Authorship and Unity. Although virtually all scholars agree that Paul wrote 2 Corinthians, scholars differ over whether it is one letter or a composite of several. Some of the proposed partitions in the book have more in their favor than others; the most obvious break in tone is between chapters 1–9 and chapters 10–13, the latter chapters shifting to an outright heated defense. But although ancient letter collections often removed openings and closings of letters, such collections generally retained the distinction between one letter and the next (e.g., *Cicero, *Seneca). Dividing 2 Corinthians into two letters is a possible way to read the evidence, but the burden of proof should remain on those who wish to divide it rather than on those who argue for its unity. As in speeches, Paul may save the most controversial material for the final section (cf. also, e.g., Oxyrhynchus papyri 1837); one could also save an emotional climax for the end (Demosthenes, Epistles 2). The eloquent could vary their tone within a single work (e.g., Pliny, Epistles 2.5.7-8). Most elements from earlier in the letter appear at least sometimes later, and vice versa. (I discuss this question much more fully in my Cambridge commentary. See below under “Commentaries.”)
Situation. Scholars vigorously debate the precise setting of some books in the *New Testament, including 2 Corinthians. Reconstructing the exact problem depends somewhat on the issue of the book’s unity. Virtually everyone agrees that Paul addresses tensions caused by opponents, at least in chapters 10–13, but views on the nature of the opponents vary. Paul’s reference to their descent from Abraham in 11:22 at least makes clear that they are Jewish, but this need not make the division a particularly Jewish issue. That is, their being Jewish does not require us to identify them with Paul’s opponents in Galatia; Paul himself was Jewish. Part of the division here is apparently over views of ministry: Paul came as a servant and labored among them, whereas his accusers have a high view of themselves more appropriate to upper-class ideals of leadership in antiquity than Paul’s was. They also claim to be more *rhetorically skilled than Paul (11:5-6).
Purpose. Paul wishes to reestablish his converts’ trust in him and their role of intimate friendship. He thus writes a letter of self-commendation, a particular form of letter of recommendation especially necessary if one were defending oneself against charges. Chapters 10–13 are an ironic self-defense to the Corinthian Christians. The letter includes elements of various ancient letter styles: reproof, comfort and especially friendship. Another concern is also at issue: for the sake of the poor in Jerusalem, Paul needs the Corinthians Christians’ money (chaps. 8–9). Unlike the opposing missionaries who have sought to replace him, Paul has never asked the Corinthians for money for himself. This practice has disturbed higher-status members of the congregation; their peers would expect the community to pay its teachers, who should not be self-supporting artisans (the well-to-do typically despised ordinary artisans).
Commentaries. Helpful commentaries with a focus on background include Frederick W. Danker, II Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989); Craig S. Keener, 1 & 2 Corinthians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995); in heavier detail, see Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, AB 32 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984); and especially Margaret E. Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1994–2000). Of more technical and specialized works, see, e.g., John T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel, SBLDS 99 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988); Peter Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians (Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987).
1:1-2. Paul opens following standard letter-writing conventions; see the introduction to *New Testament letters and comment on Romans 1:1-7. Corinth was the chief city of Achaia, and about forty settlements (such as Cenchrea) existed on Corinth’s own outskirts.
1:3. It was customary in the ancient world to include a prayer or offering of thanks to a deity in letters of substantial length (as most of Paul’s extant letters are). One of the most common forms of Jewish prayer was a benediction or praise that began, “Blessed [praised] be God, who . . . ”; this was a way of glorifying God for his works. A regular *synagogue prayer addressed God as the “merciful Father” (so GNT here), which is what “Father of mercies” (cf. “Father of compassion”—NIV) means.
1:4. God would bring his final comfort to his people with the *Messiah’s coming (e.g., Is 40:1; 49:13), but he also comforted them in their hardships during the present (e.g., Ps 94:19). The principle that suffering teaches one how to treat others is rooted in the *Old Testament (Ex 23:9). Paul’s comfort in this verse is especially that he found Titus well and with good news about the Corinthians (2 Cor 7:4, 6-7, 13; cf. 2:2-3).
1:5. Some Jewish people spoke of the “pangs of the Messiah” as a period of tribulation for God’s people before the end, and some commentators have naturally read “we have a share in Christ’s many sufferings” (GNT) in these terms (Paul seems to have meant this also in Rom 8:22-23). Other commentators emphasize corporate personality; Jewish people also believed that they corporately shared the experience of those who had gone before them. They were chosen in Abraham, redeemed with their ancestors in the exodus from Egypt and so on. Paul believed that Jesus’ followers became sharers in his cross in an even more intimate way by his *Spirit who lived in them.
1:6-7. In Greco-Roman tradition, the way a sage endured the sufferings sent by God helped others by setting an example of virtuous conduct. Through prayer, the Corinthians are also involved in Christ’s mission being carried on by Paul and Christ’s other witnesses (1:11). Such an expression of solidarity may have parallels, but they are rare—and in practice the Corinthians may not have been as supportive of his mission as Paul was wishing (chaps. 10–13). One conventional type of letter in later handbooks was the “letter of consolation”; Paul may hope to communicate comfort in this letter (2:7), after having written the sorrowful one (2:4; 7:7-13).
Speeches and substantive letters often included a brief *narrative section (1:8–2:13), usually following the introduction, that explained the circumstances necessitating the speech or letter.
1:8. “Asia” is the Roman province by that name, in what is now western Turkey. Its most prominent city was Ephesus, Paul’s missionary headquarters during this period in his life (1 Cor 16:8). Some scholars have argued that Paul was imprisoned in Ephesus during this period, but it is more likely that he simply refers to chronic opposition later climaxing in the riot of Acts 19:23-41.
1:9-10. “We had the sentence of death within ourselves” (NASB) is presumably figurative (see comment on 1 Cor 15:32); psalms depicted deliverance from death graphically (e.g., Ps 30:3). Jewish daily prayers celebrated God’s power by noting that he was “mighty to raise the dead.” Paul can view his escapes from death as a proleptic experience of the power of *resurrection as well as of martyrdom; proleptic thinking was natural for early Christian readers of the *Old Testament who saw God’s previous redemptive acts as a history of salvation that climaxed in Jesus.
1:11. The ancient world emphasized gratitude for benefaction. Many ancient pagans tried to barter with the gods through sacrifices and offerings; Paul instead trusts God.
Various *genres in antiquity prefaced their argument or teaching by narrating the events that had led to the present situation. Hospitality was important in antiquity, and it was an honor to host a prominent guest. For Paul not to have come could have seemed like both a breach of his word—and thus of his honor and integrity—and an insult to their hospitality. Correspondents sometimes affectionately protested failure to come or write more often (e.g., *Cicero, Letters to Atticus 1.9; Letters to Friends 2.10.1), but the Corinthians seem more genuinely offended. *Rhetoricians (trained public speakers) recommended that one defending himself defuse the audience’s negative attitudes before addressing the more serious charges (chaps. 10–13).
1:12-14. Some ancient letters focused on praise or blame; many moralists both chided and encouraged their pupils. It was also normal to open a speech or letter with compliments, which helped the hearers to be more open to the point of the speech or letter. Ancient writers sometimes praised themselves discreetly (thus essays like *Plutarch’s Praising Oneself Inoffensively), which was acceptable in a situation such as self-defense (like here). Paul’s boast (1:12a—NIV), however, is in his hearers. By this period moralists customarily defended their motives whether they had been attacked or not, because so many charlatans existed; but if chapters 10–13 are part of 2 Corinthians (see the introduction), Paul is already defending himself against real opposition here.
1:15. Well-to-do benefactors were greatly extolled for bestowing gifts on persons of less means, but unlike worldly benefactors (or the opponents of chaps. 10–13), Paul asks for no status in return (1:24).
1:16. From Troas in Asia (1:8), one could sail to Macedonia, and come overland down to Corinth, as Paul had done before (Acts 16:11-12) and planned to do again (1 Cor 16:5), and finally did later (Acts 20:1-3).
1:17. Ancient sources frequently praise people who kept their word despite hardship; these sources also frequently condemn fickleness, especially in leaders. When someone had to change already noted plans, they had to (and sometimes did) supply good reasons and show that they were not fickle. Paul’s flexibility may have drawn criticism earlier (cf. 1 Cor 9:19-23), but now he had been unable to fulfill his stated intention. As he says in 1:23, his decision not to stop at Corinth was to “spare” them; instead he sent Titus ahead with a harsh letter (1:23–2:11; 7:7-12). When Titus did not return to the appointed meeting place in Troas, Paul feared for him (given the dangers of traveling in antiquity) and went on into Macedonia (2:12-13). There Paul met up with Titus again, who gave him good news about them (7:5-16).
1:18-20. *Digressions were standard in ancient writing, and Paul here digresses (1:18-22) to assure them that he indeed had a good reason for not coming. Far from being unreliable (as some apparently insinuated), he remained a representative of the God who always kept his word, and he proclaimed a faithful *gospel. “Amen” functioned as a positive affirmation at the end of a prayer, and *Christ became the amen and yes to all the biblical promises of a truly faithful God.
1:21. In the *Old Testament “anointing,” pouring olive oil over someone’s head, attested that God had set that person apart for ministry (royal, priestly, etc.); Paul adopts that image here. Business documents used the term translated “stand firm” (NIV) or “establish” (NASB, NRSV) or “confirm” for confirming a sale; if such a nuance is present here (it is not in most other uses of the term by Paul), it could connect with “down payment” (“deposit”—NIV) in verse 22. In any case, both 1:21 and 1:22 signify that God attests to Paul’s integrity.
1:22. Documents and jars of merchandise could be sealed with the owner’s identity marker, or to certify that no one had tampered with their contents. The stamp of the owner or the person witnessing a document would be pressed into the hot wax, which then dried over the string tied around the rolled-up document. (Perhaps one might also figuratively “seal” a pledge; Xenophon, Anabasis 2.2.9.) Paul means that God attested the contents of the ministry of himself and his colleagues (cf. 3:2-3). Judaism generally associated the *Spirit with the end of the age (e.g., Ezek 39:28-29; Joel 2:28); Paul says that believers had the Spirit in the present as a “down payment” (“pledge”—NASB; “deposit”—NIV; “first installment”—NRSV), the first taste of the life of the world to come.
One could explain that one’s reason for not writing or visiting was consideration for the other person (e.g., Fronto, Ad M. Caesarem 3.13.3). Paul’s reason for changing his mind about coming and for only sending Titus with a letter was to spare them his harshness (1 Cor 4:21; though he will still come harshly if they force him to do so; 2 Cor 13:2, 10).
1:23-24. If his hearers refused to accept Paul’s “Yes, yes” (1:17; cf. Mt 5:37), Paul would invoke the most dependable witness. Social superiors often acted arrogantly toward their inferiors and expected praise or even groveling. Unlike the world’s authority models (and those of his opponents in chaps. 10–13), Paul counts his converts as coworkers.
2:1-3. Affectionate letters sometimes spoke of sharing the reader’s emotions, including sorrow (e.g., *Cicero, Letters to Friends 13.1.1). Any ambiguity, at least in the beginning, may be diplomatic, especially about the chief conflict addressed later in chapters 10–13; because of honor concerns, conciliatory communications sometimes avoided the primary point that had caused conflict (cf., e.g., Pliny, Epistles 1.5.11).
2:4. Even orators often showed affection with tears during speeches, and letters of friendship often emphasized deep love (e.g., Cicero, Letters to Friends 2.4.2). Paul’s letter suggested severe discipline of the offender (2:5-10). Scholars dispute whether this offender is the same as the one in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, as most church fathers believed; but whether or not it is, Paul had written a letter after 1 Corinthians to tell the Corinthians to discipline him (this one sent with Titus). This letter has probably been lost. (Some scholars think this harsh letter between 1 and 2 Corinthians is 2 Cor 10–13, which they believe was originally a separate letter. This passage mentions nothing about a particular offender, however, and it is therefore more likely that the intervening letter was simply lost. One might not blame the Corinthians for misplacing this one.)
2:5-7. On the analogy of similar wording in the *Dead Sea Scrolls and some Greek texts, many commentators argue that “the majority” refers to the community of believers as a whole. Pharisaic Judaism also stressed receiving back repentant offenders. Groups like the one reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, required a time of punishment to elapse before the repentant could be fully restored to the community, and Roman and Greek law assumed the carrying out of a sentence. The Corinthian Christians may thus wonder what to do with the man now that he has repented.
2:8. “Confirm” (KJV; “reaffirm”—NASB, NIV, NRSV) was often used in legal settings with reference to confirming the verdict; here the Corinthians are to confirm their love instead.
2:9-11. One of Judaism’s most basic convictions about *Satan was that he was a deceiver and could come in various disguises.
2:12. From Titus, Paul received good news about their compliance and the man’s *repentance (2:12-13; 7:5-16). Troas is Alexandria Troas, a significant and sizeable Roman *colony, the port in Asia from which one sailed across to Macedonia, and thence walked or sailed to Corinth. The “opened door” means freedom to minister (see comment on 1 Cor 16:9); at some point Paul stayed in Troas long enough to leave some possessions there (2 Tim 4:13).
2:13. Both travel and communication were difficult to coordinate in antiquity, so that people sometimes ended up waiting for each other in different locations (e.g., Cicero, Letters to Atticus 3.8). Paul and Titus would be able to check for each other at any of the *churches along the way, just as Jewish people knew how to find fellow Jews through the local Jewish communities when they traveled.
*Digressions were common in ancient letter writing and elsewhere. For example, at one point Homer digresses for seventy-five lines, just repeating a verb to summon his audience back to the previous point. Paul has also used this pattern to frame some sections in 1 Corinthians (6:1-8; chap. 9; chap. 13). Paul begins a digression here defending the sincerity of his ministry—a common topic of Greco-Roman moralists—that lasts through 7:4. The Corinthians should receive Paul as an ambassador of Christ’s new covenant, a revelation fuller than the one given to Moses.
The view that 2:14–7:4 is not a digression but a separate letter accidentally inserted into the middle of another Pauline letter has little to commend it, because the first copies were on scrolls (codices were later), which preclude accidental insertions of this sort. This section makes more sense as a natural digression than as a separate letter.
2:14-16. Roman conquerors would lead their shamed captives in a “triumphal procession”; in this period, only the emperor was allowed to lead triumphs. *Christ had triumphed and now led believers in him as his captives (the image is similar to that of being Christ’s servants); cf. Psalm 68:18, used in Ephesians 4:8. The Roman senate normally decreed public thanksgivings before the triumphal processions, so they were great celebrations for the victors and great humiliations for the defeated. Most of the captives were executed after the triumph. But Paul glories in the image of Christians as peoples taken captive by Christ (cf. 1 Cor 4:9, etc.), and this prisoner of war himself, who identifies with Christ’s death in the following chapters, offers the thanksgiving!
When sacrifices were offered in the *Old Testament and elsewhere in the ancient world, incense was burned to offset the stench of burning flesh (cf. Ps 141:2), and the same would have been true at Roman triumphal celebrations. (Sirach 24:15 described Wisdom as having a pleasant “aroma”; Paul and his fellow witnesses for Jesus Christ fulfill here the role which that book ascribed to Wisdom, but it is unlikely that he intends an allusion to that book here; the image was a natural one.) The Old Testament has precedent for acknowledging one’s own inadequacy (Ex 3:11) but God’s adequacy (Ex 3:14; cf. 2 Cor 3:5).
2:17. Professional speakers had long been accused of changing truth into error for gain (like a merchant providing impure products to save money). Philosophers had come under the same charge in some circles, because most made their living by their teaching or, in the case of the *Cynics, by public begging. The public often perceived wandering teachers and holy men as charlatans, no doubt because many of them were (in Scripture, cf. Jer 6:13-14; 8:10-11; Micah 3:5, 11). (Critics sometimes declined to name their opponents, thus refusing to grant them even explicit notice, but Paul may have his opponents in mind; cf. 2 Cor 11:4-5, 22.) Thus many philosophers and moralists felt the need to repudiate the charge, as Paul does here.
3:1. Self-commendation was considered inappropriate unless justifiable, but acceptable when necessary to defend oneself or to make a point (see comment on 5:12). Jewish travelers often carried letters of recommendation indicating that Jewish householders could trust them and give them lodging on their journey. In Greco-Roman society, higher-class *patrons would write letters recommending their subordinates; such recommendations naturally carried more weight than the person’s own claims. Anyone who was trusted could write letters on someone else’s behalf (Acts 15:25-27; 18:27; 1 Cor 16:3), and by such letters a sender could also authorize a messenger (Acts 9:2). Many philosophers disdained others’ recommendations, both because they despised human opinion and because character was directly evident without letters (e.g., *Epictetus, Diatribes 1.9.27, 33-34; 2.3.1-2).
3:2-3. Others also understood the concept of matters written on human hearts, but Paul evokes Scripture here. The first *law was written by God’s fingers on tablets of stone (Ex 31:18; Deut 5:22), but the prophets had promised a new giving of the law (Is 2:3) to be written on the heart (Jer 31:31-34), as it had always been meant to be (Deut 30:6, 11-14). Ezekiel had prophesied that God would remove his people’s hard heart, a heart of stone, and write his word on soft hearts of flesh, by the *Spirit (Ezek 11:19-20; 36:26-27). *Old Testament prophets appealed to their divine calls, and some Greek philosophers, eager to distinguish themselves from charlatans (2:17), also claimed divine rather than merely human ordination.
3:4-5. Jews outside Palestine sometimes spoke of God as “the Sufficient One” (v. 5 KJV; cf. 2:16).
3:6. Greco-Roman legal scholars distinguished between the letter and the intent of the law. Perhaps more relevant here, Jewish teachers sometimes gave detailed attention even to the very letters in the law; the letter here was thus the written law by itself, which “killed” simply by pronouncing its death sentence on the morally guilty. The Spirit, however, wrote the law’s morality in the hearts of God’s people, by God’s own gracious gift (Ezek 36:26-27).
Paul naturally infers that the glory of the new covenant would be greater than that of the old (3:6), and therefore articulates here the ways in which it was greater. Writers and speakers could “dwell on a point” that was important at length, as Paul does here; Paul also employs antithesis, rhetorically contrasting the earlier glory with the greater one. Ancient speakers could contrast good and bad, but as here could also contrast good and better (the comparison with what was good honoring what was better all the more).
Anyone in the Roman Empire who knew much about Judaism knew that Moses had been an important Jewish leader. But the glory revealed in *Christ is much greater—though more subtle—than that revealed to Moses; thus *apostles like Paul are in some sense in a position superior to that of Moses. Here Paul responds to Corinthian criticisms (perhaps fostered by the arrogant opponents in 11:13); Paul is even greater than Moses—but only because he preaches a message greater than that of Moses. If his opponents were appealing to Moses for their authority (cf. 11:22), Paul effectively short-circuits their claims here.
3:7. When Moses returned from beholding God’s glory, his skin was shining so much that the people were afraid of him (Ex 34:29-30, 35). Jewish tradition had expanded on this *narrative extensively, so Paul’s readers have probably heard other expositions of this passage before, although they could understand his exposition simply from the *Septuagint of Exodus. But Moses could see only part of God’s glory, since seeing God’s glory brought death (Ex 33:10)—in contrast to the *Spirit that brings life (2 Cor 3:6).
3:8. The prophets had compared the new covenant favorably with the old (Jer 31:31-34) and spoken of the Spirit and the internalized *law to come as the ideal (Ezek 36:26-27). Thus no one could deny that the Spirit of God in one’s heart was better than a law scroll before one’s eyes.
3:9-11. Paul reasons according to the Jewish principle qal vahomer, “how much more”: if the giving of the law on stone tablets was revealed in great glory, how much more the greater giving of the law of the Spirit?
3:12. Paul continues explaining his confidence throughout this section of the letter (4:1, 16). Moralists and other speakers commonly used his word for “boldness” (NASB, NRSV) here to explain that they spoke forthrightly; they thus contended that they were not flatterers like the demagogues who sought popular support but did not care about the masses.
3:13. Moses’ glory had to be covered (Ex 34:30, 33-35)—unlike Paul’s forthright speech (v. 12)—and would always fade away—unlike the glory of Paul’s message, revealed through the Spirit who came to reside in believers. Jewish men in Paul’s day did not cover their heads unless they were ashamed or mourning.
3:14. The law of Moses was read aloud regularly in *synagogues. Only in the new covenant in Christ could the glory be revealed openly, when it would come internally by the Spirit. The future coming of the Spirit (in contrast to the present dearth of the Spirit in the world) was a common Jewish belief.
3:15-16. Paul says that the full glory present in the law still cannot be heard (human nature being unchanged since Moses’ day), until one turns to Christ (3:14, 16) and has the law written on one’s heart (Jer 31:31-34). In the same way, Moses, who had an intimate relationship with God, did not need a veil (Ex 34:34).
3:17. Following a standard Jewish method of interpretation, Paul shows the correspondence between figures in the first giving of the law and those under the new covenant: “The Lord” in the text about Moses (Ex 33:9, 11, 19; 34:5-6, 34) corresponds to “the Spirit” today.
3:18. Greeks told many stories of people who became “metamorphosed” or “transformed,” but many Greek philosophers spoke of being transformed toward divinity by contemplating divine things. The *Dead Sea Scrolls spoke of the righteous reflecting divine splendor. But although Paul could be relating to his hearers in such culturally relevant images (minus Greek divinization), the basis of his image is simply how Moses reflected God’s glory, as is clear in this context. Those under the new covenant behold God’s glory even more plainly than Moses could (Ex 33:20); thus, like Moses, they are transformed to reflect God’s glory by the Spirit. In Platonic philosophy, the mind could envision the deity as pure reason, stripped of all passion; the glory revealed to Moses, by contrast, was full of love and faithfulness, revealing the biblical God’s heart (Ex 34:6-7). On the “mirror” (NASB, NRSV), see comment on 1 Corinthians 13:12; for divine Wisdom being God’s image and a mirror that reflects God’s glory, see Wisdom of Solomon 7:26. On Christ as God’s image, see comment on 4:4.
4:1-2. Merchants sometimes “adulterated” (cf. NASB here) substances by mixing in something cheaper to cheat their customers (contrast real treasure in 4:7); philosophers often accused professional speakers of doing the same, because they were more concerned about speaking ability than about correct content. Greco-Roman teachers often distanced themselves from such charges.
4:3-4. Paul continues his exposition from 3:1-18: the good news remains veiled (3:13) to some; *Christ is the complete revelation of God’s glory (cf. 3:18). *Diaspora Jews sometimes argued that God stamped his image on people by his logos, his “word,” or Wisdom (cf., e.g., *Philo, Creation 25, 31; Allegorical Interpretation 3.96; Confusion of Tongues 146-47; Special Laws 1.81; 3.207). Christ fills the place assigned to preexistent, divine Wisdom in Jewish tradition; for Paul the divine image and glory obscured in Adam are restored in Christ. Other Jewish teachers did not explicitly speak of *Satan as the “god of this age” (NIV), but most of them recognized that the nations (everyone but themselves) were ruled by spiritual powers under Satan’s command.
4:5. To be the slave of a high official in the Greco-Roman world often meant to hold more honor and to control more wealth than the majority of free people. When Paul calls himself a “slave of Christ” (e.g., Rom 1:1), this is a title of honor, similar to the *Old Testament’s calling the prophets “servants of God.” But here Paul may use the image of the hired servant: Jesus has lent him to them to serve them on Jesus’ behalf. Moral teachers like Paul would always have to be ready to refute the charge leveled against some philosophers that they proclaimed themselves, a charge that Paul seems to refute here.
4:6. Contrast was a frequent *rhetorical device; Paul contrasts unbelievers in 4:4 with believers in 4:6. God spoke light into being at the first creation (Gen 1:3); he similarly could make the light of his glory shine in the hearts of those who saw greater glory than Moses had—the glory in Christ (thus he uses here wording from Is 9:1-2). In various Jewish traditions the light in Genesis 1:3 represented the light of God’s *law, of the righteous or of God himself; cf. comment on John 1:4.
The message of Jesus’ witnesses is greater than Moses’ message because Moses’ glory could fade and the *law could be ignored, whereas the glory of God lives through Jesus’ witnesses even in death.
4:7. Many Greek writers felt that philosophers’ contentment in suffering displayed special power. But whereas philosophers were often hailed as strong and unswayed by testing, Paul reminds his readers that his power is from God alone.
“Earthen” or “clay” jars, as opposed to bronze ones, were readily discarded; because clay was always available, such containers were cheap and disposable if they were broken or incurred ceremonial impurity—an odd container for a rich treasure. (Paul’s audience would be very familiar with these; evidence suggests that Corinth abounded in frail pottery lamps.) Some Greek writers similarly described the body as the soul’s container; for Paul, however, the contrast is not between body and soul but between humanity and God. Some others portrayed people as weak vessels (e.g., Ps 31:12; *Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS 11.22; in images of judgment, Is 30:14; Jer 19:11), and wisdom or similar virtues as treasures (e.g., Prov 2:4; Sirach 20:30; Wisdom of Solomon 7:14; Philo, That the Worse Attacks the Better 59; Xenophon, Memorabilia 4.2.9).
4:8-9. As an example to others, *Stoic philosophers often listed their various sufferings to show their commitment to a life of contentment and perseverance. Thus they remained content in illness, in hardship, in death and so on. Jewish people often appealed to prophets and martyrs of the past as examples of endurance. In 4:8-12, Paul develops *rhetorical antithesis (cf. Testament of Joseph 1:4-7).
4:10-12. On Paul’s proleptic experience of Christ’s death and *resurrection, see comment on 1:9-10; here the glory is Christ himself living in Paul and other believers through the *Spirit, as the context makes clear. Paul describes his participation in Christ’s sufferings quite graphically.
4:13. Paul here offers one way to translate Psalm 116:10, the way followed by the most common recension of the *Septuagint (the dominant Greek translation of the *Old Testament) in Paul’s day. In the psalm’s context, a righteous sufferer praises God’s deliverance. Jewish teachers accepted arguments based even on short phrases; Paul establishes a principle explaining why he boldly proclaims Christ despite the opposition he receives.
4:14. Judaism believed in a *resurrection at the end time, when everyone raised would be presented to God for the judgment (cf. 5:10). While acknowledging Christ’s resurrection in the past, some of the Corinthian Christians had been more skeptical about future resurrection and judgment, especially of the body; the idea was foreign to Greek thought (see comment on 1 Cor 15).
4:15. People in the Greco-Roman world honored benefactors; more people receiving the good news would yield more thanks to God. The Old Testament had prophesied that the *Gentiles would also give thanks to God in the end time, and Paul is zealous to see this *prophecy fulfilled in his day (1:11).
4:16. Following *Plato’s lead, some Greek thinkers (and a number of Greco-Jewish writers) distinguished between physical decomposition and the survival of the soul. Stoic sages emphasized that inner choices, not outer circumstances, were what mattered. Adapting the Corinthians’ own Greek language where it is relevant, Paul the master missionary seeks to convince them with their own language that the glory of proleptic *resurrection is present even in proleptic dying (see comment on 4:7-12).
4:17-18. Some others also understood that the future reward would be greater than present sufferings (e.g., Wisdom of Solomon 3:5; *1 Enoch 103:9–104:2; *4 Ezra 7:14-16). Plato and many philosophers after him rightly contrasted the temporal and the eternal. By Paul’s day many Platonists thought that bodily things were heavy and weighed down the soul (cf. even Wisdom of Solomon 9:15), but that the soul was light; once freed by the body’s death, it would soar up to the pure heavens from which it had originated. Paul here inverts the image but perhaps partly for a play on words that a few Jewish readers skilled in Hebrew exposition might catch: “glory” and “weight, heaviness,” represent the same Hebrew word.
Plato also believed that the world of ideas was the real, unchanging world, whereas the temporal, changing world of sense knowledge was only a world of shadows. Paul does not deny the reality of the visible world but does agree that it is subject to decay, whereas the unseen world is eternal. In making this statement, however, Paul is still contrasting his ministry with that of Moses: he does not teach an outward *law written on stones, but the law written in his inner person by the *Spirit (chaps. 3–4).
Although Paul finds some common ground with his Greek readers on the righteous soul’s endurance (4:16-18), he is quick to bring them back to the future hope that is the basis for it (see 5:1-10). Like the Greek sages, Paul is ready to face death; unlike them, he has a hope of future bodily life. *Pharisees accepted both the immortality of the soul and the future *resurrection of the body, and many Jewish writers described the experience of heaven after death as a proleptic experience to be completed in paradise after the resurrection. Paul apparently likewise accepted both the soul’s continuance after death and bodily resurrection (cf., e.g., Phil 1:21-23 with Phil 3:20-21).
5:1. Greek writers described the body as a vessel, a house, a tent and often as a tomb; Paul says that a better body awaits (he can use the present tense because of the secure down payment; see 5:5). A *Hellenistic Jewish work depicts the body as a tent (Wisdom of Solomon 9:15).
5:2-4. “Groaning” may allude to Exodus 2:23 (the same word in the *LXX); or it may relate to birth pangs (Rom 8:22-23), in the light of some Jewish teachings that the resurrection would be preceded by a period of suffering described as birth pangs. At any rate, groaning was behavior characteristically ascribed to those in agony.
Paul’s longing here is not for death (as in Greek views of the body as a tomb, which made even suicide acceptable if life became too difficult) but for the resurrection, when he will receive a new body. Some described the body as clothing (*Epictetus, Diatribes 1.25.21), death as disrobing (e.g., Philo, Allegorical Interpretation 2.56) and/or the resurrection body as clothing (cf. 1 Enoch 62:15). Although Greeks regularly exercised in the nude and Romans had adopted nude bathing from the Greeks (probably including at the many baths in Corinth), all Jews except those who had surrendered to Greek custom abhorred nakedness in public. (Others also disliked nakedness in some social situations.) For Paul, the image of “nakedness” is thus an unpleasant one.
5:5. The term translated “pledge” (NASB) or “deposit guaranteeing” (NIV) was used in business documents for “down payment,” a first installment. Because the *Old Testament (e.g., Is 44:3; Ezek 39:29) and much of early Judaism associated the outpouring of the *Spirit with the future age, the present experience of the Spirit is the Corinthians’ initial experience of the resurrection life to come, “guaranteeing” (cf. NRSV) its fulfillment (1:22).
5:6-9. Jewish accounts of the righteous dead in heaven portrayed them as experiencing a measure of the future glory now, while awaiting the resurrection. Although this state was inferior to the resurrection (5:4), it meant an end to the present toils—and Paul’s continual experience of gradual martyrdom (4:8-10). Some sages who listed their sufferings (cf. 4:8-12) also emphasized their willingness to surrender life (cf. *Seneca, Epistle to Lucilius 120.12-15). Some expected greater vision of God at death (e.g., Maximus of Tyre, Orations 10.3).
5:10. Corinth had a magnificent “judgment seat,” the raised platform where governors would pronounce judgments and decrees; the Corinthians know that Paul had appeared before it (Acts 18:12). Paul’s allusion here, however, is especially to the standard Old Testament and Jewish image of the day of judgment, in which God’s throne became the ultimate judgment seat (Christ here filling the divine role; cf. Rom 14:10). Paul’s emphasis on judgment for deeds in the body reiterates his opposition to any remaining elements of common Greek ideas disparaging the body, which Paul had refuted in 1 Corinthians 6:12-14.
5:11. The “fear of the Lord” was a common motivation for righteousness in Jewish texts, often associated with a recognition that God would judge (5:10).
5:12. In ancient culture, self-commendation was generally offensive (see also 3:1; cf. Prov 25:27; 27:2); one needed a good reason to employ it, like defending oneself (here; 3:1), for his audience’s good (10:8), responding to charges (10:10), challenging others’ arrogance (11:12), necessity (12:1) or compulsion (12:11). Bringing pride to a group of people who should identify with the speaker would also count. Paul here employs the inward-outward contrast of 4:16-18 against his boastful opponents and borrows some terms from 1 Samuel 16:7 LXX (as well as continuing the “uncovered face” theme from 3:12, 18).
5:13. Both philosophers (Diogenes Laertius 6.3.82) and prophets (2 Kings 9:11; Jer 29:26; Hos 9:7) were sometimes thought “insane” (GNT here; the standard meaning of “beside oneself”—KJV, NASB, NRSV). Greek sages often acknowledged this erroneous perception of themselves, although they believed that they themselves were the only truly sane ones (cf. also Wisdom of Solomon 5:4); similarly, ecstatics often described their experiences in these terms. The Greek term contrasted with being “sober” or “of sound mind,” as here. Paul’s contrast between his behavior toward the Corinthians and his behavior toward God probably derives from Moses’ behavior in Exodus 34:33-34 (see comment on 2 Cor 3:7-18); he would have revealed more of his ecstatic side to them had he thought it helpful (see comment on 12:1-7; cf. 1 Cor 14:18-19).
5:14-17. The new person on the inside, participating in Christ’s *resurrection, means more than the decaying outer person observable to human eyes (see comment on 4:16-18). The new identity included an entirely new framework for thinking, including about Jesus. Judaism applied the language of “new creation” in various ways. For example, for divine Wisdom spiritually “making all things new” in the present, cf. Wisdom of Solomon 7:27. In later rabbinic texts one who made a *proselyte was considered as if he or she had created the proselyte; the New Year was also given some significance as a new beginning, because sins were shortly thereafter absolved on the Day of Atonement. But in early texts like *Jubilees and the *Dead Sea Scrolls, “new creation” language applies especially to the world to come (cf. *1 Enoch 72:1; Jubilees 1:29; 4:26; *2 Baruch 44:12). This was the most obvious application of new creation language, since it referred to the life of the world to come in the *Old Testament (Is 65:16-18; 66:22). For Paul, that the *Messiah Jesus has come means that believers have already begun to participate in the resurrection life of the coming world (see comment on 4:10-12; 5:5).
5:18-19. By “us” as “ministers of reconciliation” Paul refers to himself and his associates—not to the Corinthians in their present state (5:20). Paul styles his words here in a relevant way to a Greek audience: Greek speakers often spoke on the subject of “concord,” thereby urging reconciliation and unity. The term translated “reconciliation” applied especially to relations between people; but here, as in the Old Testament, reconciliation between people and God presumably presupposes *repentance and *atonement by blood sacrifice (here by Christ’s death).
Ancient *rhetoric sometimes used shocking words to grip people’s attention. Having established that he and his colleagues are Christ’s representatives, Paul entreats the Corinthian Christians to be reconciled to God again by being reconciled again to himself (7:2; cf. Mt 10:40). Treatment of a herald reflected one’s attitude toward the sender, and in ancient Mediterranean life (and especially in Roman party politics, well known in Corinth), one should be friends of one’s friends and enemies to their enemies. If the Corinthians welcomed Paul’s opponents, they were rejecting him; if they rejected Paul, they rejected the one who sent him.
5:20. An “ambassador” was a representative of one state to another, usually applied in this period to the emperor’s legates in the East. This image fits “*apostles” as appointed messengers (see comment on 1 Cor 12:29-30), just as the *Old Testament prophets had been (Ex 7:1). (The prophets frequently delivered messages in the form of a covenant lawsuit or in words to kings used by messengers of suzerain [supreme] kings to vassal [client] rulers.) In the context of a plea for reconciliation, Paul as an ambassador urges the Corinthians to make peace with God the ultimate King; emperors normally took action against unrepentant client states that had offended them, and no one took such warnings lightly.
5:21. Paul might blend the idea of unblemished sacrifices with that of the scapegoat that embodied the sin of God’s people (Lev 1:3; 16:21-22). Here Paul could mean that *Christ became sin’s representative when he bore its judgment on the cross, and Paul and his associates become righteousness’s representatives when they proclaim his message. This verse carries on the representative idea set forth in 5:20.
6:1-2. Paul quotes Isaiah 49:8, which is in the context of the messianic redemption, reconciliation and peace for God’s people (52:7), a time that Paul says has arrived in Christ (5:17). His argument would also be quite relevant to his readers: Greek sages sometimes discussed appropriate moments for speaking, especially for bold speech. They often also spoke boldly about and stressed urgency for reconciliation (concord, harmony; see comment on 5:18-19).
6:3. “Giving no offense” (KJV) was important for those in public office or for those whose behavior would influence public perceptions of their group; this topic was widely discussed by ancient political theorists, public speakers and minority religions. (The “ministry” is the ministry of reconciliation—5:18.)
6:4-5. Philosophers often listed their hardships, sometimes in triads, as Paul does here; these catalogs of hardships verified their commitment to contentment and thus the sincerity of their message. (Orators also sought to establish a person’s character as a central part of arguing for guilt, innocence or reliability.) Some of Paul’s words are essentially synonyms; as in ancient *rhetorical style, they are repeated for effect. The list in 6:4-10 is the sort an orator would have composed (cf. *Cicero, In Catalinam 2.10.25; For Scaurus 16.37; For Caelius 22.55; Orationes philippicae 3.11.28; 8.5.16): prefaced by the Greek en, nine sufferings (6:4-5) and eight virtues (6:6-7); prefaced by dia, three antitheses regarding weakness (6:7-8) followed by seven more structured by “as . . . yet” (6:8-10). One can also read this as three sets of nine elements (cf. nine in 1 Cor 12:8-10; Gal 5:22-23; two sets in 2 Cor 11:23-25, 26).
6:6-7. Philosophers also often described themselves by catalogs of virtues, which made their lives models for those of their readers. Because charlatans were abundant, true teachers had to stress their pure motives and that they acted on knowledge of what was real. Paul’s defense here would impress a Greek audience who thought that Paul was out of touch with their culture’s proper speaking conventions (see 1 Cor 2). By “weapons” Paul may refer to the shield, which was carried on the left, and the spear or sword, which was carried on the right.
6:8-9. Paul again relates to issues that other speakers on moral issues faced in Greco-Roman society. Paradox, contrasting apparently irreconcilable opposites, was a standard literary and rhetorical technique. Sages often liked to jar audiences with oxymorons (cf., e.g., Musonius Rufus 9, p. 74.10-12 Lutz). Some philosophers (particularly *Cynics) used paradox and the similar technique of irony for turning the comments of their accusers (insane, foolish, shameful) against them, proclaiming themselves truly wise and rich (see comment on 1 Cor 4:8). Radical sages proclaimed that the opinions of foolish men (nonphilosophers) did not bother them; *Stoics often reflected on their lack of worldly honor.
But many philosophers avoided unnecessary criticism when possible, lest their message be dishonored; moralists often even sought to learn some truth from false accusations leveled against them. Both Greek and Jewish traditions stressed being honorable and irreproachable, and most people cared about public opinion. “Well-known” here presumably means known to the one who counts—God. On “dying” and “living,” see 4:10-12 and the language of Psalm 118:17-18 (familiar to many Jews from the Hallel, Psalms 113–118, sung at Jewish festivals; cf. Ps 116:10 in 2 Cor 4:13 and possibly Ps 119:32 in 2 Cor 6:11).
6:10. Although better off than most peasants, artisans (Paul had earned his living as a leatherworker—Acts 18:3) toiled, remained poor and had little social status; this was especially true of those who moved around, as Paul did. *Cynic philosophers gave up all possessions to pursue their lifestyle but considered themselves spiritually rich. Cynic and Stoic philosophers claimed that, although they owned little or nothing, all the world belonged to them, because they were friends of the gods who owned it; as a servant of the true God, Paul has all the more reason to apply the phrase “possessing all things” to himself.
Orators often climaxed arguments with an intense emotional appeal, as here (letters, which were less formal than speeches, could also give free play to emotion). By refusing to be reconciled to Paul, the Corinthians are in effect refusing to be reconciled fully to God, whose agent Paul is (cf. Mt 10:40). In 6:14–7:1, Paul calls the Corinthians to give up their intimate ties with the world; in the context of 6:11-13 and 7:2-4, his point is that they should instead resume their intimate ties with him and other true representatives of God. Thus Paul here offers a calculated insult to his spiritual opposition in Corinth.
6:11-13. It is they and not Paul who are hindering proper reconciliation. A “mouth speaking freely” and a “heart bared wide open” fit Paul’s emphasis on “open speech,” an important motif in ancient speaking (see comment on 3:12). Paul’s words here are deeply affectionate, again beseeching them to return his love. Recording deep feelings and reasoning on an emotional level were not out of place but were a normal part of ancient public speaking and writing. Public speakers purposely appealed to their hearers’ emotions (cf. Gal 4:20). Letters often expressed deep affection (e.g., *Cicero, Letters to Friends 1.9.1; 2.1.1; 2.1.2; 2.2.1; 2.3.2; 12.12.1); sometimes they also affectionately protested that the other should show more love. Affection, writers sometimes urged, ought to be reciprocated (e.g., Cicero, Letters to Friends 6.15.1; 7.14.2; 12.30.3; 15.21.3).Of course, these speakers and writers were supposed to feel these emotions genuinely, not merely pretend to have them.
6:14. In 6:14–7:1 Paul makes a *digression, a common literary device; he frames it like some of his other digressions and uses antithesis in a striking emotional climax to the preceding section. Perhaps he summons the believers to choose between him (as Christ’s agent) and the rival teachers; ancient Mediterranean values required one to befriend one’s friends and oppose their enemies.
“Unequal yoking”(cf. KJV) here might evoke Leviticus 19:19 (cf. Deut 22:10); the principle would reinforce the *law’s prohibition of marriage with nonbelievers (cf. Deut 7:3; Ezra 9:12; Neh 13:25) but need not be limited to marriage. The *Dead Sea Scrolls contrast the people of light and the people of darkness (e.g., 1QM 1.1, 11).
The lack of concord between the wise and the foolish was a Greek proverb; more prominently, the division between wise and foolish, righteous and wicked, and Israel and the *Gentiles was central to *Old Testament and Jewish thought. Others offered similar contrasts (Sirach 13:16-19, using one of the same verbs as here). Very religious and less religious Jews could work together, but the more religious Jews imposed some limitations. Rhetorical questions were a common part of rhetorical style, and Paul has several successive ones in verses 14-16.
6:15. “Belial” or “Beliar” (NRSV) was another Jewish name for *Satan (e.g., *Jubilees 1:20; Dead Sea Scrolls CD 4.13-16; 1QM 1.1, 5, 13; 13.2, 4, 11); some passages demanded a choice between God and Beliar (Testament of Naphtali 2:6; 3:1).
6:16-17. Jewish law forbade doing business with *Gentiles on pagan festival days or in any other way that would bring associations with idolatry. Jewish people did not try to interfere with pagan temples, but when an emperor planned to set up an idol in Jerusalem’s temple less than two decades before Paul wrote 2 Corinthians, the Jewish people were ready to revolt rather than to allow it.
Portraying the Corinthian Christians as God’s temple (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19) who have no fellowship with idols (1 Cor 10:20-21), Paul can cite relevant Old Testament texts (listing together various texts, as early Jewish sources sometimes did): verse 16 cites Leviticus 26:11-12 (apparently correcting the usual Greek translation where necessary), probably echoed in Ezekiel 37:26-28 (esp. v. 27). Verse 17 adapts Isaiah 52:11, addressing the time of the new exodus of the messianic salvation (52:7-15); cf. Leviticus 11:31, 44-45 and 22:4-6. “I will welcome you” uses a *Septuagint rendering of God’s promise to gather his people in a number of texts, perhaps especially Ezekiel 20:34, 41.
6:18. God’s people were his sons and daughters (e.g., Deut 32:19; Jer 3:19), who would be restored to their special relationship with him in the time of the end (Is 43:6). Paul blends the language of several texts (probably including 2 Sam 7:14, in the immediate context of building a temple), as Jewish writers sometimes did; here he may also blend his own prophetic insight (cf. 1 Cor 14:37-38).
7:1. The promises of 6:16-18 were confirmed in *Christ (1:20), applicable to those consecrated to God. Jews often spoke of pure and undefiled hearts; undefiled flesh usually referred to ceremonial purity (hand washing or ritual immersion). Purity in body and spirit here (see comment on 5:10 and on 1 Cor 6:20) invites abstention from sin.
7:2-3. *Rhetorically, the Greek of 7:2 uses anaphora (three times beginning with “no one”) and homoioptoton (three verbs ending the same way); 7:3 is full of pathos (emotional appeal). Speakers often followed shocking or offensive statements with more welcome words; writers often indicated the end of a digression by returning to the point. Paul uses language of great affection; see comment on 6:11-13. A writer could clarify that he stressed a point not for other reasons but to show love (*Cicero, Letters to Friends 2.4.2). The greatest expression of friendship in Greco-Roman literature was willingness to die with someone (which also makes sense outside Greek culture; see 2 Sam 15:21; Jn 13:37; 15:13).
7:4. Moralists felt that true friends should speak frankly (cf. KJV, ASV: “boldness of speech”). Greco-Roman speakers often emphasized their confidence in their hearers for the purpose of establishing intimacy and to secure willing compliance.
7:5-6. Paul resumes here the *narrative introduction that he suspended in 2:13; even in speeches, where the narratio was normally at the front, it could also appear later when needed. *Old Testament texts often emphasized God’s comfort for his people (e.g., Is 40:1; 51:3; 52:9), including, as here, God comforting the “humble” (NRSV, “downcast”; see the *Septuagint of Is 49:13; 54:11); Paul here continues his opening theme (1:3-6). Paul crossed over from Troas to Macedonia to find Titus, whom he had sent to the Corinthians with a harsh letter (2:12-13). He was comforted not only by Titus’s safety but by their response.
7:7. Rhetorically sensitive hearers would appreciate the repetition of three qualities of the Corinthians in quick repetition.
7:8-9. Writers sometimes had reason to be anxious how recipients would understand their letters (*Cicero, Letters to His Brother Quintus 2.16.5) or to apologize when a letter inadvertently inflicted pain; more relevant here, moralists often regarded themselves as physicians inflicting pain only to restore the patient. When gentle warnings failed, harsher words were deemed appropriate. Frankness could bring *repentance, and a writer would not regret it if it benefitted the reader (Fronto, Ad Verum Imperator 1.4.1). Ancient teachers of speaking and letter-writing skills warned that open rebuke should be reserved for the most extreme circumstances; people were more likely to listen if one mixed in praise with blame. In the technical language of such teachers, “rebukes” were meant to generate shame and repentance.
7:10. Like the Old Testament (e.g., Amos 5:6-11) and Judaism, pagan philosophers sometimes recognized that divine judgments were not only acts of justice but also attempts to bring the guilty to repentance.
7:11-12. The sixfold repetition of “what” in 7:11 is rhetorical anaphora (cf. similar patterns in, e.g., Fronto, Ad Antoninum Imperator 2.6.2); piling up related terms was an acceptable expression of Greek rhetoric and simply added emphasis to the point of the terms. Others understood zeal to recoup what was lost (Diogenes Laertius 4.16).
7:13. Titus received great hospitality; hospitality to travelers was emphasized in antiquity, especially in Jewish and Christian circles.
7:14. Whereas self-commendation had to be done discreetly, boasting about one’s friends was always considered acceptable in antiquity.
7:15-16. If the Corinthian Christians received Titus with such respect, it means that they saw him as Paul’s own representative; one was always to receive a representative with the same honor one would grant the person being represented. Expressions of confidence could prepare hearers for (or even be shared during—Cicero, Letters to Friends 13.44.1) a request (coming in chaps. 8–9).
Concerned with an active symbol of the unity of Jewish and *Gentile *churches (Rom 15:25-26) and relieving genuine poverty (Gal 2:10), Paul must do here the very thing that he has so assiduously avoided in his own ministry (1 Cor 9)—asking for funds. Although he had previously told the Corinthians about the need (1 Cor 16:1-3), some could be offended at what they would see as inconsistency. They had wanted Paul to accept pay as a regular philosophical teacher rather than maintain himself as a low-status artisan (12:13; cf. 1 Cor 9); by identifying himself with the poor in the congregation, Paul had risked alienating their well-to-do friends who despised artisans. Paul thus defends the collection in chapters 8–9.
8:1. Moral writers frequently offered positive role models. Public speakers used a standard *rhetorical technique called “comparison,” which often served to stimulate moral competition. Civic rivalry was common, and many speakers, including Paul, were willing to appeal to ancient city and other geographical rivalries to spur their hearers on to greater zeal. Macedonia and Corinth were such rivals. When it appears in business documents, the term usually translated here “*grace” (8:1, 4, 6-7, 19; 9:14; cf. 8:9; 9:8, 15) can also refer to benefactors’ generosity, to the gift or to gratitude (cf. 8:16; 9:15).
8:2. Some Greco-Roman aristocrats ridiculed those who lived simply, but other writers praised the simple lifestyle that enabled its followers to give generously. Philippi in Macedonia was prosperous, but the prosperity had not filtered down to the poor, who often were unemployed; further, persecution and ostracism may have increased the financial hardship of the Christians there.
8:3. One was to give alms according to one’s ability (Ex 35:24; Deut 15:14; cf. Ezra 2:69; Tobit 4:8, 16), but the Macedonians went beyond this rule. Greco-Roman sources used phrases like “according to their means” and “beyond their means” (NRSV) for benefaction.
8:4-5. The term translated “participation” (NASB), “sharing” (NIV, NRSV) or “fellowship” (KJV) was used technically in business documents of Paul’s day for a “partnership.” It could also signify an institution of Roman trade known as the societas, by which members contracted to supply whatever they had to fulfill their goal. Whether Paul conceives of this “partnership” officially or unofficially, it is clear that the Macedonians saw support, like hospitality, as a privilege. Judaism used the term here translated “service” (NIV) or “support” (NASB) technically for distributing alms for the poor.
8:6. Titus had raised this issue of support as well as the issue of the harsh letter when he was among them; because Titus has now reported back to him, Paul’s concern as to whether the Corinthians were ready (9:3) probably indicates that they were not. Inscriptions often praise benefactors for “completing” a project to which they had pledged.
8:7. They have important spiritual gifts (1 Cor 1:5-7; 12:28) and other expressions of God’s work among them. Paul uses praise as a basis for exhortation, as moralists often did. One could appeal to a reader’s love for the writer to urge some action for the reader’s good (Fronto, Ad M. Caesarem 5.1). If Paul means his circle’s love for the Corinthians, superlative claims of love expressed affection (e.g., *Cicero, Letters to Friends 2.3.2; 13.1.5; 13.45.1).
8:8. Because contributors in antiquity were often forced to support public works (occasionally this forced support could bankrupt someone less well-to-do than the tax roll had indicated), speakers and writers calling for funds had to be particularly careful to stress the voluntary nature of the contributions. (Later Jewish teachers even charged charity collectors who pressured the poor for contributions with “oppressing the poor.”) Paul alludes to the rhetorical technique of comparison he has used (8:1).
8:9. Moralists often appealed to role models, and Paul here uses the supreme one, insisting that the Corinthian Christians follow Christ’s example of using their prosperity to enrich the poor. Like both Jewish and non-Jewish writers of his day, Paul can use the language of wealth figuratively as well as literally, but he may mean Christ’s enrichment of believers literally, as provision through one another (8:14). Ancients could respect someone who remained poor to enrich others (cf. *Plutarch, Lysander 2.4; 30.2).
8:10-12. “Eagerness” (NRSV) appears often in inscriptions about benefactors. The Corinthians had already eagerly committed themselves to supporting the Jerusalem church (1 Cor 16:1-3). (Commentators note that the phrase translated “last year” or “a year ago” could mean from nine to fifteen months earlier.) Because their church was more prosperous than others (8:1-2), however, they had contributed more, and some may have felt that they were contributing an inordinate percentage of the collection. Paul employs a common argument for why they should continue what they have begun: many ancient arguments were weighed by a principle here translated “advantage” (NASB) or “what is best” (NIV) (see, e.g., 1 Cor 6:12); Paul explains the advantage in 8:13-15. The *Old Testament normally described gifts and sacrifices as “acceptable” only if they reflected the best one had to give (e.g., Lev 1–4). It was widely understood, however, that one could give only according to what one had (e.g., Tobit 4:8, 16; Sirach 14:13; Mishnah Pe’ah 7:8; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquities of Rome 11.27.7).
8:13. The Corinthian Christians may have resented having to provide a large portion of the offering, but Corinth was a prosperous city. One common definition of friendship was that “friends share all things in common” and are “equal” (including in some *Diaspora Judaism; *Letter of Aristeas 228, 257, 263, 282), even though this principle came to be applied even to wealthy *patrons who sponsored poorer *clients. Ancient speakers and writers stressed “equality” as much as “concord” (see comment on 5:18-19), and the Corinthians could not miss Paul’s point: their conversion made them “friends” to other Christians and required a more equitable distribution of provision within Christ’s body.
8:14. A famine was an emergency (Acts 11:28). Jewish wisdom writers exhorted their readers to remember famine when they were prospering (Sirach 18:25). Benefaction in antiquity involved reciprocity (often honor is what benefactors achieved in return). Although Corinth was extremely prosperous and the Christians there might not envision their own poverty, Paul encouraged them that if they were ever in need, someone else would supply their need. God always supplies enough to the whole body of Christ, but it is up to Christians to make sure that the “enough” is adequately distributed.
8:15. In case 8:14 sounded too good to be true, Paul introduces the principle of God’s provision by way of the manna in the wilderness: God meant everyone to have just what they needed, no more and no less (Ex 16:18). (Other writers, such as *Philo and *Josephus, taught equality from this Exodus passage.)
8:16-18. Here Paul provides a letter of recommendation (3:1) for Titus and his companion. Using the ancient technique of literary bracketing, Paul might bracket 8:16–9:15 with thanksgiving.
8:19. Just as *synagogues throughout the Mediterranean would send their annual tribute to the Jerusalem temple via local representatives of high reputation (Philo, Special Laws 1.78; cf. Mishnah Sheqalim 3:2), this offering is also to be administered in an irreproachable manner: envoys would be “appointed by the churches.” The term for “appoint” often involved elections, as was common in Greek administration. Ancients expected generosity to be repaid with honor—here (and in 8:21, 23) to the chief benefactor, God.
8:20-21. In a culture obsessed with shame and honor, Greco-Roman writers were quick to emphasize that leaders and other beneficiaries of the public trust must be open and of irreproachable moral credentials. Judaism also stressed that charity collectors must act irreproachably to prevent even false accusations. Verse 21 echoes the *Septuagint of Proverbs 3:4 and the proverbial saying that grew out of it. Jewish teachers stressed doing what was good in the sight of both God and people. The term in 8:21 translated “intend” (NRSV), “providing for” (KJV) or “have regard” (NASB) applied in inscriptions to benefactors’ foresight; sometimes this involved sending honorable representatives.
8:22. Both Jewish and Greco-Roman moralists recommended that potential leaders be “tested” in lower positions before achieving public office. This brother (distinct from the one mentioned in 8:18) had already been proved in ministry; sometimes one could use an epithet instead of a name if a person were well-known (Rhetorica ad Herennium 4.31.42). Messengers usually traveled at least in pairs; sensitive matters could merit a larger delegation (see 8:23).
8:23-24. As “delegates” (literally “apostles”) of the churches, they were commissioned representatives of those churches. As such, they were like the representatives of local Jewish communities who would band together and travel to Jerusalem to deliver the temple tax each year. Titus is Paul’s representative in the group. Thus they are to be received hospitably, as hospitably as Paul and the other *churches would have been received. Throughout the ancient Mediterranean envoys were to be respected and received with honor. On “boasting,” see comment on 7:14. Displaying affection, one could ask for proofs of love (e.g., Fronto, Epistulae Graecae 6; Ad M. Caesarem, 3.2.) One could invite a benefactor to demonstrate to the recommended how effective the recommender’s recommendation was (e.g., *Cicero, Letters to Friends 3.1.3; 13.19.3, 20.1, 26.4). Asking a reader to prove their affection for the writer by granting the latter’s request revealed confidence in the friendship (Cicero, Letters to Atticus 12.18). Calling one the “glory” of something could mean that one brought honor to it (Fronto, Ad M. Caesarem 2.3.2; 2.7; 5.3).
In 9:1-5, Paul employs here the *rhetorical techniques of endearment (by boasting about them) and comparison. The terms translated “undertaking” (9:4, NRSV), “blessing” (often translated “gift,” 9:5) and even “case” (“matter,” “part,” 9:3) appear in ancient documents referring to financial matters.
9:1. Against those who think that 9:1 is disconnected from the preceding context, the first three words of 9:1 usually refer to preceding context; 9:1-2 may be a *digression (a common ancient literary form) between 8:16-23 and 9:3-5, which involve the delegation.
9:2. Citizens’ first loyalties were to their cities, and bitter rivalries often arose between cities. Paul appeals to their civic pride to make sure that the well-to-do Corinthians do their part. Corinth was the capital of the province of Achaia, south of the province of Macedonia (which included Philippi and Thessalonica).
9:3-4. By boasting about the Corinthians (possibly before the rise of recent conflicts with them), Paul has laid his honor on the line. If chapters 10–13 are part of the same letter, Paul may have some reason to worry (despite politely expressing confidence, 9:1; cf. especially 12:16-18)! Similarly, *Cicero can assure a benefactor of the requester’s confidence, but simultaneously urge him not to disappoint that confidence (Letters to Friends 3.1.3).
9:5. Inscriptions show that the public held benefactors to their promises. Paul acts from “necessity,” a commonly cited reason for actions (e.g., Hermogenes, On Issues 77.6-19).
Jewish tradition recognized that God rewards the generous (Prov 11:24-26; 22:9).
9:6. Reaping what one had sown reflects an ancient proverb, related to many other agricultural images prevalent in antiquity (cf., e.g., Job 4:8; Prov 11:18; 22:8; Hos 8:7; 10:12; Sirach 7:3; *Cicero; *Aristotle); the specific image of sowing and consequently reaping sparingly seems to have also been in general circulation. Using a familiar rhetorical device (symploche), Paul structures the principle with repetition (x . . . y/x . . . y).
9:7. Paul here cites standard Jewish wisdom; willingness may evoke Exodus 25:2, 35:5, 21-22 (cf. 1 Chron 29:6-9; Ezra 2:68), suggesting that Paul had a fairly developed theology of giving based on the *Old Testament. “Not reluctantly” (NRSV) echoes Deuteronomy 15:10 in the *Septuagint. “God loves a cheerful giver” is from an addition to Proverbs 22:8 in the Septuagint (“God blesses a cheerful and giving person”; cf. Sirach 35:11). The term rendered “cheerful” often applied in Jewish texts to gifts for the poor.
9:8. Greeks appreciated repetition of sounds; Paul here uses seven words beginning with p, including using “all” five times (three of them in succession). Philosophers applied the term translated “sufficiency” (KJV, NASB; “enough,” NRSV) to the sage’s contentment in all circumstances (e.g., *Epictetus, Diatribes 1.1.27); others also appreciated this virtue (e.g., Prov 30:8 LXX; *Psalms of Solomon 5:16). Although some Greek traditions emphasized that one could be self-sufficient without anything to live on, most Greek thinkers would have agreed with Paul that basic needs had to be met before a person could be self-sufficient. For views on possessions and wealth in antiquity, see comment on 1 Timothy 6:3-10. Ancient business documents often used the term here often translated “abundance” (8:2, 7, 14; 9:8, 12), applying it to profit margins.
9:9. This quotation from Psalm 112:9 refers in the context of that psalm to the behavior of a righteous person; thus Paul may be saying in 9:8-9 that their reward for sowing seed (giving money) to the poor is that their righteousness will stand forever.
9:10. Because the Corinthians are to be righteous “sowers” (“scattering” seed—v. 9), Paul cites Isaiah 55:10: “He who provides seed for the sower and bread for food,” which proves that God (the supreme benefactor) will continue to supply them so they can continue to give and hence have a greater reward of righteousness (v. 9). Paul uses the second text (Is 55:10) to apply the first text (Ps 112:9, cited in 9:9) to their situation; linking together texts with a similar key word or concept was a common practice in Jewish interpretation. God provides enough overall and then invites those with abundance to share with those in need (Deut 15:4-11).
9:11-15. In Greco-Roman antiquity, recipients of gifts were expected to reciprocate by publicly honoring the benefactor. Jewish people believed that God heard the cries of the poor (Deut 15:9-10); Paul’s readers would understand his point that their aid to the poor brought direct honor to God in praise (2 Cor 9:11-12; cf. 1:11) and would also benefit the Corinthians through the prayers of the poor in Jerusalem (9:14). (God’s “gift”—v. 15—may thus include his strategic provision to the Corinthians by which they can benefit the poor of Jerusalem.) The term translated “service” (NASB) or “ministry” (NRSV) in 9:12 can apply to priestly service, but also applied to year-long roles as public benefactors (frequently assigned to the wealthy, sometimes as an involuntary obligation, but Paul insists on voluntary contributions, 9:7).
Paul’s change in tone here, from generally cautious affection to often addressing opponents, has led many scholars to believe that chapters 10–13 belong to a separate letter. Others believe that Paul received new information just before penning these words, or that he saved his real *diatribe for the concluding chapters of the letter. Writers could dictate longer letters in stages (e.g., Fronto, De Feriis Alsiensibus 4), sometimes added something after receiving news (e.g., *Cicero, Letters to Friends 12.12.5), or composed an additional letter for the same traveler to carry (Cicero, Letters to Atticus 8.6). But the letter can also be read as a planned unity (see introduction). Defenses usually went on the offensive against opponents and could reserve the most controversial elements until near the end, after establishing rapport.
10:1-2. One sometimes opened a section with the opponent’s charge. Paul’s harsh letter (2:4; 7:8; letters of hortatory blame were reserved for the severest circumstances) had provoked a hostile reaction among some members of the congregation: ancient *rhetoricians insisted that letters ought to reflect the same personality that the person exhibited when present. Because of love and in order to spare them, Paul had sent a firm letter rather than coming in person (1:23–2:4); but some, who valued forceful speech, mistook his affectionate strategy for weakness (10:9-11). In most contexts envisioned by his critics, “meekness” was considered base, weak and low status (cf. 1 Cor 2:3); yet Paul knew that people respected a “meek” ruler, that is, a merciful and benevolent one. Christ’s “meekness and gentleness” probably alludes to Jesus’ saying later recorded in Matthew 11:29—a good reply to the Corinthians’ complaint.
10:3-5. Far from being weak (10:1-2), Paul wages war. Greek sages sometimes described their battle against false ideas as a war, in terms similar to those Paul uses here (e.g., *Seneca, Epistle to Lucilius 109.8-9;117.7, 25; Diogenes, Epistles 10; Diogenes Laertius 6.1.13; *Philo, Abel 130; Conf. 129-33). Like those sages, Paul claims to be doing battle with false ideas. (Orators also employed such images; e.g., *Cicero, On the Orator 3.14.55; Brutus 2.7; Letters to Friends 4.7.2; *Tacitus, Dialogue on Oratory 32, 34, 37.) “Arguments” (NIV, NRSV, GNT) or “speculations” (NASB) is a technical term for rhetorical or philosophical reasonings; the prisoners of war in this extended metaphor are human thoughts. Cf. Proverbs 21:22.
10:6. Sieges, hence siege imagery, were common (e.g., Prov 21:22; 1 Maccabees 8:10). Rulers generally executed vengeance on those who had rebelled against them after the war was finished (e.g., 2 Sam 12:31). Paul may mean that the believers must work harder to make up for time lost through disobedience.
10:7. The Corinthians’ preoccupation with outward appearances matched that of sophists concerned with proper and persuasive speech, but true philosophers constantly ridiculed this attitude (4:16-18). The more well-to-do members of the Corinthian *church were enamored with Greek philosophy; Paul thus rebukes them on their own terms here.
10:8. Some wealthier Corinthians assail Paul for not conforming to their cultural standards (i.e., for working as an artisan although he is a moral teacher). *Old Testament prophets were called both to build up and to tear down (e.g., Jer 1:10), but Paul is called only to build up the Corinthians (2 Cor 12:19; 13:10).
10:9-10. A basic rule of ancient letter writing was that one’s letters should be appropriate to one’s personality when present, because letters in some sense communicated one’s presence. Philosophers who failed to be consistent in this manner were typically attacked verbally.
Paul’s (literally) “bodily presence” (KJV, NRSV) was unimpressive; socially respectable speakers were strong in their appearance, gestures and intonation, as well as having the right Greek accent (e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Demosthenes 54; Arrangement of Words 11; Cicero, Brutus 55.203; 91.316; *Plutarch, Demosthenes 7.2-3; 11.1-2; Cicero 4.3). Unfortunately, Paul was a better writer than public speaker.
10:11. Philosophers and Jewish teachers often contrasted words and deeds; deeds weighed more heavily. Even if Paul was an inferior speaker, his life backed up everything he said.
10:12. Paul’s “some” may follow the ancient literary practice of obscuring opponents with anonymity. “Comparison” was a standard rhetorical and literary technique; here Paul mocks his opponents: they are so foolish that they do not realize that one cannot compare oneself with oneself. Higher-class *patrons would usually write letters of recommendation for socially inferior *clients, but sometimes people were forced to commend themselves; self-commendation was to be accepted only if done discreetly, but Paul paints his opponents as pretentious—a vice in Greek culture.
Paul satirically declines to compare himself with such teachers—satire was a common argumentative device. One of the rules of “comparison” was that one could not compare dissimilar items; yet the dissimilarity turns out to favor him in 10:13-18.
10:13-16. Teachers of rhetoric and philosophy in cities throughout the Mediterranean competed for students and their fees. One means of self-advertisement was to compare oneself favorably to rival teachers; Paul uses the ancient literary device of irony and turns his opponents’ advertising on its head, refuting them while satirizing their very form of boasting. Ancients despised boasting beyond one’s appropriate class, but in the matter of the Corinthians, Paul plainly outclasses his critics (cf. 3:1-2). Ancients often considered as hubris failure to “know oneself,” including one’s limits as a mortal.
10:17. On Jeremiah 9:23-24 see comment on 1 Corinthians 1:26-31.
10:18. Applying Jeremiah 9:23-24, Paul notes that self-commendation is obviously out of place—unless, like Paul, one were forced to resort to it by unpleasant circumstances (e.g., to defend oneself). Public speakers used self-commendation but recognized that it was offensive (*Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory 11.1.15; Plutarch, Cicero 24.1-2; Prov 27:2) unless done carefully and with appropriate reasons.
In contrast to Paul, who humbled himself by taking a socially demeaning role (11:7), his opponents have boasted. Paul therefore parodies their boasting with his own brag sheet, following the ancient conventional form of self-praise. At the same time, however, he inverts his opponents’ values in the light of the values of God’s *kingdom, using another common literary technique called satire (11:16-33).
11:1. Speakers often prefaced shocking statements with warnings (professional *rhetoricians called this practice prodiorthosis). In Greek literature “madness” (here, “foolishness”) was sometimes a divine punishment for insolent arrogance; philosophers considered the “ignorant” masses insane, and some people considered the most radical philosophers insane. Paul may simply imply that, while he assumes the guise of a madman for rhetorical purposes (being able to assume various styles was part of rhetorical training), it is his opponents who generally boast and hence are truly mad.
11:2. Being jealous over God’s people with God’s jealousy (cf. Ex 20:5; 34:14) would have been viewed as pious (cf. Num 25:11). Fathers normally pledged their daughters in marriage, and Paul compares the Corinthian *church with a daughter (1 Cor 4:14-15) whom he has pledged in marriage to *Christ (cf. biblical depictions of God marrying Israel or Israel being corrupted, e.g., Is 54:5; 62:4-5; Jer 2:32; 3:1-2; 31:32; Ezek 16:32; Hos 2:19-20; later Jewish depictions of God marrying his son Israel to the *law).
11:3. Fathers had to protect their daughters from men who would prey on them sexually (Deut 22:15-21; Sirach 42:9-12). Some Jewish traditions highlighted Eve being deceived or (unlike Paul) even considered her primarily responsible for Adam’s fall (e.g., Life of Adam and Eve 25:35; 38:1-2; 44:1-5), but Paul need not allude to such ideas here. In some Jewish traditions, *Satan, disguised as a good angel (cf. 11:14), deceived Eve sexually (Life of Adam and Eve 9:1-2; Apocalypse of Moses 17:1-2). Given the image of the betrothed virgin (11:2, perhaps betrothed to Christ, the new Adam), Paul could have this tradition partly in view here. More certain is the biblical allusion to Genesis 3, where the serpent deceived Eve. Paul presents his opponents as adulterers who corrupt betrothed virgins—a crime punishable by banishment under Roman law and death under *Old Testament law (Deut 22:23-27).
11:4. The Old Testament and later Jewish literature portrayed false prophets as those who claim to have God’s *Spirit but are really moved by a different one. Paul offers mock praise of his hearers’ acceptance of this bad treatment (cf. also 11:19-20), using the common ancient device of satire.
11:5-6. Rhetoric was important in Greco-Roman society, including in Corinth (see comment on 1 Cor 1:5). By skilled rhetoric a speaker showed that he was educated and truly worthy of being heard by the well-to-do. Philosophers, however, stressed their genuine knowledge rather than others’ persuasive speech; Paul appeals to the ideal of knowledge to defend himself. Speakers would sometimes concede a secondary weakness to emphasize a more important strength.
Paul’s statement that he is “unskilled in speech” (NASB) need not mean that he is a terrible speaker; even the best speakers played down their oratorical skills to lower audience expectations (e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Orations 12.15). He seems to have been accused of inadequate rhetorical skill by others, however; his writings attest a higher level of rhetorical sophistication than possessed by most people of his day, but no matter how hard he worked at it, he did not have the early rhetorical training of an aristocrat, and some elements of delivery would not come to him as naturally as they might to others (see comment on 10:10).
11:7. Refusing a gift often signified refusing friendship, hence choosing enmity (e.g., *Cicero, Letters to Friends 14.3.1). Paul claims to be an amateur: sophists not only valued rhetorical skills over one’s message (11:6), they also could charge fees (a practice to which Socrates and some other thinkers objected). Teachers were supposed to gain support by a *patron’s sponsorship, by charging fees or even by begging, but never by engaging in a working-class job (1 Cor 9:6). Paul’s opponents appeal to higher-status Corinthian Christians embarrassed by Paul’s labor as an artisan; they, at least, are professional enough to take payment. (Some had likewise charged that Socrates did not accept money because he was not worth any; Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.6.12.) Paul may have avoided accepting payment to keep from appearing as a common sophist who is teaching for monetary gain or to avoid appearing dependent on them as a *client; he was not their employee (see comment on 1 Cor 9:15-27). Except when they meant it as kindness, Greeks saw humility as “humiliation” and considered it appropriate only to those of very low status. Paul’s question is sarcastic; their culture demanded honor and gratitude for benefactors who gave services freely.
11:8. Paul embraces low status: he became the Corinthians’ servant (contrast whom his opponents serve—11:15). Accepting wages from one employer while genuinely working only for another was naturally viewed as dishonest; robbery was naturally considered even lower status than manual labor! (The term could also be used for “plundering” a defeated enemy’s spoils after a military campaign.)
11:9. Patrons could view clients, their social dependents, as “burdens.” Sometimes teachers were clients of wealthy patrons, but Paul is not dependent on, hence not a client of, the Corinthian church. Thus he need not answer to them.
11:10-12. Boasting was considered acceptable if it was for someone else’s sake and not simply for one’s own. For example, *Plutarch permitted self-praise if it was mixed with praise of one’s audience; one could also use it to remove others’ excuses for failing to heed one (Isocrates, To Nicocles 47). As in 11:11, writers sometimes reminded readers of their love (cf. 7:3; Cicero, Letters to Friends 2.4.2).
11:13-15. In some Jewish traditions Satan disguised himself as an angel or in other ways (e.g., as a beautiful woman to some *rabbis or as a beggar to Job’s wife; for one tradition regarding Satan and Eve, see comment on 11:3); Judaism regarded Satan as a deceiver. Although Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 do not in context refer specifically to Satan (against a common view today), a large body of Jewish tradition taught that Satan and other evil spirits were originally angels who had fallen in Genesis 6:1-3.
If his critics have denigrated him as ignorant (11:6; cf. 10:10), he can justifiably adopt, for *rhetorical purposes, the alleged role of fool (speaking in the role of another was a familiar rhetorical device, prosopopoiia). Implicitly, however, he attacks his opponents’ boasting as foolish (returning charges against opponents was conventional rhetoric). Paul’s way of boasting parodies and thus mocks self-boasting, and therefore a central feature of the Greco-Roman valuing of masculine competition and self-promotion. He walks the tightrope of answering fools as their folly deserves without being truly like them (Prov 26:4-5).
11:16-18. Because appearing to boast was otherwise offensive, speakers had to cite justification for their boasts (see *Plutarch, Praising Oneself Inoffensively). Such justifications included refuting criticism (Demosthenes, On the Crown 299-300), challenging opponents (Demosthenes, False Embassy 174; 2 Cor 11:12), competing against a less fit rival (*Cicero, Against Caecilius 12.40), for one’s hearers’ good (2 Cor 12:19), offering a positive role model and the like. Even autobiographers had to come up with ways to decrease the potential offensiveness of their own claims. Paul, however, boasts in weakness, in contrast to most of his contemporaries. Paul’s boastful opponents had apparently laid themselves open to Paul’s attack—indicating their own lack of rhetorical skill.
11:19-20. Irony, including mock respect, was a common rhetorical technique. A blow on the face, like spittle, was a grievous insult to one’s honor (see comment on Mt 5:39). The ideology of the upper classes (shared by Paul’s opponents) held that persons of truly noble character, those suited for freedom, could never tolerate being slaves. Complaints that the hearers were putting up with what was inappropriate implicitly invited hearers to stop doing so (Sallust, Bellum jugurthinum 31.11).
11:21. Continuing the irony (11:19-20), Paul confesses his “shame” or “dishonor”—one of the most grievous offenses one could endure in status-conscious society. Confessing what was not an offense was a common rhetorical strategy; so was returning criticisms and depicting the critics as the true exploiters (11:20). Paul uses again the rhetorical technique of “comparison” to mock the boasting self-appointed *apostles who have come to Corinth.
Aristocrats typically boasted in their heritage, their accomplishments and so forth; but they did not normally boast in their sufferings. For example, the emperor Augustus boasted at length of his exploits (in his famous Res Gestae), though never his setbacks. Some philosophers listed the sufferings they endured as a model for emulation. (In other contexts, lists of sufferings could prove one’s devotion to another cause; e.g., generals boasting of what they suffered for the state; in romance novels, lovers recounting what they had suffered for their beloved.) But those who list sufferings to prove endurance do so to boast in their strength, not in their weakness. For Paul, if one boasts, one should boast in the values of the *kingdom (10:17), humbling oneself for God’s honor.
11:22. *Rhetoric often used point-by-point comparisons of virtues and other matters (11:22-23; cf. e.g., Menander Rhetor 2.3, 381.31-32; 386.10-13; 2.10, 416.2-4; 417.5-9); as is the case here, elements in such comparisons could even include homeland (2.3, 379.6-8). Matching critics in sets of three claims (including home city, *Josephus, Life 198), or posing and responding to three rhetorical questions (Cicero, For Sextus Roscius of Ameria 1.2), was good rhetoric. Even in Greco-Roman Corinth, the church recognized its Jewish roots; and traveling Jewish Christians, especially those with Palestinian roots, could claim authority in a tradition earlier than Paul. (This “Are they . . . ? So am I” reasoning seems to have been persuasive in antiquity; cf., e.g., Josephus, Life 40, 199.) “Israelites” and “descendants of Abraham” refer in the parlance of ancient Judaism to anyone Jewish; “Hebrews” probably means the same thing (rhetoric valued repetition with synonyms), although it might apply especially to Palestinian Jews (see comment on Phil 3:5).
11:23. Paul’s comparison escalates from his equality (11:22) to his superiority (11:23). The term translated “servants” here may be a term of respect (“ministers”—KJV, NRSV); if it means “slaves of Christ” in this case, they are high-status slaves (see comment on Rom 1:1). On “insane” (NASB), see comment on 11:1; when reducing an opponent’s argument to the absurd, one could acknowledge the parody as “insane” (Aelius Aristides, Defense of Oratory 339, §112D). Paul begins by boasting in the very cause of the Corinthians’ reproach: his low-status “labors” (see comment on 11:7). Imprisonment was typically a matter of shame. Some philosophers boasted in ignoring beatings; Jewish people praised those beaten and martyred for their faith.
11:24. People sometimes enumerated accomplishments, as in 11:24-25; for example, the emperor Augustus, boasting of his exploits, numbered some of them, such as three gladiatorial games he sponsored for the Roman people (Res Gestae 22.1). Under Jewish *law, some sins (like sabbath violation or being a false prophet) merited stoning (because the Jewish people could not legally enforce this penalty in this period due to Roman restrictions, they usually just excluded capital offenders from the community). Other, lesser sins required only a beating of thirty-nine lashes with a whip (Deut 25:2-3); a *synagogue court decided such cases, and the synagogue attendant administered the beating. As in the case of violations of festivals or ritual laws, this penalty was administered only after the person had been warned and yet persisted in the offending behavior. Within reason, Romans allowed Jews to execute nonlethal discipline in their own community; Paul could have escaped such discipline had he renounced connection with his people, but clearly he proved unwilling to do so.
11:25. Roman citizens were not supposed to be beaten with rods, but ancient reports demonstrate that officials sometimes overlooked these rules (see comment on Acts 16:22). On Paul’s stoning see Acts 14:19. Frequent travelers were also well aware of the danger of shipwrecks, and death at sea was the most frightful form of death in antiquity (partly due to the pagan belief that the spirits of those who died at sea roamed forever because they were not properly buried). Because there were no lifeboats per se (see comment on Acts 27:30) or life jackets, shipwrecked victims could spend a long time in the water and often did not survive. To ancient hearers, surviving multiple times could suggest divine protection.
11:26. Expanding on “frequent travels,” Paul uses the rhetorical device anaphora (repeating an opening word or phrase) with the eightfold, “in dangers from.” Travel was one of the more dangerous activities in antiquity; a later Jewish tradition even speaks of priests’ praying and fasting two days a week for travelers’ safety. Rivers were often used to navigate inland from the coast to cities; more likely, Paul could refer here to the danger of crossing swollen rivers or how they flooded nearby roads, especially in winter and early spring. Robbers were one of the most dreaded dangers of land travel and one reason many parties did not travel at night. Pirates had become much less common on the sea than in earlier times but remained a potential danger; more generally, mercantile Corinth knew well the perils of sea travel. The climax of Paul’s “dangers,” however, is probably ironically pointed at his opponents: “perils among false brethren” (KJV).
11:27. Sleeplessness could stem from difficult sleeping conditions during travel, potentially dangerous night travel, or nocturnal ministry (Acts 20:31; though that would be limited at night because most people were asleep); insomnia is possible (though likelier at 11:28-29). One traveling to the interior of Asia Minor would face “cold”; particularly coupled with “nakedness” (sometimes used, as here, to mean inadequate clothing), this was a serious hardship.
11:28. Paul’s “anxiety” (NRSV; the same term translated “worry” in Mt 6:34) over the state of God’s people is motivated by love (11:29-30), as the *Old Testament prophets’ concern for Israel had been. Philosophers emphasized that one should never be anxious (also Phil 4:6), but Paul’s anxiety is one of love, not a selfish kind (2 Cor 2:13; 7:5-6; 1 Cor 7:32—same word; 1 Thess 3:5).
11:29-31. Paul’s identifying with the “weak” would again offend the socially powerful leaders in the Corinthian church, who would view it as a sign of low status. To boast in his weakness inverts his opponents’ position. It was honorable, though, to share others’ sufferings (Cicero, Letters to Friends 14.3.1; *Seneca, Natural Questions 4.pref. 15).
11:32. Paul supplements the list with a humiliating example. Aretas IV controlled Nabataea, including many Nabatean Arabs in the region around Syrian Damascus. Some argue that he may have controlled Damascus itself about A.D. 34–39 (he died about 39–40), but it is sufficient here to think of his ethnarch as the representative of the significant Nabatean community in Damascus. Damascus had a Nabatean quarter, and the Nabatean community in Damascus had its own rights. (Similarly, though Jews were usually treated as resident aliens, the community leaders who spoke for them might wield significant local influence.) If Aretas did not actually control Damascus, he certainly wielded political influence beyond his immediate sphere of legal jurisdiction. Because most of the caravan trade from the east passed through his kingdom, it was the strongest and wealthiest of the minor kingdoms of the Near East.
11:33. The “window” Paul mentions would have belonged to a house built along the city wall; many houses were built on such walls. Windows were sometimes large enough to fit through, but generally too high for intruders to climb into; a window in a house on the wall would be high enough to be dangerous if something went wrong. Paul’s strategy was borrowed from the Old Testament (Josh 2:15; cf. 1 Sam 19:12). Acts 9:25 mentions this escape. This was hardly the sort of heroism in which high-status people would boast, because they did not value being in trouble with the authorities, even for the cause of Christ. Some commentators contrast a particular prize for heroism in the Roman army, for the first soldier to scale an enemy wall; here Paul instead escapes from a wall secretly.
12:1. Ancient Mediterranean culture viewed boasting negatively, unless it could be justified by particular reasons, one of which was “necessity.” Like many *Old Testament prophets, Paul experienced visions and revelations. Some Jewish writers of Paul’s day diligently cultivated visionary experiences with fasting and sleep deprivation, but Paul, however, was simply “caught up” (v. 2; see comment on Rev 4:2).
12:2-4. “Fourteen years ago” was perhaps a decade after Paul’s conversion. Because later Jewish teachers sometimes used “that person” as “you” or “I,” it is possible that Paul here relates his own experience in the third person to avoid boasting. Some Greek writers suggested that one should describe one’s experience as another’s if one were ashamed to speak of it openly; analogously, some Jewish *apocalyptists may have transferred their own visions to those heroes of the past in whose name they composed their writings. Willing to boast only in his weaknesses, Paul will not accept any praise for his personal revelations (cf. Prov 27:2).
Greek writers spoke of ascents of the soul, especially after death, as did Jewish mystics and apocalyptists. Jewish visionaries sometimes described their mystical experiences of heaven as being “caught up”; although they could mean that only their souls saw heaven (e.g., *1 Enoch 71:1-6), the experience was sometimes so vivid that the whole person seemed to be caught up (Ezek 2:2; 3:14, 24; 8:3; 11:1, 24), and some texts explicitly included the body in this experience (as in 1 Enoch 39:3). (The Jewish ascent stories sometimes emphasized the danger of the ascent, as in the case of the four *rabbis, only one of whom reportedly escaped unscathed [cf. Tosefta Hagigah 2:3-4]. But except for *Philo, all the Jewish stories are either pseudonymous or later than Paul, so it is difficult to reconstruct the exact nature of Jewish mystical experience in Paul’s day.)
Visions given by God are not the same as the practice of some Greek sorcerers and wonderworkers and spiritist experiences in many cultures today, where the soul could travel abroad in astral projections; even Philo, the Jewish philosopher most influenced by Greek thought, saw ecstasy as the soul’s experience with God, not simply wandering around on the earth.
In Jewish texts, “paradise,” the new Eden that was the opposite of hell (*Gehenna), would exist on earth in the world to come but was reserved in the heavens in the present time. Different texts varied in the number of heavens they envisioned (from 3 to 365); three and seven were the most common numbers, and paradise was often thought to be located in one of these heavens. Paul’s “third heaven” probably means he thought in terms of three heavens, with paradise in the highest. (The lower atmosphere was usually regarded as the lowest “heaven.”) Many Greek readers thought that the pure soul would ascend to the highest heaven at death, so the Corinthian Christians would have no problem understanding Paul’s words here.
Revelations of deities in the Greek *mystery cults were also “forbidden to be uttered”; some Jewish writers like *Josephus and *Philo applied this description to God’s highest wisdom or to the divine name.
12:5-6. One common *rhetorical device was to say, “I could say this, but I won’t” (cf. also in Philem 19). To avoid boasting, one could also appeal to what others see in one.
12:7-8. “Flesh” here need not indicate a physical ailment (like the one in Gal 4:13), as is often supposed (so GNT); Paul may allude to the “thorn in Israel’s side,” the Canaanites God left in the land to keep Israel from exalting themselves (Num 33:55; Judg 2:3; cf. Josh 23:13; Ezek 28:24). Scholars debate exactly what Paul’s “thorn” was, but in view of the context and Paul’s “buffeting” (KJV, NASB) in this verse (cf. 1 Cor 4:11), it may be continuing persecutions; or this “messenger of Satan” might be an ironic insult against his opponents themselves (11:14-15). As in the Old Testament (e.g., Job 1:6–2:6) and most Jewish thought, God is here sovereign even over Satan and his angels.
12:8-10. Philosophers spoke of self-sufficiency, but Paul emphasizes the sufficiency of God’s *grace. Miracle reports in pagan temples sometimes followed the same form as Paul’s request (v. 8) but concluded with the deity’s appearing to heal the person. Although Paul had performed many miracles (12:12), he boasts in his weakness.
12:11. Many ancient writers advised that one could praise oneself inoffensively only if one were compelled to praise oneself, especially to defend oneself (cf. e.g., *Cicero, Letters to Friends 5.12.8). Calling himself a “nobody” now rejects boasting.
12:12. “Signs and wonders” were miracles (e.g., Deut 6:22; 7:19). Appealing to readers’ own eyewitness knowledge was one way of deflecting some of the offensiveness of self-boasting (so, e.g., the earlier Greek rhetorician Isocrates).
12:13. The well-to-do in the Corinthian *church want an *apostle they can be proud of—one who conforms to their high-society expectations for a professional moral teacher. Thus they want Paul to stop working and to accept support from them, to become their *client or dependent (see 1 Cor 9). Paul avoids playing into the hands of the well-to-do faction of the church (see the situation in the introduction to 1 Corinthians) by accepting support from others instead; here he replies in irony: “Forgive me!”
12:14-15. The well-to-do Corinthians want Paul to be their client and they his *patrons (12:13), but Paul reminds them that he is their father (1 Cor 4:15). Thus he reverses their own position: he refused their support not because he was socially ignorant, but because they were his dependents rather than his being their dependent. (Once a Roman father declared a child to be his, parents supported the child growing up and helped young couples establish themselves. Clients and children were both viewed as dependents in the Roman household.) It was appropriate to honor benefactors but not to pay them.
12:16-18. Speakers sometimes challenged their detractors to prove any wrongdoing on the speakers’ part (e.g., 1 Sam 12:3-5; *Cicero, Pro Sestio 21.47). The same people who criticize Paul for not accepting their support—so their faith could appear more respectable to their social peers—also apparently accept his opponents’ arguments against his offering for the poor in Jerusalem (chaps. 8–9). Occurring this close to the end of Paul’s argument, his request for funds for the poor may have been at the center of his opponents’ accusations against him: this Paul would not accept your support when it was socially appropriate, but now he wants money to help others you do not know!
Paul, who had been “weak” among them before, would now be strong (13:3).
12:19. An “apology,” or defense speech, was a standard type of writing, but Paul explains his ironic defense and display of *rhetoric as motivated only by love for the Corinthians, rather than a genuine defense of himself.
12:20. One standard theme of Greco-Roman moralists was “harmony”; they commonly attacked strife, envy and so forth. Ancient moralists also attacked anger, among other attitudes. The Corinthians cannot defend their behavior even on the basis of their own culture’s ethics.
12:21. If the powerful members of the Corinthian church despised Paul’s humility (11:7), their wretched spiritual state (12:20) is about to humiliate him further. So much for his boasting of them (9:3)!
13:1-2. Moses’ *law (Deut 17:6; 19:15) and all subsequent Jewish (and Christian—Mt 18:16; 1 Tim 5:19) law required a minimum of two witnesses in the case of a charge against someone. Paul is treating his next visit to Corinth as a courtroom battle (cf. 1 Cor 6:3-4).
13:3-4. Because Judaism talked of God speaking by the prophets, Paul’s appeal to “Christ speaking in” him is probably an appeal to his prophetic gift. Because the Corinthian Christians, like their surrounding culture, valued rhetorical power that drew attention to speakers rather than to the supreme God, Paul often drives home God’s power revealed in the weakness of the cross to the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:18–2:8).
13:5-6. Corinthian culture evaluated speakers (cf. 13:3); Paul turns the question of evaluation back to them. Many philosophers urged self-evaluation or testing. Paul, their spiritual father, has *Christ in him (13:3-4), but the Corinthians must decide whether Christ is in them.
13:7-9. Philosophers generally reasoned that it did not matter what others thought of them; but many reasoned that they should guard what others thought of them, not for their own sake but for the sake of bringing others to philosophy. Paul is unconcerned with what others think of him but wants his friends to be built up.
13:10. On Paul’s authority in this regard, see comment on 10:8.
13:11. This closing exhortation to unity fits Greco-Roman “harmony” speeches well enough that even nonbelievers in Corinth would agree with its moral message.
13:12. Very light kisses on the lips were used as a sign of affection among family or friends.
13:13. Letters often included greetings from others present where the writer was.
13:14. Most Jewish people thought of the *Holy Spirit as a prophetic, divine force from God. Thus, for Paul to parallel Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit as he does here probably indicates his belief that Jesus is also divine and that the Spirit is also a personal being like the Father and Son.