and character in Christ. The risen Lord called and authorized his apostle to bring this great benefit to the churches (see on 10:8; 13:10). Significantly, though he is not yet physically present, the Corinthians will nonetheless enjoy the blessing of “upbuilding,” which Paul here attributes to hearing the reading of this letter (so also 13:10; cf. 10:8–10). It is because, as he says, “before God in Christ we speak” that the blessing of “upbuilding” is mediated to the Corinthians. The earlier and identical reference pointed to the spoken word as “the word of God” (2:17); here his written letter must be regarded as that word.

But how have Paul’s words, apart from defending himself and his ministry, been for the edification of the Corinthians? In every issue Paul has raised with them throughout this letter, he has given them an undergirding of theological teaching, whether (1) explaining his actions and movements (1:1–2:13; 7:5–16), (2) describing the new covenant ministry (2:14–7:4), (3) appealing for the completion of the collection (chaps 8–9), or (4) admonishing the Corinthians for, on the one hand, welcoming the false apostles (10:12–12:13) and, on the other, continuing in immorality (12:20–13:4). At every point in the letter Paul has provided some theological and pastoral teaching for “upbuilding” the spiritual and moral lives of the believers.

Notwithstanding the generally edifying teachings of the letter in the various passages, it is likely that Paul is, in particular, pointing to passages about himself. Given the triumphalist character of the “superlative” apostles and, indeed, the triumphalist tendencies of the Corinthians, it is likely that Paul has in mind those passages about himself in which the nontriumphalist, “slave”like58 character of his ministry has been set forth (e.g., 2:14–16; 4:1–15; 6:3–13). Edifying, indeed, is Paul’s own example of one who might well have been inflated in pride through his extraordinary visions and revelations, but who learned humbly to depend on the Lord’s grace and power in the unremoved thorn (12:7–10).

Closely related is Paul’s emphasis throughout the letter on the power of God impinging on his “weaknesses” (i.e., sufferings-in-ministry). Here the motif of the death and resurrection of Jesus is not only central to the gospel message; death and resurrection also carry over into his own experience, and beyond him to other believers. Sufferings are analogous to Christ’s death, and deliverance from those sufferings to Christ’s resurrection. The God who raises the dead rescued Paul, as he testifies throughout this letter, from peril in Asia (1:8–10), from persecutions in general (4:7–14; 6:4–7), from the powerlessness of the unremoved thorn (12:7–9), and in his discipline of them (13:3–4). But Paul has written about himself not to defend himself so much as to edify his readers—then and now.59 The God of the gospel of the death and resurrection of Jesus continues to deliver his people.

To be sure, Paul defends himself throughout the letter, but he does so in such a way as to edify the church. The historical particulars are ultimately unrecoverable because of the historical distance and the incompleteness of the records, but the edifying teaching across the main sections of the letter, and about Paul in particular, remains for the people of God in every generation.

2. Warnings in View of Paul’s Third Visit (12:20–13:4)

20For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy,1 outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder. 21I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged. 1This will be my third visit to you. “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” 2I already gave you a warning when I was with you the second time. I now2 repeat it while absent: On my return I will not spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others, 3since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you. 4For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with him to serve you.

In this part of the letter more than in any other, Paul stresses his impending third visit. This is written from the pain of the unfortunate second visit, whose echoes may still be heard in Paul’s words. These verses are dominated by the “fear” he feels at unresolved moral problems he may face when he comes. However, let them be under no misunderstanding: he will exercise his disciplinary powers if the need remains, though he hopes the problems of immorality will at last be behind them. Let those who disdain his spirituality and his effectiveness—based on observations of the second visit—understand that Christ—crucified and risen—does and will speak through him as one who serves in weaknesses, yet who nonetheless ministers in the power of the risen Christ.

20 In a passage (12:20–13:4) where he severely admonishes (certain of) his readers in the light of his impending visit, Paul shifts from the “we” reference of the previous verse to the first person singular, “I.” The “upbuilding” (see 10:8; 13:10) of v. 19, which pointed backward, is now carried forward to v. 20 by the explanatory connective “for.”3 In the verses that follow, however, it becomes clear that this “upbuilding” is in the nature of significant moral amendment that must occur within a specific and highly charged situation, namely, long-standing and unrepented sexual sins among the Corinthians (12:20, 21; 13:2)

Paul signals by his “I am afraid,” with which this verse commences, a fear that is in no way hypothetical. That fear,4 as the next verses demonstrate, is that when he comes he will “not find [them] as [he] want[s them] to be.” But, bent as he is on resolving these divisive sexual and disciplinary problems (12:21; 13:1),5 this will mean that the Corinthians will “not find [him] as [they] want [him] to be.” This chiastic (crisscross) expression

what	I	want
	I	may not	find …
	I	may not be	found
what	you	want

would have had particular impact when read aloud in the assembly. In that regard, as the subjunctive mood in “I may not find … I may not be found”6 suggests, Paul retains the hope that the Corinthians, influenced by his present words, “may” take it upon themselves to deal with their problems, relieving Paul of that unpleasant duty when he comes.

Specifically, he fears that his coming with resolution7 to rectify the chronic sexual problems,8 as he will mention in v. 21, will involve him in “quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip [lit. “whisperers”/“conceits”], arrogance and disorder.” This descriptive list is so detailed9 that it seems certain that Paul was convinced these troubles awaited him in Corinth if he came determined to resolve the problems of sexual immorality.10 But the specific character of the list suggests that these were the very problems Paul faced during his difficult second visit. These words, therefore, are best explained as descriptive of Paul’s recent humiliating experience in Corinth, which he now fears he may have to relive when he next comes to them.

21 Paul is afraid that on arrival in Corinth he will have to deal with those who are still unrepentant. The initial “that”11 is dependent on “I fear”12 from v. 20. As in the previous verse, the “fear” is associated with his “coming” to Corinth, in this case lest (1) his God humble him “again”13 before them, and (2) he grieve over many who “sinned before,” yet have not repented.

In addition to the “fear” of conflict with the unrepentant (as in v. 20), Paul expresses apprehension at the prospect that, as he says, “my God will humble me before you [again].” This enigmatic remark14 appears to refer to the profound humbling (cf. 10:1) of himself he would sustain—possibly of a deliberate, even public kind—as he “grieve[s]15 over” unrepented sexual sin within the Corinthian church. This may have involved formally excluding unrepentant offenders from the fellowship, that is, “handing [them] over to Satan” (1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20). In these circumstances Paul would openly “grieve” for such sinners and, in so doing, would be “humbled” by God.

Paul’s comments imply some kind of congregational procedure (1 Cor 5:4; 2 Cor 2:10) to deal with disciplinary matters (see on 2:5–6). Evidence would be heard, with no fewer than two or three witnesses (13:1), perhaps preceding a congregational vote (cf. 2:5—“the majority”). A judgment would be passed (1 Cor 5:3), followed by “punishment” (cf. 2:5), apparently some kind of separation or exclusion of the erring member (cf. 1 Cor 5:11, 13). Such a procedure, as best we are able to reconstruct it from fragmentary data scattered through 1 and 2 Corinthians, was to provoke the sinner’s repentance with a view to his restoration to the community of faith (1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 2:10–11; Gal 6:1–2).

Paul’s “fear” in “coming” to Corinth was also due to the “many” who must be dealt with, namely, those “who have sinned earlier.”16 On the basis of 1 Cor 6:12–20 (cf. 10:8), this phrase most likely refers to those who sinned prior to Paul’s second visit (so also 13:2). Paul specifies their sin in sexual terms, as “the17 impurity, sexual sin, and debauchery18 which they practiced.” Greek Corinth of classical times was notorious for its sexual license, and it is likely that the new Roman city was no less debauched, though the evidence applicable to the newer city is less clear in that regard.19

Promiscuity within the church in Corinth may be traced from the earliest of Paul’s correspondence, from the time he left the city after founding the church. The (lost) “Previous Letter” was occasioned by “sexually immoral” members of the church, from whom Paul had called for separation (1 Cor 5:9–11). In our canonical 1 Corinthians Paul challenged the Corinthians’ proud toleration of gross sexual sin, for example, incest (5:1), union with prostitutes (6:15), adultery, sodomy, and homosexual prostitution (6:9). Timothy’s visit to Corinth at the time of the dispatch of that letter (16:10) was probably related to the problems canvassed in it, including ongoing sexual sins. Moreover, it is probable that a negative report by Timothy on his return to Ephesus necessitated Paul’s unscheduled visit to Corinth, when he confronted the long-term, unrepented sexual sin practiced by “many” (also 13:2). It appears, further, that the (lost) “Severe Letter,” written from Ephesus on Paul’s return from his humiliatingly unsuccessful visit to Corinth, was prompted by disorder in the church (v. 20). Opposition to Paul’s attempt to discipline endemic sexual sin appears to have been led by the man Paul refers to as the “wrongdoer” (2 Cor 7:12).

Further definition of these unrepentant ones is difficult. It seems likely, however, that they were Gentiles, not Jews, since the former were characteristically lax in sexual matters and the latter strictly observant of the Law of God. Moreover, it is likely that they belonged to separate, Gentile subgroups based on house churches in Corinth. There were, however, “many who have sinner earlier,” whom Paul would have to confront on his pending arrival in the city, and in the face of whom he may be “humbled” by God as he applies godly discipline.

1 For the third time in successive verses—in each case near the beginning of the verse—Paul signals his intention to “come” to them. Here, however, he specifically refers to the “third”20 visit, mentioned above in 12:19.

Despite his determination not to come to them again in “grief” (2:1), that is, to deal with unrepented sin by sustained discipline, it appears that just such a visit is now in prospect.21 Reference to “two or three witnesses” (LXX Deut 19:1522) indicates that the forensic practices in the Pentateuch are to apply.23 That “every word24 must be substantiated”25 by multiple testimony suggests a congregational hearing, as noted earlier (see on 12:21).26

Who are those against whom such “witnesses” will speak? There is no hint that the man who wronged Paul during the second visit (7:12)—and who might since have lapsed—is in view. Rather, the context points to the “many” (12:21) still involved in sexual sin, supported by “all the rest” (see on 13:2).

Nonetheless, this raises the question of why Paul was so elated at the Corinthians’ positive response to the “Severe Letter,” as reported to Paul by Titus on his return from Corinth (7:7, 9–11, 13–16). One explanation is that, in the period between Titus’s return and the writing of this part of 2 Corinthians, Paul has heard of a large-scale relapse into sexual sin by certain members, unanticipated by Paul’s earlier words (7:7–16). Such an explanation would bear negatively on the question of the unity of the present letter, suggesting that this passage would belong to a later letter, a view not taken in this commentary.27 The present passage, however (12:21; 13:2), gives no evidence that these sinners had interrupted their sinning by repentance.

A better explanation is that Paul, as a matter of pastoral method, deals with various issues in the churches by “compartments,” keeping different problems separate so as to retain objectivity and perspective. Certainly that is his approach to problems as they are dealt with throughout 1 Corinthians. In this case, he has deliberately deferred addressing this major problem until the end of the letter, perhaps for greater impact, in the light of his imminent arrival, so that he might be spared the disciplinary encounter about which he expresses his concern (10:1–2; 12:20, 21).

It is indeed possible that he had referred earlier to these sinners in the passage calling for separation from pagan temples (6:14–7:1). That admonition had an element also found in his present admonition to the sexual sinners, namely, that of “purity.” The earlier passage exhorted the readers to “purity” (7:1—“let us purify ourselves”; the present one mentions the sin of “impurity”—12:21).28 It has been suggested that “the many” who have not repented from sexual sins are to be identified with or are closely associated with those still involved with pagan temple worship. In all probability these are Gentiles connected with one or more house-based subchurches within the wider faith community in Corinth.

2–3a Paul now concludes29 what he began in 12:20 (cf. 12:14), foreshadowing his impending visit to Corinth. Once again—for the fourth time in four consecutive verses—Paul declares his intention to “come”30 to Corinth. The impact of this repetition upon the hearers of the letter would leave no doubt as to Paul’s imminent final visit.

This is a powerful statement directed to “those who had sinned before and all the rest.” As he had forewarned31 them when present during the “second”32 visit, so now while absent33 he also forewarns34 them. Thus he draws a contrast between his second visit and his absence from them now. When present with them he had warned them in advance what a future visit would mean, just as absent now he also warns in advance. Perhaps he is rebutting in passing their complaint that he had been ineffectual in discipline when present for that second visit (see on 10:1–2, 10).

That carefully stated warning is directed to “those who sinned earlier” (see 12:21, where the unrepented sins of “impurity, sexual sin and debauchery” are listed35). Significantly, Paul adds, “and all the others” (not “or any of the others,” as in the NIV). Who are these36? Paul may be referring darkly to an amorphous group who tacitly supported the habitual sinners over against Paul’s strong demands but who themselves were not actively involved in the immorality. Perhaps they are to be equated with the (implied) “minority” who supported the now-penitent wrongdoer against Paul at the time the punishment against him occurred (2:6).37

What, then, of the warning—given during the second visit and now repeated—directed to unrepentant and resistant sections of the Corinthian congregation? It is that38 “when” he comes (the conditional “if” reproduces his exact words of warning declared during his second visit) he will not “spare”39 the “many” (12:21) unrepentant sinners and their supporters (see on 12:21).

But can he achieve this discipline within the Corinthian church? There must be some doubt in view of the failed second visit, which was not followed by a further visit but by a letter that was, in effect, an ultimatum. A “weak” personal presence followed by nothing more than a “powerful” letter has left doubts in some minds as to Paul’s ability to resolve problems endemic to this church (10:9–10). Paul will address this question in the following verses.

In v. 3a—which is here taken as the conclusion of a sentence begun in v. 240—Paul now states the reason41 why he will “not spare” the unrepentant sexual sinners when he comes “again”42 to Corinth. It is, he says, that you “desire43 proof of “the Christ who is speaking through me.”44 His title, “the Christ,” is probably intentional here, pointing to the kingly rule of Jesus. God makes his appeal though Paul; the Christ speaks though his ambassador (see on 5:20).

But who are the “you”45 who seek “proof” of this? In the first instance it is likely that Paul has in mind those detractors who regard him as spiritually ineffective (see on 10:7 in the context of 10:1–11). Nonetheless, it is quite possible that many of the Corinthians have, to some degree, accepted their criticism of the absent apostle as one who “walks by” and exercises his ministry “by the flesh” (10:2, 4; cf. 1:12, 17). The present tense of the verbs “desiring … speaking” suggests that this was an issue at the time of writing, probably as reported to Paul by Titus on his return from Corinth (7:6–7).

What these detractors seek is “proof”46 that Christ is speaking “in47 [Paul],” that he will effectively discipline the moral offenders within the Corinthian fellowship.48 This they doubt on account of “the weakness of his physical presence” (10:10), as displayed—according to them—in his poor efforts during the second visit. He will admit to being “weak” in the physical sense through the “stake/thorn in the flesh” and other “weaknesses” (12:7–10), though nonetheless finding strength from God in such “weaknesses.” But he will not admit to being “weak” in the spiritual sense, rejecting altogether the jibe that Christ does not speak through him. The reverse, in fact, is true. The power of God is at work in his ministry, as they should well know (see on 1:20–22; 3:2–3; 8:7; 10:4, 7).

This is not the first time the word “proof” has been used in the troubled relationships with the Corinthians. The “Severe Letter” apparently asked for “proof” that the Corinthians were “obedient” to Paul, which was to be demonstrated by their disciplining the man who had wronged Paul during the second visit, “proof” of which they gave by their disciplinary action (2:9; 7:12). In turn, the Corinthians demand “proof” of Paul that Christ does speak “in Paul.”49

Using the same blacksmith’s vocabulary50 in the next paragraph (vv. 5–10), Paul expresses the hope that in his forthcoming visit he will not be “disproved” in their eyes (v. 6), though he accepts that they may regard him as “disproved.” It is more important, he says, that you “prove yourselves … understand within yourselves that Christ Jesus is in you” (v. 5). That the Corinthians “prove” themselves to be indwelt by Christ is more important than their opinion whether or not Christ speaks “in Paul.” Paul does not doubt this; quite the reverse, in fact (10:3–6). Nor should they.

3b-4 Having mentioned their desire to see proof of Christ’s speaking in him, Paul sets out to do that in a most unusual way—with a relative clause setting forth the fact that Christ himself is not weak, but powerful in/among them. This is followed by double explanatory clauses, both of which pick up the “weakness”/“power” contrast—first with regard to Christ, and second as that now applies to Paul. Verses 3b, 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d51 are characterized by a threefold repetition of a weak/powerful motif, which may be rendered:

3b		[Christ]52		is not	weak	toward you,		1
	but			is	powerful53	in	you.54
4a	For indeed55		he was crucified56
				in	weakness,57			2
4b	but			lives58
			through the		power of God.
4c	For indeed		we also are		weak in him,			3
4d	but		shall live59		with him
			through the		power of God
						toward you.60

This unit is Paul’s penultimate juxtaposition of the weak/powerful theme in 2 Corinthians (cf. 13:9).61 As such it serves as Paul’s second-to-the-last word of self-defense against the criticism of his shortcomings in ministerial discipline.

Consistent with his pastoral method, he treats the particular situation—now substantially lost to us—as an opportunity to teach about Christ. It is, however, a pointed teaching, directed at the views about Christ held by the Corinthians (see on 10:3–7). In apparent rebuttal of their view of Christ, Paul declares that “[Christ] is not weak in dealing with [them],”62 adding in the next verse, “[Christ] was crucified in [lit. “out of”] weaknesses.” Why is Paul so insistent on this point? In all probability it is because they held such a triumphalist view of the risen and ascended Christ that they minimized both the earthly ministry and more particularly the death of Christ, core truths of the gospel that the apostle Paul was committed to uphold (see on 2:14).

Were they saying that both the message “Christ … crucified” was “weak” and the messenger who brought it was “weak”? Their rejection of that message would be tantamount to rejecting Paul as well. However, by declaring that “Christ … crucified” was not “weak” toward them, Paul is at the same time answering the criticism that the one who preached “Christ … crucified” was also “weak” toward them (see on 10:1–4, 7). Quite the reverse; his ministry is empowered by God (see on 10:2–4).

What, then, does Paul mean by “[Christ] … crucified out of weakness … is not weak toward you”? “Christ … crucified” powerfully stands as a rebuke to sin. Those for whose sins Christ has been crucified cannot continue in their sins or personal arrogance or in a lifestyle centered on themselves. Those for whom Christ has died have themselves “now” died to living to themselves; from “now on” they live for him who died and was raised for them (5:14–15). Paul’s earlier reference to the “stake/thorn” given him to stop his being—as the “superlative” apostles were—“over-uplifted” in pride is testimony to “Christ not being weak toward” Paul. Indeed, Paul is “weak” in Christ, that is, broken and humbled in him. Let the Corinthians learn from Paul’s experience of the stake/thorn not to be arrogant (cf. 12:19); “Christ crucified is not weak.”

Closely connected with this is the apostle’s own proposed “humbling” of himself, his “grieving” for those professed believers who continue in their sins (12:21). Though they may despise as “weak” the message of “Christ … crucified” and the messenger who preached and embodied that message against the willful sinner, the reality was that Christ crucified is not “weak” in his impact on the believer in his sins and pride.

Not that Paul emphasizes “Christ … crucified” to the exclusion of the reality that “Christ … lives.” If the one refers to the death, the other refers to the resurrection. Paul is equally emphatic about both truths, which he often sets in balance, as here. Thus Christ—the Christ who has been “crucified” (aorist passive)—now “lives” (present tense) through the “power of God”63 (cf. 1:9; 4:14), and he is “powerful among you.” His resurrection “power”64 had been made perfect in Paul’s weakness of the stake/thorn, through which, as it were, Paul had been crucified. The Corinthians, too, will know that power through Paul’s ministry among them. The risen, living Christ—living through the power of God—will be powerful “in” this congregation. Paul’s imminent coming to Corinth, as he preaches and embodies the crucifixion, will demonstrate that Christ “lives by the power of God.”

Paul specifically connects his own ministry to “Christ … crucified … living” among them in the closest possible way. Paul is “weak in him … yet by God’s power … lives with him.” Here Paul reintroduces the power/weakness language of his interaction with his local detractors (see on 10:7). Against the criticism that his bodily presence is “weak” (10:10)—through his perceived ineffectual discipline during the second visit—he asserted that the weapons of his warfare in reality are “empowered by God” (10:4).

Nonetheless, there is no triumphalism here (see on 2:14). Paul immediately concedes that he is “weak in [Christ] … crucified.” His apostolic ministry is characterized by the “weaknesses”—by extension, as it were—of the sufferings of Christ, as reflected in the catalogues of apostolic suffering (1:8–11; 4:7–12; 6:3–10; 11:23–33; 12:9–10), including the “weakness” of the thorn/stake, through which he was brought “down to earth” (12:7–9a). Yet as “Christ,” who had been “crucified in weakness,” now “lives,” so, too, Paul, who is “weak in him,” now “lives with him … toward [the Corinthians].”

The Corinthians must not forget that Christ suffered and died. But equally let them not forget that the apostle, whose ministry is marked by “death” (4:7–12), “lives” toward them powerfully to impose gospel-discipline where it is called for (see on 10:2–6). Let the Corinthians get the balance right. Despite their beliefs to the contrary, the living Christ died and the dying apostle lives, though only in the One who died and who now lives.

With vv. 3b-4b is ended the very important passage that began at 12:20. More than any other in the entire letter, these verses identify the crisis in Corinth that necessitated the apostle’s second visit, namely, endemic and unrepented sin by a section of the messianic community (12:21; 13:2). In this regard the passage should be bracketed with 2:5–11 and 7:5–12 (quite possibly with 6:14–7:1 also).

Moreover, this passage strongly hints that during the second visit his attempts to deal with the sexual problems—by humbling himself, “grieving” over the sinners (cf. 10:1)—provoked serious social dislocation within the church (12:21), helping create the sense that Paul’s mission had failed and that Christ did not speak through him (13:3)—in short, that he was a man of flesh, not Spirit (10:2–4). When we read the foregoing passage with 10:1–11, it emerges Paul had a number of detractors in this regard, scorning him as “weak” when present and “powerful” only when absent, as a distant letter-writer.

Finally, in this passage—so close to the end of the letter—Paul reasserts his capability of dealing with the unresolved sexual problems of the Corinthians when he makes his third visit, though he hopes that this letter will rectify the problems before he comes. Pastorally, Paul showed determination addressing the moral problems of the Corinthians. His resurrection power arose out of the “meekness and gentleness” of a man in Christ crucified.

3. Test Yourselves (13:5–10)

5Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test? 6And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test. 7Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong. Not that people will see that we have stood the test but that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed. 8For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. 9We are glad whenever we are weak but you are strong; and our prayer is for your perfection. 10This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority—the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down.

Paul turns from replying to the Corinthians’ demand for “proof” that Christ was speaking in Paul (v. 3) to his encouragement that they “prove” to themselves that Christ Jesus is in them. Thus the vocabulary of “proving”—an ironfounder’s image—is prominent within this passage (vv. 5–7—“to prove,” “approved,” “disproved”; cf. 1 Thess 2:14; 5:21). Evidently the Corinthians have been “proving” Paul’s ministry, and some, at least, regard him as “dis-proved.” But Paul calls on them to turn their attention away from him to them. (Note the repeated “yourselves” in v. 5.)

While there are serious grounds for concern about their understanding and practice of Christianity, nonetheless he would have them confirm for themselves that they are “in the faith” and that “Christ Jesus is in [them].” Since they are “approved,” so, too, is he “approved.” Indeed, if he were to be “disproved,” so, too, would they be “disproved” (v. 6), that is, unapostolic. What he prays for is that they will not do evil but good, and that they will be “restored” (vv. 7, 9b)—and this even if in their eyes he may be seen to be “disproved.” That is more important than whether or not he seems to be approved by them.

In any case he can do nothing against the truth, but only be subject to the truth; others may be false, but he is not (v. 8). He rejoices that his “weakness” is the means to their “power.” But he prays, in particular, for their “restoration” (v. 9). Although the Lord’s authority over him includes the power to “tear [them] down,” it is more appropriately exercised for their “upbuilding,” which he now seeks to do, while absent, in writing to them (v. 10). Thus two keywords emerge, their “restoration” and their “upbuilding.” He prays for the one and writes this letter to achieve the other.

5 This verse turns on two imperatives, “examine” and “test.”1 Although the former often has the negative intent to provoke to sin (1 Cor 7:5; 10:3; Gal 6:1; 1 Thess 3:5), its use here is probably synonymous with the second word, that is, to “prove so as to approve” (see 8:22; cf. 1 Thess 2:4; 5:21; 1 Cor 11:28; Rom 2:18; 14:22; Eph 5:10). This in turn leads on to the theme of “disproved” and “approved” that dominates vv. 5–7. The Corinthians were demanding “proof” that the Christ was speaking through Paul (v. 3a); Paul now calls on them to “prove” themselves to themselves (cf 7:12).

“Yourselves”2 is the object of both imperatives, occurring first for emphasis. Rather than “examine”/“approve” (or otherwise) Paul as they have been doing, let the Corinthians’ attention be directed instead at themselves. He will show them that their verdict about themselves will likewise be their verdict about him. That is, however they fare in their self-examination is how he also fares, because they owe their existence in Christ to him.

The first imperative (“Examine yourselves”) is followed by the conditional phrase, “if you are in the faith.” Although the Corinthians’ behavior has raised serious questions, the conditional “if” does not necessarily imply that Paul doubted their genuineness as believers. Otherwise he would not have addressed them as “the church of God” or expressed “confidence” about them (1:1; 7:4, 16). On the other hand, he would not minimize the dangers in which they stood (see on 6:1, 11–13; 11:4). His exhortation, therefore, has a positive pastoral intent.

The article in the phrase “in the faith” (see on 1:24; cf. 1 Cor 16:13) implies the propositional and theological content of that message about Jesus which is to be the object of “faith.” The opponents preach “another” Jesus, a gospel “different” from that brought to the Corinthians by Paul (11:4); his is the true faith. Let them confirm that they stand within its structure.

The second imperative (“test yourselves”3) repeats the first, but now using the keyword of vv. 5–7, “prove.” In a surprising turn, introduced by “or,” he leaves aside the possible doubt in the first clause. Thus Paul makes a strong pastoral appeal to them expressed as (1) a rhetorical question requiring a positive reply (“Or do you not4 know that Jesus Christ is in you?”), (2) which repeats the emphatic “yourselves” with which the verse began, (3) the intensified verb “thoroughly understand”5 in the present (i.e., continuous) tense, and (4) which is experiential (“that Christ Jesus is in you6”), in contrast to the above, which is propositional (“if you are in the faith”). Such an appeal may be rendered—“Or surely you yourselves thoroughly comprehend that Christ Jesus is in you,” reflecting the power of the risen Christ in the lives of these Corinthians (see on 1:22; 3:3–4, 8, 18; 5:5; 8:7; 11:4), which they cannot deny, in this the now-arrived “day of salvation” (5:14–6:2; cf. 1:20; 3:3).

The concluding “unless7 you fail the test” is ironic and pointed. Although this may appear to return to the suggestion of doubt in the first clause, in effect it is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Rather than casting doubt on whether they do in fact know Christ, he adds, “unless of course you were to end up failing the test after all”—which, of course, is unthinkable. But with that in mind he turns in v. 6 to point out the consequences. Of course the Corinthians “thoroughly know that Christ Jesus is in [them].” In view of the astonishing and palpable impact on their lives, how could it be otherwise?

But this must mean that Paul has been and is Christ’s true minister. To affirm the one demands the other. Their verdict on themselves is their verdict on him. If they are not “disproved” (adokimoi), it can only mean that he is “approved” (dokimos), that is, by God, as he proceeds to say in the verses following (vv. 6, 10; cf. 3:3; 10:18).

6 This verse continues the line of thought of the previous verse, especially the latter phrase. Its future cast, “I hope8 that you will know,” points to Paul’s impending third visit (see on 12:14). The repeated “that” (“I hope that … you will know that”) emphasizes Paul’s hope that the Corinthians will know that he9 is not “disproved” (adokimos) either—hence the irony in v. 5. Paul bears the God-given authority to upbuild the churches (10:8; 13:10; cf. 12:19). If the Corinthians reject Paul as Christ’s apostle, they reject themselves as apostolic. If he is “disproved,” then, so, too, are they. He hopes that he will not be, so that they will not be.

But these words are ironic rather than pessimistic. Despite the setback experienced at the second (“painful”) visit (2:1–3), the persistence by some in sexual/cultic misbehavior (13:2/6:14–7:1), and the welcome by some of the preachers of “another Jesus” (11:4), the Corinthians have nonetheless responded positively to his most recent ministry, the (lost) “Severe Letter” (7:8–16; cf. 7:4). Despite disappointments, evidences of God’s gracious “day of salvation” are to be seen in their midst. Ever the positive pastor, Paul looks to his imminent final visit to yield a good outcome for them.

There is very likely, therefore, a subtle twist to these words. Will the Corinthians “approve” themselves (v. 5)? If their answer is “Yes,” as he knows it will be, then they will thereby “approve” Paul. Putting it the other way, will they “disprove” Paul? If they answer “No,” then let them understand that, thereby, they “disprove” the newly arrived preachers. Thus to “approve” Paul and not to “disprove” him means that they must logically “disprove” his opponents. All of this is the result of examining themselves by recognizing that since Christ is really in them, Paul must himself have passed the test.

7 Using a mild adversative,10 Paul now tells his readers his prayer to God for the Corinthians (“we pray to God”), doubtless to reinforce his teaching in their consciences. His prayer is simply put—that they will not do what is evil but what is good. But the sentence itself becomes complex on both sides of the “not”/“but” contrast. He plays again on the theme of his not being “approved”/“disproved,” urging first that he does not want them to refrain from evil so that he will look good (“Not that people will see that we have stood the test”), and second that he wants them to do what is good even if he may appear to have failed the test.

This verse has a complex, four-part structure; parts (1) and (3) are his antithetical prayers (“not do evil,” “do good”11) for them (“you”), and parts (2) and (4) relate to himself (“we”). His first prayer for them, that the Corinthians (“you”) “do no evil,” is echoed negatively in regard to his status, “not that we may appear to be approved.” Likewise his second prayer, that the Corinthians “do good,” is echoed by the concession against himself,12 “even though we should seem disproved.” In the last resort, the Corinthians’ moral welfare is more important that their “approval” of Paul. Thus

		We pray to God
1		that you13 would do no		evil—
2			not that we might appear to be approved,
3	but	that you would do		good—
4		even	though we appear to be as if disproved.

God’s positive answer to Paul’s present prayer in the amendment of the lives of the Corinthians will have an important bearing on how he will present himself when he comes. If the Corinthians hear and obey this letter as they respond to Paul’s prayer for them (summed up as “not do evil/but do good”), then his apostolic purpose will have been thoroughly fulfilled. There will be no need for him to do something physical or visible in relation to the various unresolved errors of the Corinthians noted above (v. 6). The “proof” of his apostleship will already have been achieved by this letter in advance of his arrival; he will have been “approved.” Those who demand “proof” (see on 13:3) may feel that the absence of such “proof” when he comes is evidence of Paul’s “disproof.”14 But no matter. The real “proof” of Paul’s apostolate is that the churches are upbuilt by his word, which demonstrates itself by their doing what is good rather than being dramatically torn down at the time of his arrival (see on 10:8; 13:10).

Various closely related doctrines of Paul15 may be seen in this verse: (1) that he exercises his apostolic ministry as a servant (see on 1:24; 4:5), (2) that his ministry is powerful, though exercised in weakness (see on 12:10), and (3) that his word written in his physical absence is effective in his God-given ministry to upbuild the churches (see on 10:8, 10, 11). Those who see the “proof” of Paul’s apostolicity in some kind of “showdown” on his arrival do not comprehend the fundamentals of the power of God.

8 The initial explanatory “For”16 in this proverblike17 verse shows that what follows flows from what has gone before. But it is not immediately clear what exactly Paul is explaining. The use of “we” suggests that the focus is again on Paul. If so, then he is probably reaffirming that his ministry is not predicated on human approval or disapproval. Rather, it is based, as he states, on the fact that he speaks the truth and does not lie (11:10, 31; cf. 12:6). Moreover, his ministry has to do with “the word of truth” (see on 6:7).

The verb “we are able” is probably pointed, being related to a keyword of this letter, “power.”18 Paul’s ministry exhibits Christ’s power in weakness (12:9–10), but, as he now declares, it is not and cannot be “against the truth” but only “on behalf of19 the truth.” The experiencing of Christ’s power in weakness is “on behalf of,” or “for the sake of,” truth. Only as his life gives expression to truth—in the word of truth [of the gospel] (4:2; 6:7; 11:10) and moral truth (7:14; 11:31; 12:6)—does he experience and exercise the power of God. Controlled by truth as he is, Paul will not express himself in another guise, that of apparent power, in order to gain “approval” when he comes to the city.

As with other verses in this section, we discern an ironic twist, which is polemical in intention. Paul’s claim to live “on behalf of” (hyper) the truth is probably pointed at those who are “pseudo,” “false apostles” and “false brothers” (11:13, 26), who present themselves as “superlative” apostles (see on 11:5; 12:7, 11). But they are “false”—both as apostles and brothers; they live “against the truth.” By contrast Paul speaks the truth and does not lie; truly he is an apostle of Christ (see on 12:12), for whom gospel truth and moral truth are critical.

9 As with v. 8, this verse begins with an explanatory “For,”20 though it appears to be some sort of further elaboration of v. 7. We are driven to read between the lines here. Paul has taken the discussion back to his treatment of “weaknesses” (12:7–10). He rejoices, antithetically, when he is “weak” and they are “powerful,” adding his prayer for their “restoration.”

Because he hopes and expects that the Corinthians will set right their ways in response to this letter, that is, by his absence rather than by his presence (see 13:2), it will not be necessary to attend to such matters when he comes. In consequence it may easily appear to some that he is “weak,” and thereby, as it were, “disproved” (v. 7), or that Christ does not “speak through [him]” (13:4).

But even if the Corinthians failed to repent beforehand, his manner of dealing with them in his physical presence will, nonetheless, have the character of “weakness” (12:21—“my God will humble me … I will be grieved”; 13:4—“we are weak in him”). Either way, whether absent by letter or physically present, his ministry—as opposed to those of some who criticize him—will be marked by “weakness.”

This he sums up in the antithetical

For we rejoice	whenever	we	are weak,
	for then
		you	are strong.

The Corinthians’ strength “not to do evil”/“but to do good” (v. 7) does not spring from their apostle’s apparent strength—charisma, eloquence, and “visions and revelations”—but from his “weakness.” By this Paul means his carefully chosen modes of ministry: (1) by admonition—written or spoken (see on 12:19), (2) by the “meekness and gentleness of Christ” (10:1) rather than by worldly anger, (3) by “mourning” for the unrepentant (12:21), and, not least, (4) by utter dependence upon Christ in “stake/thorn”-conditioned helplessness for “power” in “weakness” (12:7–9).

A vicarious note is struck here. The apostle’s sufferings are analogous to Christ’s, though not in any propitiatory sense. Paul’s sufferings in ministry are in continuation of and in place of Christ’s (see on 5:20; 12:10) and for the sake of the churches (see on 1:6; 12:15). The Corinthians’ “power” will be in consequence of and in exchange for Paul’s “weakness.”

With these two further explanations of the theme of his “approval” and “disapproval,” Paul returns to his prayer for them. Before it was that they should do good and not evil, but now “for their restoration”21 (less satisfactorily RSV, “improvement,” or NIV, “perfection”). Originally used for the setting of broken limbs (so LSJ), this noun is found only here in the NT, but appears as a verb for mending nets (Mark 1:19 pars.), hence—metaphorically—for restoring a sinner to the congregation (Gal 6:1), making up what is lacking (1 Thess 3:10; cf. Heb 13:21; 1 Pet 5:10), so as to effect an appropriate and desired unity (1 Cor 1:10). Significantly, this verb appears in v. 11 as a passive imperative, “be restored.”

Clearly the Corinthians were in need of “restoration,” despite the presence of “Christ Jesus in [them]” (v. 5). Some were spiritually critical of the apostle, others habitually immoral, and still others again flirting with a heterodox Jesus. Such divergences inevitably set them against each other, but more importantly they set them against their apostle and, more importantly still, against their God. Theirs was a profound need for “restoration,” or, to use Paul’s earlier word, “reconciliation” (5:18–20). Thus he prays for their “restoration,” which amplifies his earlier prayer that they “not do evil/but do good” (v. 7). Both sides of that prayer have to do with their attitude toward him and their own need of restoration.

10 Paul now brings his letter to a conclusion by indicating once more his ultimate concern for writing. He began this long argument by reminding them that the goal of his whole ministry had been for “building them up, not tearing them down” (see on 10:8). He repeated this theme more generally at the beginning of this final warning and appeal (in 12:19). Now he brings both the larger argument (chaps. 10–13) and the final appeal to a conclusion by going over that ground one final time—in this case, not surprisingly, by reminding them that his writing in order to build them up is in keeping with the authority the Lord has given him.

The opening words, “For this reason”22 (4:1; 7:13), could point back to the previous phrase23 “for your restoration” as providing his reason for writing “when absent.” More probably, however, they anticipate what will follow, that is, in order that,24 “when present,” he may not have to “act harshly” (lit. “sharply”25) in regard to various moral matters demanding attention in Corinth (see on v. 6; 10:2). As Plummer puts it: “He writes [these things] sharply, that he may not have to act sharply.”26

He hopes not to have to “act harshly when present,” and he writes to that end. Such action, as now stated, is similar to the form of words used earlier (see on 10:8),27 namely,

according to the	authority
	that the Lord gave me
	for upbuilding
and not	for tearing down.

Although the Lord gave his authority to Paul “for” “upbuilding” and not “tearing down,” and although he is prepared to “tear down,” that is, discipline the moral offenders (13:2), his preferred option is to “upbuild.”

This understanding does not deny that the Lord had also authorized Paul for “tearing down,”28 for “act[ing] harshly.” Clearly the Lord had so authorized him (see on 10:2–6), and, if necessary, Paul would exercise that authority when he came to Corinth. Not that such “tearing down” would be aggressive or violent; it, too, was by the “meekness and gentleness of Christ” (10:1), as his apostle “humble[d himself]” and “grieved over” the unrepentant (12:21). But how much better it will be if the letter can achieve its purpose in Paul’s absence, by his letter before he comes, so that his final sojourn may be one of joy (see on 2:1–4).

But his words “I am writing”29 (present tense) raise the important question: What is Paul now (finishing) “writing”? While many commentators suggest that “these things” refers only to the last four chapters, a view based on the assumption that chapters 10–13 are a separate letter,30 the position taken here is that, because the letter is seen as undivided,31 Paul has in mind the entire letter. One reason for this stance is that the parallel verse (“all along … we have been speaking … for your upbuilding”—12:19) appears to refer to the letter as a whole.

Indeed, Paul did not begin to refer to a further visit to Corinth only within the final chapters 10–13. While the references come thick-and-fast in these chapters (10:6; 11:9; 12:20, 21; 13:1, 2), he does speak of a forthcoming visit earlier—within the early chapters (2:1, 3) as well as within the middle chapters (9:4). In my view, the letter from beginning to end has as its main—but not only—purpose to admonish the Corinthians to prepare themselves before he comes so that his final visit, unlike the “painful” second visit, may be a joyful reunion (see on 2:1–4).

4. Final Greetings (13:11–14)

11Finally, brothers, good-by. Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you.

12Greet one another with a holy kiss. 13All the saints send their greetings.

14May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Within these last verses1 of the letter—introduced by “Finally”2—are found (1) final pithy admonitions, (2) greetings, and (3) a benediction. Many (partial) parallels for these are to be found elsewhere: (a) among Paul’s other writings (e.g., 1 Thess 5:16–28; 2 Thess 3:16–18; 1 Cor 16:19–24), (b) in other NT writings (e.g., Heb 13:20–25; 1 Pet 5:12–14), and (c) in the everyday correspondence of the period.3

Those who regard chapters 10–13 as separate from chapters 1–9 naturally interpret vv. 11–13 as applicable only to chapters 10–13.4 Where the letter is seen as undivided, as argued throughout, these verses serve to conclude the entire letter. Nonetheless, granted that the final chapters direct the Corinthians to correct their errors in light of his now-imminent arrival, these last words tend to sum up the emphases of the latter part of the letter.

11 In an almost identical way to 1 Corinthians (16:13–14), and in keeping with other letters (1 Thessalonians, Philippians), Paul begins his conclusion with a series of “staccato” admonitions. As in 1 Corinthians, too, they are adapted to the concerns of this letter, especially the latter chapters. His address “brothers”—but which would include “sisters”—is consonant with and in preparation for the admonitions following (cf. “beloved”—12:19). There are five such admonitions,5 each expressed in the present tense as imperatives; appropriately, they are followed by the assurance that “God … will be with you.”

The first admonition, “Rejoice,”6 is so understood, rather than as “good-by” (NIV) or “farewell” (RSV), on account (1) of the immediately prior use in v. 9, and (2) of a close parallel in the admonitions list of 1 Thess 5:16, where, as here, it appears first in a list of imperatives (where it can only mean “rejoice”). The “day of salvation,” ushered in by the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ and the coming of the Spirit, is characterized by “joy.” Despite the constant reminders of suffering incurred in his ministry as stated throughout this letter, the apostle has repeatedly spoken of his “joy,” both in present experience and in prospect (1:24; 2:3; 6:10; 7:4, 13). Thus, first of all in this list of admonitions, he exhorts the Corinthians, “Rejoice.”

The second, “Be restored”7 (here taken as passive rather than middle voice; cf. Rom 12:2), follows closely “I pray for your restoration” (see on v. 9). He admonishes them to fulfill his prayer for them. The Corinthians need to be “restored”—or “mended”—in their relationship to God and to each other in the messianic community. It is an exhortation to a divided church that its members recover theological, spiritual, and practical unity-in-Christ. Paul’s injunction “Be reconciled to God” (5:20) has as its essential accompanying counterpart, “Be restored” to one another.

The third, “Be exhorted” or “Be encouraged,”8 relates to the various exhortations and encouragements the apostle has laid upon the Corinthians during the course of his letter. Using the same language, Paul has “exhorted” them to reaffirm their love for the wrongdoer (2:8), to be reconciled to God (5:20), not to receive the grace of God in vain (6:1), and not to force him to act boldly toward them (10:1). In addition to his explicit use of the language of “exhortation,” there are various examples in which, without the use of this vocabulary, he has exhorted them, for example, “widen your hearts … do not be mismated” (6:13–14; cf. 7:2); “give proof, before the churches, of your love and of our boasting about you to these men” (8:24, RSV); or coexhorted them, for example, “Let us cleanse ourselves” (6:1). Such “encouragements” are deliberately “pointed” and bring the will of the writer sharply to bear on the readers. Indeed, Paul’s purposes in addressing this letter to the Corinthians may be seen at their clearest in such references. Whatever Paul has “encouraged” them to do throughout the letter, let them do it.

The fourth, “Set your mind on the same thing”9 (also Rom 12:16; 15:5; Phil 2:2; 4:2), does not require the setting aside of individual opinion in matters of indifference. Rather, it calls on them to be united in their understanding of “the faith” (v. 5). The letter has revealed serious differences over definitions of spirituality (see on 10:2–7) and of apostolicity (11:1–12:14), over the covenant of God, whether it stands intact or whether it is now overtaken by the promised new covenant (3:3–18), over the necessity or otherwise to complete the collection (chaps. 8–9), and over the possibility of continuing in a Gentile lifestyle (6:14–7:1; 12:20–13:2). Let them have a common mind on such matters, as the apostle has been instructing them throughout this letter.

The fifth admonition, “Be at peace,”10 is closely connected with the fourth. The peace between them will arise from their God-given capacity to “think the same thing.” One passage specifically speaks of strife among them (12:20–13:2). But the entire letter presupposes major relationship difficulties within their community, creating the need for the present word of encouragement. Believers are caught up in spiritual warfare, both within their own lives and for the hearts and minds of unbelievers; they are not to be at war with one another.

The assurance, “And the God of love and peace will be with you,” is cognate with each of the five preceding admonitions about joy, restoration, submission, unity, and peace. The God who is love and peace will bestow these blessings on the Corinthians as they heed the apostle’s injunctions. God imparts his unique qualities to his children as they actively do his will. While “the God of peace” occurs frequently (1 Thess 5:23; Rom 15:33; 16:20; Phil 4:9; cf. 1 Cor 14:33), this is the only occasion when “the God of love” is used in the Bible (but cf. v. 13—“the love of God”).

12, 13 As with the conclusions of other letters of the Greco-Roman period, including ordinary correspondence (where the verb “to greet” is also used), various greetings are now encouraged and expressed.

First he exhorts them to “Greet one another with a holy kiss.” No parallel for such a “kiss” is known among the synagogues. The “holy kiss,” therefore, appears to be an innovation within the churches. A similar injunction occurs in other letters by Paul (1 Thess 5:26; 1 Cor 16:20; Rom 16:16), as well as the first letter by Peter (1 Pet 5:14a). That it is called “holy” may distinguish the “kiss” as nonerotic;11 it was probably not to the mouth. As such it expressed affection, as between family members (“beloved … brothers”—12:19; 13:11), greeting one another as God’s “holy ones,” or “saints” (cf. v. 12b). This encouragement to warmhearted fellowship is particularly appropriate to the church in Corinth, whose fragmentation is evident throughout this letter and is reflected in the admonitions of the previous verse (“be restored … think the same thing … be at peace”).12

Second, the apostle sends greetings to the Corinthians from “all the saints,” which we take to mean the “saints” (see on 1:1) of Macedonia. “Saints” are individual believers, reminding us of the distributive as well as of the congregational character of Christianity (see also 1:1; 1 Cor 1:2; 14:33; cf. Phil 1:1). Although the greeting comes from them, however, it might equally have come from the Macedonian churches (cf. Rom 16:16). There was probably some feeling between the churches of these Greek provinces, especially over their respective attitudes (1) toward the apostle (see on 8:5; 11:9), and (2) toward the collection (see on 8:1–6). It was important, therefore, for the greeting to be sent and received.

14 With this justly famous benediction13 the apostle concludes both his farewell words and the entire letter. A few verses earlier he prayed that the “God of love and of peace” be “with” them (v. 11). Now he prays that “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit” be “with” them.

This prayer reflects the experience of both the believer and the church through the gospel message (1:19), wherein the “grace [i.e., the sheer mercy—see on 1:2] of the Lord Jesus Christ” is understood. This fundamental of the gospel was expressed as a benediction that was often pronounced on its own (1 Thess 5:28; Gal 6:18; 1 Cor 16:23; Rom 16:20b; Phlm 25) and is reflected in the well-known christological passage earlier in the letter (see on 8:9). As a consequence of apprehending “the grace of … Christ,” there is the knowledge of “the love of God” (so also Rom 5:5; 8:9), that is, of the Father (see on 1:2–3; cf. 1 Thess 1:2–3). Because he is “the God of love” (v. 11), he is the God who “loves” (cf. 9:7) his children (see on 1:3, 9–11, 21; 7:6). As a further consequence of the “grace of … Christ,” there is the “fellowship of the Holy Spirit,” arising from the now-fulfilled “day of salvation” (5:14–6:2; cf. 1:21–22; 3:3, 8, 18; 5:5; 11:4), as a result of which there is both14 (1) the individual’s fellowship with the Spirit (Phil 2:1; cf. “we cry, ‘Abba,’ Father”—Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6), and (2) the fellowship created by the Spirit in the assembly of Spirit-indwelt ones (6:16; cf. 1 Cor 3:16–17; Eph 2:21–22).

But this benediction, being normative of the experience of those who receive the word of God, also serves to recall the Corinthians to relearn the fundamentals of “the faith” (see on 13:5a), and so be “restored” (or “mended”—vv. 9, 11) in their relationship to God and to each other. Whether they are flirting with the “other Jesus” of the intruders, or enmeshed in a Gentile lifestyle, or loftily critical of Paul—and by those errors distanced from God and divided from one another—let them return to “the grace of … Christ,” which in turn opens the doors to their experience of “the love of God” and the “fellowship of the Holy Spirit.”15 Here is the key to renewal of both the individual and the church, then and now.

It is clear from this three-part benediction, when read next to “the God of love and of peace” (v. 11), that Paul thinks of the one God as in some sense triune. There is (1) the Lord Jesus Christ, (2) God, his Father (1:3; 11:31)—who are in a personal (“Father” and “Son”) relationship—and (3) the Holy Spirit, whose “fellowship” with persons implies that he is a person, not a “force” or “influence.”

Triune references are quite common in Paul (e.g., Gal 4:4–6; 1 Cor 12:4–6; Eph 1:3, 13–14; 2:18; 3:14–17; 4:4–6), though there, as here, he does not explain either the relative status of the persons or their relationship with one another or with God. Nonetheless, this statement cannot be dismissed as merely “functional.” The “grace … love … fellowship” relate to “personal beings” who are called by different names. It is a small step to believe that the “God of love and of peace” of whom Paul spoke comes to us as three “persons” within the one God. Thus we may agree with H. B. Swete16 that this verse “suggests beyond doubt that beneath the religious life of the apostolic age there lay a profound, though as yet unformulated, faith in the tri-personality of God.” As Karl Barth observed, “Trinity is the Christian name for God.”

So the letter ends. As the lector closes the scroll, the minds of the Corinthians will be focused on one thing: Paul’s impending arrival for his final visit. In the weeks between their receipt of the letter and his coming, did they heed his admonition? Although we can only speculate, it appears that this letter, like the “Severe Letter,” brought a change of heart, for the following reasons: (1) Paul spent three months there soon afterward upon his arrival (Acts 20:2–3), (2) the Achaians participated in the collection (so Rom 15:26, despite the absence of named persons in Acts 20:4), and (3) the Letter to the Romans, which was probably written from Corinth soon after his arrival, has little of the anguish and heat evident in 2 Corinthians.

Be that as it may, what remains for posterity is this letter. It is remarkable for the patient confidence of its author toward those wayward and fickle believers in Roman Corinth, for its disclosure of Paul’s personal hurt, and for his own robust yet subtle exposition of the gospel of Christ in relationship to the matters of current concern in Corinth, matters that are forever lost through the distance of history and the eternal incompleteness of our knowledge. Yet Paul’s words—the text—remain, and come to us borne by the Spirit of God, with the authority of the Lord Christ himself, whose devoted minister Paul was.