Part 2: Preparations for the third visit and the collection (2 Corinthians 8:1 - 9:15)

7. The collection for the church in Jerusalem

Chapter Introduction

On the Day of Pentecost, in A.D. 30 or thereabouts, the apostle Peter preached his famous sermon to the crowds in Jerusalem. Among other matters he referred to the gift of tongues, which signified that the Messiah would call to himself men from every race under heaven (Acts 2:6,14-40). On that day some three thousand came to faith in Christ and were baptized, thus forming the first church. From the beginning the community was beset with difficulties, not least material poverty exacerbated by unpopularity and isolation. Persecution was around the corner and in the not too distant future would be apparent. For these reasons the 'multitude of those who believed' decided to share their possessions, even resorting to selling their properties to provide for those who could not fend for themselves (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32,34 - 5:2). That this was no light matter is shown by the appointment of seven men to ensure that Greek-speaking Jewish widows were not overlooked in the distribution (Acts 6:1-3). Peter's poignant remark to the lifelong cripple at the gate of the temple, 'Silver and gold I do not have' (Acts 3:6), reveals the financial status of a leader of the church. Were others better off?

The situation does not seem to have improved with time, and when the church scattered following the judicial murder of Stephen (Acts 8:1) many must have experienced extreme deprivation. In or about A.D. 46 Barnabas and Saul conveyed money from Antioch to Jerusalem to relieve the material wants of the believers (Acts 11:29-30). Nickle notes pertinently that 'The significance of this collection in Antioch as the prototype for Paul's great collection among his Gentile churches cannot be overestimated' (Keith F. Nickle, The Collection: A Study in Paul's Theology, London: SCM, 1966, p.26). And it was not only they who were in need. Josephus records that Queen Helena of Adiabene in Mesopotamia, a proselyte to Judaism, sent aid to Jerusalem, although not to the church (the lady is not known to have been a Christian). He observes that 'At that time the city was hard pressed by famine, and many were perishing from want of money to purchase what they needed,' adding that it was the occasion of 'the great famine'. Notice the definite article, 'the'. Josephus, Antiquities, 20.49-51,101. On the occasion of the Council of Jerusalem (perhaps A.D. 50; Acts 15), James, Peter and John instructed the same two men, Paul and Barnabas, to remember the poor, which Paul insists he was eager to do (Gal. 2:10). In this instance the poor would almost certainly have belonged to the Judean churches, and the three Jerusalem leaders were no doubt urging him to appeal for money from the newly established Jewish-Gentile congregations.

Some years later the apostle indicated to the Corinthians that they should set aside money on the first day of each week so that when he visited he could arrange for it to be conveyed to Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1-2). This would probably have been early in A.D. 57. Six months afterwards Paul sent 2 Corinthians to Achaia, writing in detail in chapters 8 and 9 about the arrangements. Late in that year or early in A.D. 58 he arrived in Corinth where he issued the letter to the Romans. In this epistle Paul indicates that he hoped to travel to Jerusalem with money raised by the churches in Macedonia and Achaia for the 'poor saints' in that city (Rom. 15:25-26). Upon reaching Judea he alluded to this matter when speaking before Felix, although he did not refer specifically to the Jerusalem church (Acts 24:17).

The important point is that Paul's collection was neither a response to the wants of the indigent poor, who are never far away (John 12:8), nor was it an ad hoc provision for needy Christians, giving rise, deliberately or otherwise, to a sort of ongoing benevolent fund (cf. 2 Thess. 3:8-10). There are two verses which more than any others reveal the mind of the apostle on this matter. The first is 9:13, where Paul tells the Corinthians, 'By means of the test of this ministry, they [i.e. Jewish believers] are glorifying God because of your confession's submission to the gospel of Christ ? and because of the simplicity of your fellowship towards them and towards all.' The second key verse is Romans 15:27, where he writes, 'For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their [i.e. of Jewish] spiritual things, they ought also to minister to them in material things.'

Two parallel truths had to be demonstrated once and for all to both Jewish and Gentile Christians before the apostle could reckon his ministry to be complete. First, it was always a major emphasis of Paul's theology that Gentiles who come to faith in Christ are spiritually circumcised, constituent members of 'the commonwealth of Israel' (Eph. 2:11-12). This meant that at that time (as since) Jews and Gentiles were obliged to receive one another as brethren, which, in fact, was what the Council of Jerusalem was all about. Constituting what is arguably the high point of the Book of Acts, the council laid the foundations for the ongoing triumphs of the gospel among non-Jewish peoples, but always on the understanding that the work of the Messiah was designed to enlarge the tents of Israel, Gentile believers being among the 'children of promise' (Gal. 4:27-28; cf. Isa. 54:1). The wild olive is grafted into the cultivated tree (Rom. 11:24) and the fallen booth of David is re-erected to include non-Jews (Amos 9:11; Acts 15:16). This is why in 9:13 the apostle anticipates that poor Jewish believers in Jerusalem will rejoice in the manifest genuineness of the Gentiles' faith when the latter, many of whom were admittedly themselves not wealthy (1 Cor. 1:26-28), send hard-earned money to baptized Hebrews whom they would prob?ably never see in this world.

Second, although Jews and Gentiles shared a common faith and a common baptism (Eph. 4:4-6), and did not submit to a central church ? nor were required to do so ? Jerusalem was initially the hub of the worldwide gospel web. Paul insisted that the emerging congregations should not forget this, which is why Romans 15:27 urges giving. Those Gentiles who had benefited from Jewish missionary outreach needed to exhibit gratitude, in this case causing money to flow to the saints in Jerusalem.

In short, Paul envisaged this astonishing, intercontinental money-raising scheme as a means to consolidate the Gentile mission and to make it obvious that the churches proliferating everywhere were one in Christ and constituted the Messianic Israel of God. Generosity on an immense scale was being harnessed to demonstrate this profound theological principle, which is why we have chapters 8 and 9 as a distinct section within 2 Corinthians.

If we ponder these chapters together with Romans 15 and 1 Corinthians 16, not forgetting Paul's statement in Acts 24:17, we shall probably come to the conclusion that the Gentile collection for the Jerusalem saints was in a way the consummate expression of the apostle's churchmanship, an ultimate and probably unsurpassable demonstration of the oneness of the body of Christ. Think of the wonder of it: before he travelled to Rome and thence (possibly) to Spain, Paul had lived to see erstwhile idolaters sending their monies to Jews brought up to consider Gentiles as unclean, as Simon Peter had been quick to remind the Lord (Acts 10:14), and haughty Jews gladly receiving this benefit as from God. The solvent was the gospel, and there was none other. The scheme was a master-stroke, exhibiting the apostle's genius as a leader. It is likely that at the time only he was of sufficient calibre to have devised it and to have seen it through to its happy conclusion. Furthermore, the project was unique. Prior to Paul's ministry the idea was inconceivable; afterwards, when the apostle and his associates had delivered the money to Jerusalem, there was no need to repeat the exercise. The principle had been pressed home to all concerned in a manner as winsome as it was compelling. Paul's collection was a magnificent gold-and-silver expression of an underlying reality.

And this was in spite of the fact that at the time not all churches were asked to contribute, as witness Romans 15:26: 'It pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make a participation for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.' It is true that some of the Galatians were also involved (1 Cor. 16:1), but the church(es) in Rome had, it may be inferred, no part in the matter. It was not, of course, that they were unworthy, or that they would have backed away had they been approached. The reality was that, like the gift of tongues, another massive token, the project was not designed for all churches for all time. Furthermore, Nickle identifies three strands in the collection project for the relief of the Jerusalem church: (1) an act of Christian charity motivated by the love of Christ; (2) an ex?pression of Christian solidarity, in that God was calling Gentiles as well as Jews to faith; and (3) an 'eschatological pilgrimage of the Gentile Christians to Jerusalem by which the Jews were to be confronted with the undeniable reality of the divine gift of saving grace to the Gentiles and thereby be themselves moved through jealousy to finally accept the gospel' (The Collection, p.142). The first two components make sense, but not, perhaps, the third, which owes something to the insupportable notion that Paul and others with him believed in a necessarily imminent Parousia (see 9:10).

Macedonian generosity
(2 Corinthians 8:1-7)

The keyword in this section would seem to be 'grace' or 'favour' (Greek, charis; 8:1,4,6,7). There is more than one nuance to the word.

First, the grace of God shown to the Macedonian churches has worked itself out in their enthusiasm for the collection, participation in which they reckoned would be a favour for them, rather than a matter of their favouring others with their generosity. And the extreme poverty of these churches has served as an incentive to giving rather than acting as a disincentive (8:1-4). Second, this splendid response has prompted Paul to urge Titus to bring to fruition earlier arrangements with the Corinthians since they, too, are being favoured with an invitation to share in the scheme (8:6): may the south not follow the lead given by the north? Third, the Corinthians enjoy so many benefits, not excluding Paul's love for them, that it is incumbent upon them to overflow in 'this grace' also (8:7).

We arrive at a point of transition in the letter, as indicated by 'we make known to you, brothers'. Paul, not for the first time, encourages his readers by reminding them of the diligence shown by other churches. He did this in 1 Corinthians 16:1, where he required the Corinthians to emulate the obedience shown by the Galatians, and here he draws attention to the 'grace of God which has been given in the churches of Macedonia'. The subtlety of the apostle is evident when he addresses his readers as his 'brothers' and when he asserts that the generosity shown by the Macedonians was due to God's 'grace', a gracious love not unknown in the deep south of Greece. It is not that the Macedonians are intrinsically more benevolent than their Corinthian brethren; what the former have achieved is not beyond the reach of the latter.

'Make known' implies publication, or even revel?ation, the apostle letting the Corinthians into something of a secret which the Macedonian churches would, given the opportunity, have kept to themselves. The verb is gnwrivzw; in the first person, cf. 1 Cor. 12:3; 15:1; Gal. 1:11. Not only had the grace of God been bestowed upon the northerners; 'given' (dedomenon, Greek perfect tense) indicates that it has come to stay, which is a subtle way of saying that readiness to give remains an ongoing feature of church life. Do the Corinthians exhibit a like willingness?

Moreover, there was a delightful 'simplicity' about the way in which the Macedonians contributed to Paul's scheme. The underlying Greek haplotes means singleness of heart, or genuine concern, and here indicates a kindness that lacked hypocrisy and ostentation but manifested itself in helpfulness when necessary, and at whatever cost. Romans 12:8 brings out the association between generosity and sincerity: 'he who gives, with simplicity'. Thus it was with the northern churches which, aware of the problems facing their Jewish brethren in Jerusalem, were determined to help to the best of their ability. They were rich in generosity even if (or, because) their resources were slender. Paul indicates that there were three strands in their motivation. He explains: 'because ?'

First, their generosity became known 'in great testing [or, 'proof'] arising from trouble', by which is meant that their remarkable calibre, the fruit of a most severe trial, has manifested itself; their light refused to be hidden. 'Proof', 'trial' - dokimhv. It was God-given; cf. Rom. 5:4; James 1:3,12; 1 Peter 1:7. As with the Jerusalem believers, the Lord allowed them to suffer persecution in order to evaluate the quality of their faith. At an earlier date Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, reminding them that they had become 'imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Jews' (1 Thess. 2:14). There can be little doubt that these and other Macedonians sympathized with the Jews because of their own harsh experiences, their troubles leading them to lean hard upon their God. In turn, this induced them to part with what money they had. Persecution becomes the furnace in which the grace of giving is refined to a high state of purity.

Within the context of suffering the northerners experienced 'abundance' of joy, the Thessalonians having 'received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit' (1 Thess. 1:6). In later days, when a prisoner in Rome, Paul will warn the Philippians to 'beware of dogs', perverse and unbelieving Jews, at the same time reminding them that the church and he 'rejoice in Christ Jesus' (Phil. 3:2,3). The pattern is consistent with 8:1-2. Attacked simultaneously by jealous Jews and aggressive idolaters, the Macedonian believers responded to Paul because they were aware that they belonged to the kingdom of God.

Third, the Macedonians were materially very poor. Deep, rock-bottom 'poverty' was their lot, and they could hardly have been worse off. Therefore they did not have much to give to others even though they could appreciate the financial problems of the Jerusalem brethren. Nor does the apostle quantify ? he would never be so gross, unlike Judas Iscariot, who was quick to calculate the value of Mary's gift (John 12:5). What he does declare is that from a background of harassment their joy and poverty enhanced an urgent concern. All the way through these verses Paul's vocabulary is striking ? 'great testing arising from trouble', 'abundance of their joy', 'the depth of their poverty', 'abounded', 'the wealth of their simplicity' ? because he is intent on showing that, in spite of the adversities they face, the Macedonian churches have been eager to come forward. How much they gave is not as important as the 'wealth' of their simple, unfeigned generosity. Cannot the Corinthians, who admittedly are not millionaires, stand with them?

These verses constitute one complete though involved sentence. Anxious to demonstrate to the Corinthians the concern of the northern churches, the apostle continues to explain, introducing elements of the Macedonian situation to his readers.

Although the background to the Macedonians' generosity was an amalgam of persecution, poverty and spiritual joy, the spark that ignited their hearts was an awareness of Paul's appeal elsewhere on behalf of the Judean churches. Nowhere does the apostle indicate that he broached the matter to the northerners with the broad hint that they ought to contribute. Apparently, when they heard what was afoot they realized that they were faced with an issue of vast spiritual importance. Nor were other churches faced with an embarrassing appeal to make up a shortfall, like a call from a missionary society that finds itself temporarily unable to pay its way and issues an urgent request to others to make some contribution. The Macedonians learned that the apostle had opened mind and heart with others whom he thought might be able to support the project, and they accidentally, so to speak, caught the flame. Galvanized into a fresh awareness that they were caught up in a programme of redemption centred upon Jesus the ethnic Jew which would extend its influence to the ends of the earth and beyond this age, they were brought to their knees by Paul's intelligence. They gave themselves to the Lord and consequently to the apostle as his willing auxiliaries. The position of the reflexive pronoun 'themselves' in 8:5 is emphatic: spiritual awareness has become the dynamic for giving. Normally, they would never have given so readily, but they were aware that here was an issue that had to be addressed and that for them, as for others, the unrepeatable moment had arrived.

In the event, the apostle was amazed at the way his project captured the imagination of these extremely poor yet motivated Gentile Christians, and 8:3-5 displays his astonishment. He hoped, it is true, that the Macedonians might participate, although he had never dared ask them outright. In the event, they exceeded his aspirations. If only the Corinthians would become imitators of them!

This elaborate sentence revolves around 'gave' (8:5): the willingness of the Macedonians to contribute is the phenomenon to which Paul directs his readers' attention. They donated not only in accord?ance with their means, but beyond those means, veering towards impoverishment: 'according to [their] ability ? beyond [their] ability' (8:3). 'Ability' translates the Greek dynamis, which also means 'power'; on this occasion the northerners threw prudence to the winds. A similar turn of phrase occurs in Romans 11:24, although in a different context: 'according to nature ? contrary to [= 'beyond'] nature', katav + accusative ('in accordance with') followed by parav + accusative ('travelling beyond', a sort of comparative, as in Luke 13:2: 'Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all [para; pavnta~] other Galileans?') the point being that there are oc?casions when action and reaction leap beyond customary boundaries.

The apostle is artful, knowing that his enemies will accuse him of squeezing money from gullible, impoverished converts in order to line his pockets. Others, he acknowledges, have been doing this thing ('peddling the word of God', 2:17), but he has never done so. Paul makes a triple statement about the manner in which the northern churches gave. First, there was no question of the apostle putting pressure upon them; they contributed 'of their own choice' (Greek, authairetoi). Second, they employed 'much exhort?ation' (Greek, paraklesis) when urging Paul to receive their money. Third, they begged the apostle that they might be granted 'the grace and the fellowship of the ministry'. 'The grace and the fellowship ?' is almost certainly epexegetic: 'grace' is qualified and expounded immediately by 'and [kai;] the fellowship'. Here, 'grace' (Greek, charis) prob?ably implies pleasure: they would be delighted were Paul to allow them to 'minister', that is, to administer their resources. Acts 6:2 employs the same Greek word for 'ministry', diakonia, with respect to the seven men appointed to allocate money to poor widows in the church at Jerusalem. This is the sense here, as also in Romans 15:25, where the apostle refers to his journey to Jerusalem. The use of the definite article, 'the', is subtle: 'the fellowship ? that is to say [= th`~, 'the'] to the saints'. The would-be donors knew that it was a privilege as much as a moral obligation to contribute, and they had no desire to miss out.

Notice that the Macedonians were 'begging' (Greek, deomenoi, a present participle), implying that they continued to lovingly irritate the apostle until at last he succumbed to their request. We are treated to the spectacle of very poor people assuming grovel mode so that they might be relieved of what little they had on behalf of foreigners who had even less. Only Christ could have achieved this ? which was the truth Paul intended to demonstrate.

Not that there was any time interval between the northerners giving themselves to the Lord, then to Paul and then to the collection. 'First' in 8:5 means priority in importance and order, as suggested by the absence of 'then', sequence not being too much in mind. Compare Exodus 14:31: 'So the people feared Yahweh, and believed Yahweh and his servant Moses'; or Acts 15:28: 'For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.' Summing the matter up with lightning rapidity, Paul states that the self-offering of the Macedonian believers was 'through the will of God'; the Lord was behind it all.

And why does Paul write that the Macedonians gave themselves to him and his colleagues as well as to the Lord? We have here a barbed shaft. First, the apostle strikes at those who accuse him of being a money-grabber: because there was a mutual bond of appreciation between the Macedonians and Paul, the former handed their money to him. It was almost as simple as that. But further, the northern churches perceived that although the idea of the collection was from God, it was mediated through a man whose office they recognized; acceptance of the gospel, involvement in the collection and an ongoing valid?ation of Paul's status were all of a piece. So Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT series (Grand Rapids & Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997), p.399. The apostle indicates that the Corinthians will be wise to apply themselves to the scheme as evidence that they accept his authority, in this way demonstrating their rejection of the Judaizers and thereby maintaining themselves within the fellowship of the churches. As it is, they are at the moment almost out of step with God, the apostle and believers elsewhere.

Paul, we need to remember, writes from Macedonia after receiving good news from Titus. It is Titus, moreover, who will travel back to Corinth together with two unnamed companions to complete arrangements for the contribution so that it might be ready for Paul upon his arrival (8:18,22). Titus' previous happy reception there, plus the example of the Macedonians, has transformed the situation, which is why the apostle is able to stimulate his colleague to return. eij~ to - 'so [we urged Titus]'.

When precisely did Titus begin to encourage the church to give? The introductory formula 'now concerning' in 1 Corinthians 16:1, where Paul mentions the collection, may indicate responses to earlier questions on the matter. 'Now concerning' - peri; de; (cf. 1 Cor.7:1,25; 8:1; 12:1). This suggests that when Titus visited Corinth as Paul's representative he mooted the idea of the offering. A comparison with 8:10, which also employs the Greek verb proenerxasthai, 'to commence previously', concerning the inception of the project at Corinth, implies that he was there during the previous year. Did Titus convey the lost letter mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:9, and was he one of several who took 1 Corinthians to the church (1 Cor. 16:11), even as he will be the apostolic postman yet again when he carries 2 Corinth?ians southwards? We do not know, but it seems probable that when Titus travelled north to meet Paul with cheering news he had been relieved to know that his earlier efforts were not in vain. But there is yet more to do, and the apostle sees to it that his colleague will not flag. We conjecture that Paul has been testing his friend: if Titus can complete this matter he will be better qualified for future ministry. But be this as it may, just as the Macedonians were permitted to contribute, so too are the Corinthians: 'this grace for you' is an oblique way of reminding the southern church that it is their privilege to involve Titus rather than their generosity in allowing him to co-operate; Corinth will serve the churches rather than the latter being obligated to Corinth. The apostle keeps his hands firmly on the tiller.

Titus' previous ministry in Corinth must have been effective in view of the 'also' which introduces a comment about the hoped-for completion of financial arrangements. kai; - 'as well'. We understand why Titus and Paul have been so cheered.

The apostle switches to direct exhortation, commencing with the Greek alla, the powerful 'but'. ajllav, which occurs here, can indicate a change to a new subject, particularly when the latter is a command or an exhort?ation. Cf. Acts 9:6: '? but stand, and go into the city.' Using words as goads, Paul indicates that not only should the abundant joy and the simple liberality of the Macedonians (8:2) stimulate Corinth to give, but also the latter's God-given blessings are to impel them to abundance. Let them look in the mirror and be embarrassed: they are 'abounding in everything' (apart, that is, from organized generosity), and Paul itemizes. The 'faith' mentioned here was possibly, but not certainly, a more intense faith of a quality not given to everybody (cf. 1 Cor. 12:9). 'Utterance' (Greek, logos) may have been the ability to communicate prophetically, and by 'knowledge' Paul may signify God-given prophetic revelations (cf. 1 Cor. 12:8,10). See Peter Naylor, 1 Corinthians (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 1996), pp.232-7, for a discussion of the spiritual gifts outlined in 1 Corinthians 12. That the Corinthians are diligent has been admitted (7:11), and here the apostle acknowledges that their enthusiasm is virtually boundless. More?over, they overflow with Paul's love for them. Some versions translate with 'your love for us', but the United Bible Societies' Greek text, which yields 'love from us among you', may be preferable because the latter is more in keeping with the context. Both readings are well attested, and a decision ought to be made on contextual considerations. The apostle's heart is open to the Corinthians even though their affections have been restricted (6:11; 7:2).

Because this is how it is, let the church see to it that they exceed 'even' or 'also' in 'this grace', adding thereby to their range of spiritual assets. Grace poured into the heart ought to pour from it. If they fall at the final hurdle Paul will be disappointed. Declining for the moment to find fault, the apostle deploys lavish courtesy to attain the desired end. He will not be satisfied with a paltry effort or even a modest sum.

Application

It may be that too many Christians are (forgive the odious word!) 'snobs'. That is, they endeavour to gravitate towards churches stocked with people whom they believe to be of their own type (nationality, age, profession, area where they live, colour, education, etc.). Furthermore, in the average congregation there may be those who tend to patronize others because of their superior resources, although this is decidedly untrue of most wealthier Christians. And it is sometimes felt by more ordinary folk that these valued personalities must be wrapped in cotton wool lest they be bruised and the offerings diminish.

Paul would have none of it, and reminded the Corinthians that the Macedonians were outstripping them in their usefulness to others, the reason being that the northerners' poverty was a resource enabling them to empathize with their Judean brethren. True generosity depends less on the size of the bank balance and more on one's walk with the Lord. Those who know much of his grace will tend to show much graciousness. Money and numbers, although important, are at best secondary matters in church life.

Advice to the Corinthians before Paul arrives among them
(2 Corinthians 8:8-15)

During the previous year the Corinthians had resolved to help with the collection. Invoking the example set by the Macedonians (8:8), the apostle reminds his readers about their promise (8:10), backing this up by the precedent set by our Lord (8:9), and then recalling the manner in which God supplied the needs of Israel at the time of the Exodus (8:15).

Not actually instructing the church to give, Paul appeals to their declared keenness for the project (8:8,11); necessity has never been laid upon them. Nor does he expect the Corinthians to give beyond their means (8:12). And the collection is not intended to elevate the standard of living of the intended recipients in Judea at the expense of the Greeks: basically, where there is perceived need the Lord's people share equality of opportunity ? irrespective of how much or little they can contribute (8:13).

In short, there are a variety of compelling reasons which ought to induce the Corinthians to stir themselves before Titus and, later, Paul arrive.

Imagine that a senior minister of a powerful and generous king approaches us, the monarch's loyal subjects, in the name of his sovereign in order to ask a favour which he suspects is not beyond our means. Knowing the mind of his master, the steward does not compel. Further, he has a healthy respect for the patriotism and intelligence of those to whom he is sent. For our part, we know that were we to shake our heads the palace would not rejoice, particularly because the king knows that as subjects we are committed in principle to the royal service. Sensing that the request carries weight, we respond with alacrity.

It is in this spirit that the apostle, a very senior minister in the service of the King of kings, approaches the Corinthians. The Lord has prompted him, he is aware, to raise a collection for Jewish be?lievers ? and he shares the matter with the people, 'but' (again, alla) issuing no specific 'decree'. In his other letters this word denotes the will of God, which suggests that it would have been so here. Rom. 16:26; 1 Cor. 7:6,25; 1 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:3; 2:15. The Greek is katj ejpitagh;n, 'according to decree'. Instead, the apostle is delightfully subtle, harnessing the zeal of the northern churches to test the 'genuineness' of Corinthian loyalty and 'love'. Cf. James 1:3: 'the testing of your faith'; 1 Peter 1:7: 'the genuineness of your faith'. Although he does not doubt their eagerness to help, he wants to see their commitment manifested to all and sundry. Now is the moment; here is the need. Others have shown much generosity, The grammar would allow a slightly different translation: 'Through the diligence [of the Corinthians] for others I put to the proof the sincerity of your own love.' But this weakens the sense of the verse, and the usual interpretation is better. Paul employs the proven zeal of others to bring into relief the sincerity of the Corinthians. and the Corinthians do not lack means, however slender. He does not want to see their name become a byword within the community of the churches. Let them show solidarity. Paul employs tact in handling those who have realigned themselves with his mission. Further, the apostle protects himself in that he makes no demands. Who, now, can complain that he is extortionate?

Paul's exhortations to the church at Corinth reach their climax. First, he referred his readers to the precedent set by the impoverished churches of Macedonia (8:1-5). Second, he appealed to the encouragement received by Titus when he was in Corinth and to the church's admitted spirituality (8:6-7). Now he points them to the supreme example of generosity set by our Lord, who gave himself in a gracious and unmerited demonstration of love.

Two observations are necessary before plunging into this magnificent verse. The apostle assumes that the Corinthians are well taught. They understand who Christ is, and that he was supremely 'rich' before he became man. This means that he was eternally divine in that no angel would be described as 'lord' or would be depicted as wealthy. This is not contradicted by the reference to 'the chief princes' (Dan. 10:13), supernatural beings, including Michael the arch?angel (Jude 9), who assist God. The church is being reminded that the incarnation was an act of pure grace, planned so that sinners would become infinitely rich. In short, what Paul writes here is a summary of part of the teaching delivered to the Corinthians at an earlier date by him and his associates. It is as if the congregation possesses a catechism, copies of which were circulated and which they have studied. Having learned it, the people are now reminded of the section on the person and work of Christ in order to stimulate them to contribute to the collection.

Second, Paul also accepts that the generosity of Christ was restricted in its scope in that the Lord gave himself for specific people: 'because of you'. The Lord came to make the salvation of some men certain rather than contingent upon conditions which they might or might not fulfil. And this is in spite of the admitted principles that faith is a condition for acquiring salvation and that all who hear the gospel are duty-bound to turn to Christ. The underlying reality, of course, is that when he so decides, God graciously provides faith so that it will be offered back to him (Eph. 2:8). This principle of discrimin?atory grace gives contour to the apostle's theology of giving: if the Lord handed himself over specifically for the people of God, the Corinthians' giving must be similarly delimited, sacrificial Christian charity targeting the churches as its first concern.

In detail, Paul assumes that his readers' understanding of who Christ is and what he has done for them will prompt their generosity, 'for' being the link between verses 8 and 9: 'I ? am also testing the genuineness of your love ? for you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.' Moreover, their awareness is the fruit of spiritual experience induced by sound teaching, 'know' translating the Greek ginosko, implying recognition: now they have eyes to see. They perceive the 'grace', or unmerited favour, of Christ in that his mercy and power have become realities. Let their overflowing generosity, rather than a mechanical response to Paul, be no less real as they contemplate the needs of the Judean churches.

In that the ultimate example of spontaneous kindness is 'our Lord Jesus Christ', the Saviour of men is given his complete title. Notice that Paul brings in the possessive pronoun 'our', indicating that the Lord belongs to the apostle, to the Corinth?ians and to as many as turn to him. This being so, their giving is to be motivated by his extraordinary precedent. Can they relate to him in any meaningful fashion while allowing the springs of generosity to dry up?

Jesus is portrayed as 'Lord', that is, God. In the Septuagint the word behind 'Lord' (transliterated as Kyrios) is the one invariably used to translate the covenant name of God, 'Yahweh'. In the Septuagint the Hebrew hw:hy] is always matched by the Greek Kuvrio~ (see the notes for 1:19, vol. 1, pp.77-8). Paul has this identity in mind when he teaches that the divine Son became Jesus, the human Son of God, the incarn?ation being the commencement of his self-impoverishment (see Phil. 2:6-8). Perhaps 'became poor' is an ingressive aorist, pointing to the historic incarnation and all that happened up to and including the Lord's death: 'He began to become poor.' Adam did not exist prior to his creation, and although he was made in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26), he remained no more than a man, 'lower than the angels' (Ps. 8:5). Unlike Adam, our Lord assumed this humble station (Heb. 2:7,9). The point is that had he been one of the created angels, at least some of whom resemble men (e.g. Dan. 9:21; Acts 1:10), his impoverishment, if any, would have lacked significance. In the event, God reduced himself to the limitations of humanity, entering into poverty yet all the time remaining God. In his infancy the divine-human Son, considered as man, had a superb mother, Mary, and then advanced to adulthood and to the fulfilment of his mission. Flesh and blood, he was neither angel nor android. Clearly, there is mystery in the statement that Christ 'became poor', but Paul's simple application is that if the Corinthians do not give generously, they will fail to walk in the steps of the Master. Unlike Moses, who renounced the grandeur of Pharaoh's house (Heb. 11:24-26), Jesus never had any earthly riches. When he became one with us he began to give his all. Cannot the Corinthians be like Jesus by humbling themselves in the service of God and of the saints?

Paul points to Jesus as 'Christ', the anointed Messiah of Israel. This implies that in his fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies, the Son of David acquires as his subjects many from the family of Abraham, as also from other peoples. Whereas the latter had usually been excluded, now they are welcomed as the Gentiles that they are into the house of God with no further ado: there is no requirement to Judaize. Further, in ethnic Israel poverty had been the subject of legislation ('You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land', Deut. 15:11), and in the Messianic Israel the principle abides. Let the Corinthians know that belonging to Christ is not without responsibilities.

Finally, the Lord's generosity is intended to achieve a result, 'that you by his poverty might become rich'. Before he became one with us, his splendour far exceeded that of the most glorious angels. It follows that the riches possessed by the Corinthians and all like them are not identical to those surrendered and then more than reclaimed by the Lord. But they are not inconsiderable. Among many other blessings, they have been raised to sit in heaven, so to speak, with Christ (Eph. 2:6), are the adopted children of God and participate in all that accrues to such a status (Rom. 8:15-16). At this point in his letter Paul challenges the Corinthians, who are rich in spiritual gifts also (8:7), to undergo a degree of material impoverishment in order to share with others what is by contrast a slender benefit.

The apostle refuses to order the church to support the collection; the example set by our Lord, as expounded in the previous verse, not to mention the lesser precedent set by the Macedonian churches who gave because they had given themselves to the Lord and to Paul in the will of God (8:5), is a sufficient constraint. In the light of Calvary, why embroider with an explicit instruction? In any case, a demand would nullify the principle of grace; in such matters eager willingness is essential.

But there is need for guidance about a matter which the Corinthians understand is important. To repeat, it may well be that 'Now concerning the collection ?' in 1 Corinthians 16:1 picks up a request by the church for clarification about help for the Jewish brethren. It can be inferred that they have shown interest in the matter for some time (hence, 'a year ago'), and are ready to go forward, particularly because the strain in their relationship with the apostle is for the most part healed. Titus has returned to Paul, and the latter will visit Corinth soon, hoping to receive their contribution.

The expression 'a year ago' probably means 'last year', the preceding calendar year. ajpo; pevrusi - 'a year ago'. Does this mean a full twelve months before the time of writing, or does it recall some point before the end of the previous year, whenever that end occurred? And which year? A common-sense answer would be that 'last year' is a loose term meaning prior to the beginning of the year in which Paul wrote 2 Corinthians. Taking into account that the letter may have been drafted in the autumn of A.D. 57, perhaps during September, and that the Roman year began, like ours, in January, it might be that the Corinthians had taken the project to heart not less than nine months (9 + 0 months) and not more than twenty-one months (9 + 12 months) earlier, that is, at some time during the old year, what we would call A.D. 56. This calculation is made on the unprovable, yet not unlikely, assumption that in his travels the apostle employed the Roman calendar. The Jewish ecclesiastical calendar began in the spring, whereas the Jewish civil calendar, as also that of Macedonia, commenced in the autumn. We remember that 2 Corinthians was written in Macedonia, and that Philippi ? where Paul might have been staying at the time ? was a Roman colony, as also Corinth. Would he not have accommodated to the popular system? However, certainty is impossible.

If this makes sense, the timing of Paul's letters to Corinth might be as follows. In A.D. 56 Titus was in Corinth for a while when promises were given for a contribution to the Judean churches. The apostle then sent a lost letter to Corinth from Ephesus by the hand of Titus warning them about immoral associ?ations (1 Cor. 5:9), and the church replied, asking for counsel on this and other matters. This response, together with unhappy news conveyed to Paul at Ephesus from the household of Chloe, possibly by the three-man delegation of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus (1 Cor. 1:11; 16:17), prompted the apostle to write 1 Corinthians early in A.D. 57, this letter also being carried southwards by Titus. The latter's happy reception by the church was a blessing to him, and he returned to the north to meet Paul, who had recently crossed from Asia. The good news conveyed by Titus stimulated the apostle to write 2 Corinthians in the autumn of A.D. 57, and Titus delivered it to the church. Finally, Paul himself travelled south for a third tour (12:14; 13:1; Acts 20:2), the second, interim, visit being unrecorded in Acts.

Earlier in A.D. 57 the apostle had informed the Corinthians that because he lacked any command from the Lord about certain questions relating to marriage, he would give his own advice (1 Cor. 7:25). The issue of the collection was no less important, and Paul does not deprive the church of his 'opinion', knowing that his counsel will be shown respect. In the previous year, the apostle notes, the people displayed an eagerness to be involved, a literal translation of the last part of 8:10 being something like, 'you, you who previously began a year ago not only to act but also to will', the second 'you' possibly being a compliment: 'You are the kind of people who think and act.' 'You ? people like you' (oi{tine~). Problems at Corinth had, it is true, led at one stage to a cooling of enthusiasm, but now that matters are more stable Paul feels it right to stimulate earlier intentions. It will be 'beneficial' for them to go forward.

These verses commence with 'now', which means 'as things stand', or 'given present circumstances'. nuni; de; (cf. 1 Cor. 5:11; 12:18; 13:13; 15:20; Eph. 2:13; Col. 1:21; 3:8). Paul liked to comment about situations as he found them. The Corinthians ought to resurrect the enthusiasms of the previous year, their expressed wish to be involved in the collection being acknowledged by Paul with the reference to 'enthusiasm in aspiration', meaning that at first the church was noticeably keen on the idea of a contribution for Judea. The apostle indicates that this was marvellous as far as it went, but that now words are insufficient. Let there be a similar readiness not only in aspiring to do something but in actually doing it: 'Just as there was enthusiasm in aspiration, so, too, complete from what you have' (8:11). How sad it will be if the Corinthians' eagerness fizzles out! And how damaging for the church, for the apostle and for Titus and others elsewhere! Paul has encouraged Titus to complete what he began (8:6), and now advises his readers to co-operate with the latter so that his colleague and the congregation might all rejoice in a task well done.

Contributions must be voluntary, which is why the apostle declines to quantify what he thinks the Corinthians should give. 'For if enthusiasm is present it ['it' possibly indicating enthusiasm or sincerity of motive] Kistemaker notes that 'It is not the readiness to give that is acceptable, for that is understood' (Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997, p.286). But it is the attitude behind the offering which sanctifies the offering. is acceptable according to what one may have, not according to what one does not have' (8:12). Assuming that they are prepared to donate, Paul observes that if the people have some means, however meagre, responsible giving will be 'acceptable', presumably both to the Lord and to the intended recipients, the latter being discerning saints who will not appreciate an obviously nominal sum. Notice that the apostle neither pressurizes the church to give beyond its means nor allows it to fall short. Nor does he manipulate. Cf. the apocryphal Tobit 4:8: 'As thy substance is, give alms of it according to thine abundance: if thou have little, be not afraid to give alms according to that little.' Philo notes that 'States on special occasions ? order each citizen to make an equal contribution from his property, not of course numerically equal, but equal in the sense that it is proportionate to the valuation of his estate' (Who Is the Heir, 145). The Jewish Mishnah says that 'It is all one whether a man offers much or little, if only he directs his mind toward Heaven' (Menahoth, 13.11). If they wish to imi?tate the extreme generosity of the Macedonians ('beyond ability', 8:3) so be it, but the apostle refuses to lead anyone down this road because he is convinced that it is not the will of God for believers to damage their economies. If a man gives to the limit of what is affordable, it will be acceptable (cf. Rom.15:31). 'Acceptable' (eujprovsdekto~) sometimes occurs in connection with sacrifices and offerings made to God (Rom. 15:16; 1 Peter 2:5). In any case, 1 Corinthians 16:2 shows that the apostle desires the Corinthians to give gradually, Lord's Day by Lord's Day. There must be no rushed collection, no sudden emptying of the purse, and no embarrassment because some do not come up to the levels of the more affluent.

Thus far Paul has considered the Corinthians, the Macedonians and the Lord. He contemplates a cash transfer from Greece to Judea. Then as now, money was a sensitive subject in church life. How much to give, to whom to give and why one ought to give were matters that demanded thought. At this point the apostle is careful because he senses that he might be misunderstood, or even misrepresented. However, consistently with the precedent set by the Jerusalem church itself in the early days (Acts 2:45; 4:34), he has set his heart upon a collection for the Jewish brethren in order to relieve their poverty. He gives guidelines.

Aware as he is that it is possible for some believers to be poorer than others yet relatively free from hardship, Paul's concern is with the evil of allowing some, like Lazarus in the parable (Luke 16:19-21), to go without basic necessities. This is why in later years the apostle will instruct Christian slave-owners to 'give your servants what is just and fair [or, 'equal']' (Col. 4:1), those who have much seeing to it that their dependants are not poverty-stricken. In brief, the situation which faces Paul is that the congregations in Judea are in danger of famine. He has to do something.

Common sense is necessary. Having said that a gift is valued both by God and the recipients according to the sincerity of the giver (8:12), the apostle adds that he does not want the Corinthians to give to the collection to the extent that they find themselves in material difficulty. It might be that the Macedonian churches went to such an extreme (8:3), but not because they were compelled to do so by Paul. Because he cannot be too careful, he protects both himself and the integrity of the scheme which he has pioneered: there must not be relief for homeland Jewish saints at the price of hardship for the Cor?inth???ian donors.

By 'equality' the apostle does not mean that he wants the Corinthians and their Jewish brethren to pool their money so that they end up by all enjoying approximately the same standard of living. He is not arguing for the transfer of a largish sum from Europe to Judea so that material uniformity becomes the prevailing norm across the churches, and it had never been his plan to create a hands-across-the-ocean commune. We recall that the rationale for the collection was a demonstration of the spiritual unity of Jewish and Gentile Christians rather than phil?anthropy within the churches, and Paul was well aware that in the providence of God non-Jewish believers were for the moment poorer than their European counterparts. Cleverly, he deploys the fact of inequality in the interests of better understanding among the churches. The occasion might pass away and the time could arrive when Greek and Asian churches, which have contributed liberally to the collection, find themselves in material difficulties, and when the churches of Judea might be in a pos?ition to help. Then their turn will come. This interpretation is disputed by some ? e.g. Ralph P. Martin (2 Corinthians, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 40, Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1986, p.266); and R. C. H. Lenski, who is unnecessarily scathing (The Interpretation of I and II Corinth?ians, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963 [first published 1937], p.1146).
In response, the emphasis falls upon 'also': 'abundance' on the part of the Corinthians might 'also' anticipate a corresponding 'abundance' among Jewish believers. If the plenitude enjoyed by the Greeks is material, so, too, would be the latter. In any case, 'abundance' (perivsseuma) and its cognates are not employed elsewhere by Paul with regard to 'salvation [being] of the Jews' (e.g. in the key passages, Rom. 11:16-24; 15:27). Abundance means 'having more of' something, and to infer that Jews have more of the benefits of the gospel than Gentiles is to travel beyond Paul's understanding. In brief, 'from equality' means 'according to equality of opportunity', and we compare with 'from what you have' in 8:11. Although the churches in Greece and Judea entertained (we may presume) somewhat different levels of income, they shared as equals the responsibility to relieve hardship among the saints. What the Greeks do in Paul's day the Jewish churches might need and want to do tomorrow. Who can tell? Let all be prepared.

The principle is developed. Because 'at the present time' (8:14) the Greeks enjoy relative abundance and because the Jewish brethren find themselves in need, let there be a cash flow to correct the imbalance. And this is with an eye to the future: 'so that [in the years ahead] the abundance of those may also be for your shortage'. The key word is 'also', which implies reciprocity: the Corinthians ought to give so that their generosity will stimulate others ('those' people, Jews!) to imitate them as and when occasion arises. In this way 'equality' will be generated. Paul brings in this loaded word a second time for emphasis, which means that the churches are to retain an unwritten rule to the effect that when some are in special need the others have a duty to help if they can.

To conclude, if parallels are drawn between this text and context and many other passages in Paul's letters it will be found that there were three distinct yet not unrelated reasons for encouraging the Corinthians to support the collection. The first was to show that there is a oneness within the body of Christ: racial differences count for nothing, and between Jew and Gentile there is neither inferiority nor superiority. Secondly, the collection would be a mark of the Gentiles' gratitude to the Jews. Jesus and his apostles were Jewish, and salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22). Romans 15:27 demonstrates Paul's concern that Gentile believers should acknowledge their indebtedness to the Jewish churches (cf. 1 Cor. 9:11). Finally, by way of recapitulation, the contribution for Judea becomes a precedent for future action, when the Jews might be called upon to help poor Gentiles. 'At the present time' could line up with the same expression in Romans 3:26: 'to demonstrate at the present time [that is, the period between the two advents] his righteousness'. Cf. Rom. 8:18; 11:5. If so, the idea is that prior to the return of the Lord those churches with more money than they need ought to help where material resources are genuinely insufficient.

The plea to enlarge the collection is backed up by a recall of the first part of Exodus 16:18, the apostle citing from the Septuagint, albeit with slight vari?ations. In translation it reads, 'So when they measured it by omers, he with much had nothing over, and he with little had no lack. Each man gathered according to what was appropriate for him.'

An 'omer' was a measure of volume, roughly equivalent to 2*2 litres. The incident was the institution of the daily collection of manna by the Israelites in the wilderness, Yahweh decreeing that each person would be allocated a single omer (Exod. 16:16). For example, if a man collected manna for a family of six in his tent he was allowed to gather seven omers (one for himself), and someone with ten dependants would be permitted to bring in eleven (again, one for himself). In the event ? and this is the point of Exodus 16:18 ? there was an exactness in both provision and collection. The children of Israel measured the amount of manna that was brought home and found that the rate had been one omer per head, irrespective of gender or age. The rule placed by God before the people was honoured both by him and by them on that first day. This became a precedent for the next forty years, during which period the Lord supplied a precise quantity of manna for the whole nation, and for their part the Israelites learned not to abuse God's goodness. Apart from a single, unforgettable lapse (Exod. 16:19-20), there was no hoarding by some to the detriment of others, and the Lord never disappointed with a shortfall at source.

The apostle's point is that even though God always provides a basic subsistence, provision never floats from heaven to land softly at the feet of each saint. Rather, when churches are in need there ought to be an arrangement by which some individuals collect both for themselves and for others. The formula 'just as it has been written' (Greek, gegraptai, perfect tense from grapho, 'I write') shows that an established principle remains, so to speak, on the statute book: this way of doing things extends from Moses in Sinai to the Christian communities.

From this it follows that if some enjoy a degree of affluence and if others through no personal fault lack basic necessities, the former are to try to redress the latter's need. In the wilderness (it should be remembered) it appears that the Lord did not afford luxury, and while Paul makes no attempt to strip wealthier believers of excess income, he expects that they will help Christians elsewhere so that they are not reduced to abject poverty. Survival was the need addressed in the desert, and it ought to be so among the saints. The apostle assumes that God will fan out his material blessings across the broad spectrum of the churches, both in Judea and elsewhere, and directs that those who can must transfer resources to deal with known deficiencies. Because there is nothing new about meeting the needs of others, those of the Messianic Israel who are relatively secure should be no less eager to help the helpless (now effectively their dependants) than were the harvesters of manna in the wilderness.

Application

Christian people receive many calls upon their generosity and it is often hard to know what to give, and to whom, and how. Paul lived in a world of need, but it is striking that he concerned himself with money-transfer among the churches. Although in our society secular charities do much good and are worthy of support, if 8:8-15 provides a lead it might be concluded that we are to be selective, directing our means primarily to those of like faith rather than addressing the poverty of the world and his wife. We might need assistance some day, and, should the Lord's people remain unconcerned, who will give it?

If 8:15 has been interpreted correctly, the implications are enormous. Christians who enjoy more than they require should see to it that they help those of their brethren who are in genuine want. Paul will signal that the Lord provides for some so that they may assist others (9:8-11). Nor does the apostle allow that his directions are relevant for the short term only, 'at the present time' (8:14) being almost certainly the extended period between the two advents of our Lord. Paul involves us in 'a theology of practical relief'. In Barnett's words (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.415).

One motive behind the first-century A.D. collection for the churches of Judea was a demonstration of the solidarity of the body of Christ. Now, two millennia nearer to the second advent of our Lord, the principle has become well established; it does not need to be made all over again. From this it follows that although support for missionary work among Jewish people is desirable, it should not be regarded as a mandatory expression of Gentile gratitude. Nor, indeed, did the early churches seem to have financed evangelistic activity specifically among Abraham's natural children. What happened was that some, but not all, Gentiles gave to established churches in Judea, signifying their indebtedness because they had been evangelized by Jewish missionaries (Rom. 15:26-28). Since that period the situation has changed.

The impending visit of Titus and two colleagues
(2 Corinthians 8:16-24)

The main purpose of 2 Corinthians is to prepare the church for Paul's third visit. In the light of his anticipated arrival, the Corinthians are being told that they might expect Titus, Paul's immediate 'postman', and two others, probably Macedonians, to visit them as his forerunners. Seen in this light, 8:16-24 comes across as a brief commendation for the three men within the body of the epistle. This necessary endorsement appears in exactly the right place, following immediately upon the apostle's elaborate treatment of various sensitive issues: alarm among the Corinthians concerning Paul's altered travel plans, the need for separation and for internal discipline, the theology of the new covenant and a call to support the collection for Judea.

These verses are also something of an addendum to 8:1-15, giving notice that the presence of the three men will shield the apostle from malicious criticism; clearly, he cannot manipulate church funds when Titus and his colleagues are present to monitor events. Equally, the Corinthians will find it difficult to evade their pledge. A shrewd blend of concern and love is manifest, and the ground is being cleared for the judicious exposé of the false apostles that will take up much of chapters 10-13.

The apostle appreciates that he cannot be too careful with money and that his reputation might be imperilled if he does not ensure that the administration of the collection is seen to be above reproach. This is why he refers again to Titus, who all along has been involved in the project. He had been exhorted by Paul to go back to Corinth to superintend the church's arrangements (8:6), but in truth he did not need persuasion. His heart was in the matter just as much as Paul's because the Lord had warmed both apostle and assistant to the task: 'But thanks be to God who bestowed in Titus' heart a similar [= as mine] eagerness for you' (8:16). Notice that 'bestowed' (Greek, donti, or, 'gave') is couched in the aorist tense: Although many manuscripts and printed editions of the Greek New Testament have the present participle, didovnti, 'giving', the aorist might be better: Titus has elected to go back to Corinth. prior to his departure Titus was watched closely by Paul, who asked himself, 'Does this man want to go, or do I have to tell him? One volunteer is worth ten pressed men, and where does he stand?' In that Titus is soon to be on his way bearing 2 Corinthians, Paul rejoices in that what the Lord began the Lord continues. The enthusiasm displayed by the apostle and reflected by his colleague's decision to return has intensified, and the heart of Titus will beat ever more rapidly as he approaches Corinth. There is a delicate touch in 'for you': although Titus is concerned for the poor in Jerusalem, he is not less burdened for the Corinthians; if they do not give they will be so much the poorer.

This is brought out by the remark that Titus 'received [or, 'welcomed'; Greek, edexato] the exhortation' from the apostle (8:17). Cf. 6:1: '? lest you welcome the grace of God in vain'; 7:15: '? you received him [Titus] with fear and trembling'; and 11:4: '? or a different gospel which you did not accept, you put up with it well'. The former jumped at the opportunity of returning to a church which had severe problems but had displayed a remarkable improvement in attitude since his previous visit. Still in transit between Macedonia and Corinth, it is said of Titus that he 'came to you of his own accord', 'Came' is what is termed an 'epistolary aorist' (ejxhvlqen). Titus is waiting for 2 Corinthians to be completed, and then he will be on his way. Obviously, when he arrives at Corinth and the letter is read his departure from Paul will be in the past. Paul possibly mentioning this in order to illuminate the unanimity between the churches on the one hand and Titus and himself on the other. The Macedonians gave spontaneously (8:3), and the Corinthians appear to be no less ready. Titus, being 'very eager' (which probably means 'most eager'), Here, the comparative spoudaiovtero~ possibly carries a superlative sense. Cf. 'And his [Titus'] affections are greater for you,' in 7:15, where 'greater' means 'as great as can be'. has refused to be left out.

Notice the careful yet courteous fashion in which the apostle commends his colleague to the church. Because Titus entertains zeal both for them and for the task in hand, their ongoing confidence in him will not be misplaced.

Paul refers to an unnamed 'brother' whom 'we', that is, the apostle, has 'sent' to Corinth with Titus. The Greek for 'we have sent' is also an epistolary aorist, meaning 'we are sending'. The past tense indicates that, along with 2 Corinthians, the messengers have arrived by the time the letter is read. And in 8:22 he mentions a third 'brother', also unnamed, who accompanies the first two. According to Acts 20:3-4, there were at least seven non-Corinthians who accompanied Paul with the collection. Perhaps 2 Cor. 8 does not tell the whole story. We might want to know why these anonymous individuals are introduced separately and why it is that we have not been permitted to know their names.

Perhaps the answer to the second question is not difficult. Had Paul (and the Spirit who guided him when he wrote) deemed it right for the identities of these men to be revealed, they would be presented to us. The Bible is always generous when generosity is wise, but habitually economic when details would be superfluous. And this principle descends to the identities of the two who accompanied Titus to Corinth.

The first question might also have a simple solution. Such was the importance of the collection for the Judean Christians, and such were the risks attendant upon conveying what must have been a large sum from churches in Asia Minor, Macedonia and Corinth, that Paul considers it necessary to issue what is in effect a three-part commendation of these men. This is why he writes in glowing terms about Titus in 8:16-17, about another colleague in 8:18-19, about the last member of the trio in 8:22, and then about all three in 8:23. Obviously, on their arrival in Corinth they will be recognized, and when 2 Corinthians is read to the congregation there will possibly be an audible hum of satisfaction, the people feeling comfortable about allowing the visitors to proceed with the business in hand.

The second member of the party is said to be someone 'whose praise in the gospel is throughout all the churches'. Having served the gospel well, he has been accorded general commendation. Does the qualifier 'all the churches' imply that the brother had travelled everywhere, from Judea up to Antioch in Syria, onwards through Asia, across the isthmus to Macedonia, and from there southwards to Corinth? Had he visited Rome, where the gospel was known already? Or does the apostle allude solely to the congregations in Macedonia? We do not know, although the second possibility seems better in view of the reference to these churches in 8:1 and 8:19. What is definite is that the name of this man was respected. Nor, apparently, was he one of Paul's assistants but an evangelist on his own account, which might be a subtle hint that procedurally the apostle was not indispensable. At any rate, it follows that the presence of someone of this calibre as Titus' colleague would enhance the credibility of the scheme (8:18), which is why he was being sent to the Corinth?ians by the apostle, the latter being a team captain who never failed to pick the right man for the right task.

There is a fascinating insight given by 8:19 into the communication web that must have existed among the churches at that time. Not only did the second man in the trio have an excellent reputation, but he had been 'appointed by the churches' The verb takes the form of an aorist passive participle, 'being appointed' (ceirotonhqei;~), as in Acts 14:23 where it is used with reference to the appointment of elders. The verb means literally 'to stretch out the hand', but the laying on of hands is not necessarily implied. Josephus uses the word in referring to Saul, a king 'elected of God' (Antiquities, 6.312). The Almighty did not lay heavenly hands upon the son of Kish. to present the idea of the contribution to congregations generally, to journey to so many places and to arrange for money to be deposited here and there for collection at convenient times prior to transfer by land and sea to Judea. The apostle's 'but' (the strong alla) reveals his and others' enthusiasm for this admirable individual: 'not only so [his proven record of service], but having been appointed ?' Which churches were involved in the arrangement? Again, we do not know, but it is safe to assume that each fellowship putting money into the project would have been involved. There must have been a flurry of correspondence among them and, bearing in mind that nowhere in Acts or elsewhere do we read about a central synod where such decisions were made, it can be inferred that Paul took steps to discern the mind of the churches involved ? and acted accordingly. It might also appear that there was 100 per cent unanimity concerning the brother, as also about his job description: he would be 'our fellow-traveller', that is, at all times accompanying Paul on each remaining sector of his onerous third missionary journey. Not only did the churches know what they wanted to do and how they wanted it done, there was not a scintilla of disagreement between them and the apostle. The hand of God was in this. It is no wonder that Paul and Titus were encouraged.

Further, the apostle shows deftness in dealing with the Corinthians when he implies that the Macedonians have completed their arrangements; it is high time that Corinth catches up.

The last part of 8:19 signals that the second brother has been with Paul and is now accompanying Titus. 'With this grace' suggests that he hopes to be present at all the collection points and will remain with the money until it is handed over safely in Jerusalem. The gift, moreover, is being 'administered by us [Paul and his colleagues] for the glory of the Lord ? and for our enthusiasm'.

The likely meaning of these words is that the appointment of the assistant will prosper the collection by removing potential grounds for criticism, the presence of fair-minded and trusted men demonstrating beyond cavil that Paul's enthusiasm for the collection is pure. So, with obstacles cleared away, the apostle will be more eager to see the matter through than would otherwise be the case, he and his entourage reflecting Greek goodwill for the Judean churches. At the same time the glory of God will be served because his servants proceed with diminishing anxieties. Displaying his understanding of how Christians interact, the apostle is convinced that candour among brethren is vital if the Lord's work is to prosper. The principle is developed in the next verses.

The statement which begins at 8:18, 'And we have sent ?', continues into verses 20 and 21. Paul explains why he has acted upon the proposal from all the churches that the unnamed brother should travel with him should he accompany the transfer of money to Judea (cf. 1 Cor. 16:4: 'if it is right for me also to go'). The apostle perceives that it is essential to anticipate storms because of alleged mishandling of the gift, a sum which he describes as 'this lavishness administered by us'. 'Avoiding this' may derive from a nautical term, meaning to shorten sail to avert danger. Paul employs the same word in 2 Thessa?lonians 3:6 when he says, 'We command you ? that you withdraw from every brother who leads a disorderly life.' Liddell & Scott give 'gathering up' as a nautical term as the fourth principal meaning of stevllw (H. G. Liddell & R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968 [reprint of 1940 edition], p.1638). Mal. 2:5 (Septuagint) tells us that in reverent fear Levi was to withdraw himself from the name of God. Captaining a laden treasure galleon homeward-bound, the apostle intends to circumvent any tempest that might disable his ship and bring him into disrepute. Hence the middle participle, stellovmenoi.

Although the monetary worth of this gracious cargo must have been considerable, the reference is probably more qualitative than quantitative, Paul applauding the generosity of the donors rather than the bulk of the freight which he will escort. Even so, the amount is not unimportant, and the apostle is sensitive to the fact that if he, or even only Titus and he, are to be in sole charge of the matter there will be murmurs of discontent rising from many and actual vilification of his good name from some. He accepts that there is safety in numbers, particularly if the others who help the conveyance are men of unimpeachable reputation, as is patently the case. Prevention is better than cure, and Paul organizes wisely, as, indeed, do the churches as they share with him.

Further, by pointing to 'this lavishness', the apostle compliments the Corinthians for their promptness, yet stimulates them to fulfil their promises. 'Lavish gift' translates the single word aJdrovth~, related to an adjective aJdrov~, meaning 'thick', 'stout', 'ripe' or 'fat'. There was a delightful fulness about the Corinthian contribution. He achieves this by alluding cleverly to the Septuagint version of Proverbs 3:4: '? and so find favour and high esteem in the sight of God and man'. Whereas this ancient Greek version, like the Hebrew original, introduces 'in the sight of' before 'God', yet assumes that it refers also to 'man', the apostle amplifies with 'but also before men'. Septuagint: ejnwvpion Kurivou kai; ajnqrwvpwn; Paul: ejnwvpion Kurivou ajlla; kai; ejnwvpion ajnqrwvpwn. The subtle reinforcement to the text of Proverbs 3:4 shows that Paul considers it absolutely crucial to maintain a good name among men as well as before the Lord. A similar development of Proverbs 3:4 appears in Romans 12:17: 'Have regard for good things in the sight of all men.' In short, in the matter of the collection there is a balance in that custodians are being appointed both with a view to pleasing the Lord and also to ward off potential accusations. Because the money belongs to God, a public demonstration of honesty is indispensable. Perhaps the apostle, knowing what is in man, also guards Titus and himself from their own wayward inclinations. Who is perfect? When fierce desire conceives it brings forth sin (James 1:15), and not even Paul can afford not to protect himself from the wiles of the Evil One.

In addition to Titus and the unnamed emissary mentioned in 8:18, the apostle mentions a third 'brother' whose identity must have been known to the church. That these men were unknown by face to the Corinthians seems likely in that Paul refers to them somewhat cryptically, and this might eliminate, among others, Silas, Timothy and Apollos from a list of candidates. To judge by Paul's silence, this third member of the trio had not been appointed by the churches, unless the descriptive 'apostles' in 8:23 indicates otherwise. Either way, Paul commends him.

His endearing quality is zeal: 'often' he has shown himself 'in many matters' to be 'eager'. The apostle sees that here is a man who will not let the team down. More importantly, his eagerness for the business at hand intensified when he heard about the Corinthians' willingness to be involved in the collection; they engaged his 'confidence'. We detect here a behind-the-scenes diplomacy by Paul because he had no intention of sending to Corinth a worthy servant of the Lord who retained misgivings about the project. In the event, the anonymous colleague enthused when he realized that, as Paul reported to the Macedonians (9:2), the church was ready to go ahead. When people and pastor trust each other, there is hope. For his part, the apostle accepts that the three are completely reliable and that the Cor?inth?ians will be more ready than ever to hand over their money to such good men.

Experience tells us that inter-church business is seldom straightforward. It was the same in Paul's day. The apostle envisages a cloud larger than a man's hand on the horizon in that some contentious folk will raise awkward questions about the collection, making much of the undoubted fact that the three messengers are not local. Peering into sceptical Corinthian minds, Paul anticipates mutterings to the effect that the delegates have come, are in the pro?cess of collecting and now propose to sail away with Corinthian gold. Clutching church money, they will probably never be seen again. This being so, might it not be better for the congregation to abandon the arrangement and remember that charity begins at home?

This is why the apostle affixes a commendation: 'If [anyone enquires] concerning Titus ? my partner and fellow-worker for you; if [questions should be raised about] our brothers ? [they are] apostles of the churches, the glory of Christ.'

Directing his gaze upon the three men, the apostle appears to ignore the church to whom they are being sent. Words could not be more provocative, Paul knowing that no one at Corinth could entertain any serious objection to these associates as media for their church's contribution.

Concerning Titus there is no quibble because he remains Paul's fellow-worker. The two unnamed brethren are said explicitly to be 'apostles of the churches', a high qualification. If we except the reference to Barnabas as an apostle (Acts 14:14), which may mean no more than that as far as the superstitious townsfolk at Lystra were concerned, at that moment Barnabas, together with Paul, appeared to have been sent by God, and the reference in Phil?ippians 2:25 to Epaphroditus, an 'apostle' (NKJV, 'messenger') from the Philippians to minister to Paul's needs in prison, we have here the sole reference in the New Testament to men other than the twelve and Paul who were accorded some form of apostolic status. Christ, of course, is the 'Apostle and High Priest of our profession' (Heb. 3:1). Note that the two unnamed brethren are representatives 'of the churches', by which is meant that they have been sent out by the latter rather than immediately by the Lord. Nor is there any reason to suppose that their appointments are concerned with anything other than the collection. Presumably, when this has been conveyed to Judea their term as 'apostles' will have run its course. The word is employed here in this loose sense.

But why is it not said that these men are the designated 'servants' of the churches? (cf. Phil. 2:25). With respect to Phil. 2:25, the NKJV's verbal 'ministered' translates a Greek noun, leitourgo;~. Paul could have used this word in 8:23 instead of 'apostles'. That he does not do so is deliberate. Perhaps 'apostles' is subtle, designed to emphasize a point: Paul is an apostle but has to cope with self-appointed emissaries of Christ who have invaded Corinthian territory. Who approved them? Not the churches. But here are men who in a subordinate sense are true apostles in that they would never presume to visit the Corinthians had they not been, in the first place, sent by the wider community and, secondly, conscious of the call of God. Let the southerners take note.

The brethren are also 'the glory of Christ'. Barnett disagrees, interpreting 'the glory of Christ' as 'a gratuitous comment about the churches' (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.427). But this intrudes upon Paul's triple commendation of the two unnamed men: they were 'brothers', 'apostles' and, finally, ' the glory of Christ'. Does Paul mean that the Lord Jesus glories in these two, or that they glorify Christ through their consistent enthusiasm and integrity? Or does he combine both senses? Perhaps the apostle is saying that they will be a breath of fresh air when they arrive in Corinth because they continue to advertise the glory of their Saviour. It follows that when the church welcomes men of this stature they will perceive something of the dimensions of true Christian service. Eclipsed, the turbulent pseudo-apostles will more readily be seen in their true colours. Because the designated emissaries rejoice in the Lord and he in them, the Corinthians may expect a blessing.

Taking into account the fact that 8:23 is addressed to those who challenge the credentials of the three-man delegation, this verse comes over as an extension to it, the opening 'therefore ? continue to show' encouraging any who may be hesitant to be positive about their three guests. 'Show' translates the Greek ejndeiknuvmenoi, possibly a Hebraism by which a participle can stand as an imperative.

Paul's previous letter, the one we call 1 Corinth?ians, has been well received, as was Titus when recently in Corinth. The apostle and his colleague are now convinced that at root there is a strong bond between the church and them even though tensions remain (remember 6:12: 'You are restricted in your affections'). This is why both men have been swift to boast to the two unnamed colleagues that fundamentally all is well at Corinth and that they will be accorded a sincere welcome. Well, then, when the three do arrive Paul urges the church to display their love for other Christians and other churches in no uncertain fashion, and in so doing to justify the claims made by himself and Titus. Moreover, because bad news usually has a habit of travelling fast, if the Corinthians disappoint by giving the three a frosty reception, or worse, others will soon hear about it. The acceptance of this delegation is of such importance to Christians in Asia and Greece, not to mention Judea, that the church in Corinth is in serious danger of ruining its reputation if it does not match up to expectations. This is why 8:24 includes '? in the face of the churches': 'Before the churches' may well be another Semitism, 'in the presence of' (cf. 2:10: 'in the presence of Christ'); in other words, the churches were watching Corinth. Corinth will soon be under the spotlight. Here we detect a true ecu?men?icity, many congregations being concerned to help other brethren elsewhere. Paul implies heavily that because these men will report back to those who appointed them, the Corinthians need to be alert.

Application

There are not a few practical lessons which derive from 8:16-24. Here are some of them:

1. It is God who generates enthusiasm for his work, and a lethargic servant shows that he is not walking with the Lord. Paul understood whence Titus obtained his zeal, and was grateful. Thank the Lord for all busy servants (8:16).

2. We are meant to encourage others by showing diligence (8:17). One reason for this is that although we rely ultimately upon the Lord, we need one another. Just as Paul would not have coped without faithful colleagues, no useful minister can survive by himself.

3. Money can be a problem. Like the apostle and his team in their day, we need to take precautions against malicious criticism and our own inherent weaknesses (8:20-21).

4. Christians should be tested before being elevated to senior office in the church. Paul was able to send Titus and two others to Corinth because the three had already proved themselves to the satisfaction of many (8:18-19,22).

5. Although the New Testament knows nothing about self-perpetuating inter-church organizations, here it gives a precedent for temporary liaisons set in place to meet the needs of the moment. We should be on the alert to see how, when and with whom we can be of service to the Lord beyond our boundaries. Parochialism is never sufficient. If we fail to pull our weight elsewhere we shall be put to shame (8:24).

6. Administration and organization are important, even when there is much paperwork (for Paul, writing letters!). The apostle ensured that the right men would arrive at Corinth at the right time. Nothing was left to chance. Rightly understood, living by faith involves careful preparation for the future.

Fulfilling promises
(2 Corinthians 9:1-5)

Paul has commended the Macedonians to the church at Corinth (8:1-2) and has informed the three envoys that the latter is ready to help with the collection (8:17-22). Here the apostle divulges his boast to the northerners that the southerners would honour the promise they made in the previous year (9:2). Shrewd but never devious, he is confident that the Corinth?ians will not backtrack at this advanced stage. Never?theless, in order to stimulate them to action, he reports what he has said to others elsewhere.

The apostle personalizes the matter. If Corinth does not come up to expectations, those Macedo?nians (in addition to Titus' companions) who are to accompany Paul to Corinth in the near future will be dismayed, the apostle will find himself in an awkward situation, and the Corinthians will be reduced to something like pariah status among the churches. Because these things must not be (9:4), Titus and his two colleagues travel to Achaia to facilitate a happy outcome and thereby justify Paul's claim (9:5).

The previous verse (8:24) was something of a climactic challenge, and now Paul enters into minutiae: 'Now concerning ?' Because the Corinthians began to put the 'service which is for the saints' in hand during the previous year (8:10) it would be 'superfluous' for the apostle 'to continue to write' (Greek, graphein, present continuous tense) about why (not what) they ought to give; he will say no more. This is because he is sure of their willingness; recent tensions have not disaffected their enthusiasm. Yet there is a delicate touch: although Paul declares that he does not need to discuss Corinthian readiness, he proceeds to do so (9:2-5) on the ground that if the church does not convert words into money, there will be embarrassment for Paul, for his Macedonian friends and, most of all, for the Corinthians. Notice the loaded descriptive 'saints'. If the Corinthians can be so described (1:2), so too can those Palestinian believers who derive from the family of Abraham. Oneness in Christ has rendered void long-standing racial animosities. Therefore, let the Greeks live up to their calling.

Because the Corinthians have indicated that they are eager to give there is no question of the apostle's exercising pressure on them. He would never do so, anyway; were the church unwilling he would shrug his shoulders in regret and proceed without them. But, happily, such a scenario does not arise, Paul referring in 8:11-12 to their readiness. Now he reveals that he has been boasting to the Macedonians that the Achaians ? the churches in Corinth and elsewhere in the area ? have been prepared since the previous year. The verb pareskeuvastai is perfect passive, possibly indicating that the Corinthians have been made ready (by Titus?) rather than that they have made themselves ready. In addition, he discloses that the glowing commendation he provided about the 'enthusiasm' of the southerners 'has provoked' The verb is ejreqivzw, found elsewhere only in Col. 3:21: 'Do not provoke your children.' a 'majority' in the northern churches, where most are not content to stand by and allow the Corinthian church to take the lead in the matter of the collection. This is the attitude of most, but not all; some, it is implied, remain opposed to the scheme.

Compare 8:1-5 with this verse. There the apostle reports to the Corinthians the zeal shown by the Macedonians, and does so with a view to provoking the former to complete what they, with Titus (8:6,10), had started at some point in the previous year. Here he asks that his dormant misgivings be laid to rest by action on the part of the Corinthians. This prod is as delightful as it is gentle, the apostle not playing one group of churches, those in Macedonia, off against another group, the Achaians. Because Paul entertains confidence in all concerned, he is eager to express his joy. It would be inaccurate to suspect that the apostle is striving to generate a mutual-congratulation society in order to ratchet up the arithmetic of giving. The balance-sheet is not his first consideration, his overriding burden being the churches' love for the Lord as shown by their concern for one another. This is why the apostle feels at liberty to discuss the southerners with the northerners, and vice versa.

The three men, Titus and his colleagues, are being sent to finalize arrangements for the Corinthian donation. 'I have sent', e[pemya, is yet another 'epistolary aorist', meaning 'I am sending'. It was no light matter for the apostle to seek to detach busy men from their normal duties, and there had to be an excellent reason for so doing. The three have fallen in with the plan because they are aware that much is at stake. They are not time-wasters, and they appreciate that it is important for them to act as Paul's forerunners.

In detail, the apostle has boasted to the Macedo?nians about Corinthian participation, thus risking his reputation. If he is found to have blundered in his estimate of the dedication of a church as significant as Corinth, many will query his powers of judgement, indicting him as someone who whips up enthusiasm for a spurious project, only to vanish with other men's money. Waves of negative comment will ripple out and the apostolic mission to the Gentiles will find itself in jeopardy. It would not be too far-fetched to say that Paul feels himself obliged in this letter to protect his office, his colleagues, the newly established churches in Asia and Europe, the bond between them and the Judean saints, and ultimately the long-term policy of nurturing a worldwide Messianic Israel. Because strategy always hangs upon immediate tactical arrangements, important issues are in the balance. The bullet which kills the commander may influence the outcome of the battle, and the battle won or lost may dictate the success or otherwise of the campaign. If the collection misfires because of negligence on the part of the Corinthians, the tragedy could be irredeemable.

This is the point of 9:3. Paul has no desire to see his 'boasting about you ? be made void in this respect' (that is, with regard to the whole project). 'Part' - mevro~. Does this imply that the Corinthian contribution was not indispensable? Having informed the northerners that Corinth has undertaken to contribute, he is concerned that inaction, now that the time has come, would precipitate a fiasco. This is why 'the brothers' have been sent ahead to ensure that the money will be waiting for conveyance. Should their eagle eyes reveal any loose ends, they will move matters along in order that when the apostle reaches the city, along with some Macedonians (he does expect to be accompanied, notwithstanding the cautious proviso, 'if Macedonians come with me'), Paul, not to mention the church, may not be ashamed 'in this matter' (9:4). Cf. the NKJV's 'this confident boasting', which translates ejn th/` uJpostavsei tauvth/, 'in this basis'. The noun uJpovstasi~ has a varied history, and in the Septuagint represents no less than fifteen Hebrew words. Here it means the substantial nature, or essence, of a thing, its actual condition or situation, implying a reason for confidence, that about which Paul will boast (cf. 11:17: 'in this embodiment of boasting'; Heb. 3:14: '? the beginning of our confidence'; Heb. 11:1: 'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for'). Some commentators deny that the word can mean 'confidence', preferring the wider connotations implied by 'undertaking'.

The apostle has indicated that the three men being sent to Corinth will pre-empt any accusation of dishonesty on his part. This ties in with 8:20: '? avoiding this: that someone may find fault with us in this lavishness administered by us'. Further, their arrival will obviate another potential hazard which the apostle is no less eager to avoid: that money conveyed to Judea might become a grudging response to special pleading and hence a reduced amount. That would be unworthy of the Jewish saints, of the Corinthians and, of course, of the Lord. Exactly how much the Corinthians contribute is not the primary issue. What is all-important is that they do so according to their means, and with enthusiasm. Nowadays, in many church services the offertory plate is passed round to the embarrassment of the casual attender, the result being that he parts with small change rather than that higher-value note slumbering peacefully in his wallet. Verbal compulsion, be it ever so gentle, yields diminishing returns. This was never Paul's way.

The apostle reveals that he has judged the dispatch of the trio to be essential: 'I regarded it necessary to exhort the brothers so that they might come to you in advance.' Compare with 8:17, where Paul notes that he encouraged Titus to travel to Corinth, and with 8:18,22 and 9:3, in which the apostle reveals that he is sending them. At what point do apostolic encouragement and exhortation shade into requirement? Paul's interesting selection of words bespeaks the delicate yet capable manner in which he handles the situation.

So the possibility remains that although the Corinthians have committed themselves to making a worthy contribution, there might be a shortfall when the moment arrives. Pledges are not always honoured by the Lord's people. 'Previously assured' translates a Greek perfect participle, proepeggelmenen, which means that the promised commitment remains on record. Disgrace must be the lot of the Corinthians if they back away.

'Blessing', an evocative expression (Greek, eulogia), might be a play on words. In 1 Corinthians 16:1 the apostle wrote, 'concerning the collection for the saints', the Greek behind 'collection' being logeia. In 9:5 the prefix eu- means beneficence or goodness, as in 'eu logy', a benediction, or 'eu charist', thanksgiving. For logeiva, W. F. Moulton & A. S. Geden (eds.), A Concordance to the Greek New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1967 [first published 1897]), gives logiva. The church is being goaded: let the contribution be a fine gift.

There could be more. In the Septuagint the frequent Greek eulogia almost always translates a Hebrew word meaning 'blessing', The Hebrew is hk;;r;B]. This comment is made in the light of the warning issued by James Barr: 'But I suggest that the impress of the Jewish tradition in the Pauline letters and speeches was borne mainly by the things that he said, his sentences, his complex word-combinations, his theses and subject-matter; and that this impress remained even where the individual semantic value of many words was not changed from the average Hellenistic, and was not greatly deepened where words were technically overprinted with a Jewish reference' (The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961, p.250). by which is meant the favour of God given to men, or even an action by which men call down the favour of God upon others. Moses exhorts the sons of Levi to consecrate themselves to the Lord so that God might 'bestow on you a blessing this day' (Exod. 32:29), and Achsah receives springs of water from her father Caleb as a 'blessing' (Josh. 15:19).

Apparently, Paul makes use of the similarity between logeia and eulogia, the collection becoming an expression of the Corinthians' prayerful desire that the Lord may bless those to whom their money goes. He implies that it can only be an effective benediction (eu-logia) if it is a 'good collection' (eu-logeia): Barnett concedes that the word-play is 'possible' (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.434, n. 37). manifest selfishness at one end of the chain must generate dismay at the other. In short, the apostle asks that when he arrives in Corinth the promised aid should be ready. There can be no question of a shortfall, since that would put the church in the position of being virtually fraudulent (remember Acts 5:1-11) and their money in effect 'covetousness', shouting out, so to speak, 'Greed, greed!' Money can speak, and in more than one way. 'Covetousness' from pleonexiva, which means 'avarice', a desire to have more which leads to cheating. The less some men give, the more they imagine they retain for themselves (cf. Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:10; 6:10). 1 Corinthians 5:11 tells the people to avoid any so-called 'brother' who is known to be covetous, and Paul suspects that some remain in danger of falling into this sin. So, were his careful preparations for the next visit to abort, he would almost certainly arrive to find the people dipping hurriedly into their pockets. Together with his companions he would then depart, his heart filled with shame and their containers holding an unworthy amount. This worst-case scenario, the apostle tells the church, must not happen, which is why he is sending his team on ahead. The Greek terms behind 'come ? in advance', 'arrange beforehand' and 'previously assured' each have the prefix pro-, meaning 'before' (as in 'pro phecy', a declaration about the future). Nothing can be left to chance and to the last moment.

This collection for the Jewish saints is not expounded by Paul as disinterested philanthropy, a manifestation of the milk of human kindness when the relatively affluent take pity upon their poorer neighbours. Not that there is anything wrong with this, let it be said. But for the apostle, giving and receiving are seen here as an expression of the oneness that exists in Christ. The churches were ? and are ? to be multi-racial and therefore non-racial.

Application

In church, if a leader wants something done he may approach a colleague and ask him to see to the matter. If he responds as the leader hopes all will be well. This we shall term Plan 'A'. But what if the potential helper is diffident? Disgruntled, the leader might have to rethink (Plan 'B'), his ploy now being an expression of confidence: 'I know that you will [not 'would'] make a good job of it.'

What, then, if this stratagem proves ineffective and the individual remains unpersuaded? If the leader still desires co-operation, he will quickly send a prayer upwards and return to the attack (Plan 'C'). Exuding candour, what he says might go something like this: 'Look, you are able to do what we are asking, and you should do it. I'm sure that you will do it. In fact, you are exactly the right man. We are all counting on you. Truth to tell, we want your participation more than we want the job done. You matter.'

This is how Paul appears to have handled the Corinthians. In modern church life, if we have to go as far as 'C' and that doesn't work, there would seem to be no Plan 'D'. We walk away.

Cheerful giving
(2 Corinthians 9:6-15)

In the previous section Paul declared that his team was being sent to help the church finalize the collection, an initiative designed to pre-empt embarrassment for the Corinthians, for Paul, for his Macedonian comrades and for the churches elsewhere.

Here the apostle is positive, outlining two reasons why the church should fulfil its pledge. First, God reimburses those who give to others. From this it follows that if the Corinthians show financial generosity they will not impoverish themselves (9:6-10). Second, when Greek money finds its way to Jewish saints, the end result must be that the latter, grateful to God for these converted idolaters, will long to see them and will pray for them. Generous giving in Europe and gracious reception in Judea redound to the glory of God and the effectiveness of Paul's gospel. In sum, God is unspeakably kind in having bestowed Christ, and is to be thanked (9:11-15).

North and east of ancient Corinth, fields led down to the coast each side of the isthmus connecting the mainland and the Peloponnese. The local Christians must have been acquainted with seed-time and harvest. The apostle, concerned that the church should make a worthy contribution to the Judean project, introduces a vivid agricultural metaphor, the application of which he assumes to be self-evident: 'And this [I say] ?' tou`to dev = 'by this I mean', an ellipsis leading into an exposition of 9:5. He invites his readers to imagine two men who are sowing seed. One sows sparingly, letting some, but not too much, seed fall into the ground. The man is no fool and his expectation is that he will reap a relatively sparse crop, which is how it must be in the nature of the case. The other man sows generously, anticipating that, other things being equal, his labours will achieve a proportionate reward. Either way, the governing principle is that of a definite relationship between the amount of seed sown and the size of the return. Whereas liberality leads to plenty (additional seed-grain for the sower and bread on the table for the consumer), reluctance yields much less.

Giving money to the Lord's people is similar in that there will be benefits both for the recipient and for the giver. Not, of course, that Corinth is being asked to send scarce money to a far-away place, never to see any fruit for the sacrifice. On the contrary, compensations will flow inwards from other sources as a sort of harvest, even as seed cast into the earth ensures that the ground sends back its favours. The more the Corinthians give, the more they will be given; the less they contribute, so much less must be the yield they receive.

Is Paul dishonestly offering the church a 'get-rich-quick' strategy, gulling the Corinthians to believe that the more they hand over to the apostle, the more their God plans to give to them? By no means, as will be seen from the following verses. Selfishness is out of the question. Nor does Paul innovate. He is aware that 'There is one who scatters, yet increases more' (Prov. 11:24; cf. Gal. 6:7), both Testaments assuming that the basic, inexorable principle of the connection between sowing and reaping applies as much to relationships as it does in nature. The apostle does no more than make a local application.

Furthermore, the metaphor of sowing and reaping means that the earth accepts at seed-time only to offer back at harvest. If, then, the Corinthians give to the Jewish saints, planting in a distant field, so to speak, may they expect that the same field will in time send them back a larger sum of money? Are drachmas to be repaid with interest by shekels? Again, no. Paul expects his readers to exercise their imagination as well as their faith; if they take to heart what he writes they will discover that the Lord is no man's debtor. In God's goodness, blessings ? spiritual or material, or both ? will come to them in various ways, and not necessarily from an obvious source. The church ought to be aware of this. How, when and how much they garner are matters to be revealed in due time. If the Corinthians absorb the principle of seed-time leading to harvest they will give and then be happy to leave the outcome with the Lord.

'With blessings' translates the plural of the Greek eulogia, which has occurred in the preceding verse. Here, it must imply the opposite of 'sparingly', the idea being that the assured sower will inject as much seed as possible into the waiting earth, aware that the greater his contribution, the greater his return. 'With blessings' - ejpj eujlogivai~. ejpiv with a dative plural (as in this case) denotes rest upon, a basis for action. Perhaps, too, the apostle visualizes the man issuing multiple blessings upon the precious seed as it falls from his hand, accompanied by his multiple blessings upon the earth. Similarly, the wise Corinthian will bless money about to leave him en route for Judea, invoking divine favours upon the intended recipients ? and blessing God for having allowed him to be involved in such a blessed arrangement. Part (but a minor part) of his motivation is that he expects that at home in Corinth there must in due course be an ample return. Reverting to the metaphor of the field, the miserly worker gives little, anticipates little, does little good ? and receives back in due proportion to his parsimony; blessing none, he is blessed by none. So it will be, too, for the mean Corinthian.

Secular charity, let it be said, is commendable but different. Paul, the Jewish saints and the Corinth?ians are concerned with the kingdom of God, and in time the Lord will repay.

In 9:5 the apostle insisted upon the need for prepar?ation, and now he returns to the theme: 'Each as he has purposed in his heart, not from grief or from necessity.' Omitting 'should give' after 'each' for the sake of emphasis, Paul reminds the church that the man who sows is at liberty to select the quantity of seed that he casts into the earth, whether much or little. When approaching his task he will have made up his mind already about what to do. Later on, at harvest time, he will be devoid of grief if his sowing happened to be meagre.

The apostle moves imperceptibly away from the field to the collection, as is shown by the last part of 9:7: '? for God loves a cheerful giver'. This assertion cannot refer to the labourer in the field because it would be absurd to say that the Almighty loves the man who sows more rather than less seed. The parallel between sowing seed and giving money is as definite as it is implicit and, relying upon the astuteness of the Corinthians, the apostle sees no need to explain the shift. He declares, and they will accept, that the Lord loves the man who contributes with enthusiasm.

'Loves' (translating the verb agapo) means more than affection, implying approval, honour or even contentment. To illustrate, Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, makes King Agrippa say about the people of Sparta in southern Greece that 'They love the same masters,' the latter being the Romans, overlords of most other peoples. Josephus, Jewish War, 2.359: ajgapw`sin tou;~ aujtou;~ despovta~. Whether or not the Spartans held the Romans in affection is irrelevant. What is pertinent is that they were content to remain under their yoke. The frame of reference in 9:7 is, needless to say, different, but 'love' bears a similar emphasis: God is comfortable with and proposes to honour the man who gives cheerfully. The present tense, 'loves', is what is sometimes called 'gnomic', a maxim or a generalization. Cf. Sir. 35:8: 'With every gift, make your face cheerful.' Neither the Lord nor his servants would be happy with donations born 'from grief or from necessity', which is why the apostle refuses to define the collection as an obligation laid upon the church. If the Corinthians do not wish to give, nobody will put pressure upon them to do otherwise. Attitude rather than ability, quality of source rather than volume of supply, is all-important.

'Cheerful' means gladness, even merriment. Proverbs 22:9 tells us that 'He who has a bountiful eye will be blessed,' the background Hebrew being almost literally, 'The one who is good in eye, he will be blessed.' It is likely that Paul alludes to the Septuagint translation of this verse, which states that God 'blesses', rather than 'loves', the man who is both 'cheerful and a giver'. The overall idea is the same, in that a gleaming eye denotes eagerness, and the person whose eye gleams with joy when he gives (or forgives, Rom. 12:8) will know God's blessing. The Lord has plans for a man of this calibre. The point is developed in the next verse.

The apostle has spelt out the truth that the ability of the believer to give and his financial status are much less important than his willingness to do his best. Here Paul looks at the issue from the divine point of view. The Lord's capacity to compensate the Corinth?ians is unlimited, but there might be some reticence in so doing: all depends on the mind-set of the donor.

Again, as in 9:7 ('for God loves'), there is what the grammarians term a 'gnomic' present tense, denoting a permanent status quo: 'But God is able': this is how it always is. 'Is able' could be translated 'is powerful', 'Is able' - dunatei`. Cf. Rom. 4:21; 11:23; 14:4, each verse referring to what God can do in otherwise impossible situations. meaning that there are vast resources available for all who contribute from slender means. A challenge is being thrown out to the readers to do what they can for the Jerusalem saints, relying upon God to note their liberality and afterwards to reimburse them. This he will do if they have faith and exercise initiative. The matter lies with them.

In the Greek of Paul's day there was an often-used word, pas (masculine form), which meant 'all' or 'every', pa`~, pa`sa, pa`n - 'all' / 'every'. signifying each component of a given set or, alternatively, a totality, a set in its entirety. A good example of this possible double meaning is found in 2 Timothy 3:16: 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God' (emphasis added). Does Paul refer to the whole of Scripture, or to each single book within Scripture, or both? The question is pertinent because here, in 9:8, pas accumulates to a remarkable degree, and the exposition of the verse may depend to some extent upon each interpretation of the word as it appears. Here is a literal rendering of the apostle's statement with each instance of 'all / every' numbered sequentially, in bold italic type:

But God is able to make (1) every / all grace abound towards you so that in (2) everything / all [things], (3) always having (4) every / all self-sufficiency, you might continue to abound for (5) every / all good work.

First, God has the power to make every individual favour, or a totality of favours, abound for the Corinthians. If he blesses them it is because they have shown generosity. Nevertheless, their liberality to others can never be a merit obliging the Lord to respond: his return is a 'grace' or favour (Greek, charis), that to which the recipients have no title. Whether 'all / every' refers to each element of a wide spectrum of favours available for the Corinthians, or to the total package (so to speak) from which the Lord may select this or that benefit, is a moot point, and the reader is allowed to exercise his preference. Either way, the thrust of the statement is clear: God has surprises in store for contributing Christians. Nor is the Lord niggardly. Paul brings in the loaded word 'abound' because there can never be a shortfall in the divine response.

Second, this rule applies in 'everything / all [things]' ? that is, in each situation as it arises, or within the totality of Christian experience, or both. There is no situation in which the Christian can afford not to be generous. God will not be caught out as if unable to fulfil his promise after we have given up to the hilt. The apostle is goading the Corinthians by telling them delicately that they must not proclaim hardship or prior commitments as excuses for being mean.

Moreover, the principle 'always' applies. If the Corinthians honour it they will discover to their delight that it serves as a rule for life. The collection for the Jewish saints will come and go (all things eventually pass), but here is a maxim which, like faith, hope and charity, never fails as long as the world endures.

Fourth, the application of 'every / all' is astounding. Whatever the needs of the moment, if the Corinthians are ready in heart and pocket to help others they will find that they always have 'every / all self-sufficiency' for themselves. It cannot be that, having given to others, they find themselves impoverished, allowed by God to lack basic necessities. 'Self-sufficiency' means a competent supply, a sense of ease in knowing that one can cope materially. aujtavrkeia, 'self-sufficiency', a term favoured by the Cynics and the Stoics (see note 65 below). But this does not mean that Paul borrowed from heathen philosophy, as if trying to exhibit the superiority of the Christian system. 'But godliness with contentment [meaning an acknowledged sufficiency deriving from what one has] is great gain' (1 Tim. 6:6). The person who gives from his substance finds later that his resources are not inadequate for his personal requirements. Each pressing need, or the totality of need, will be met.

Paul's statement arrives at its climax: God responds generously to the generosity of the believer so that the latter may continue to 'abound for every / all good work', a not infrequent expression in the apostle's letters. 2 Tim. 2:21; 3:17; Titus 1:16; 3:1; cf. 'good works' in Eph. 2:10; 1 Tim. 2:10; 5:10,25; 6:18; Titus 2:7,14; 3:8. The sense is that the Corinthians will receive benefits from God, but not so that they sit on their hands, abstain from further help and congratulate themselves on having earned their bonus. Whatever 9:8 has to say, it is not an alchemist's formula. Contrary to the Stoics, who sought self-sufficiency in order to be independent, or the Cynics, who avoided society and its benefits, Paul tells the Corinthians that they need a sufficiency in order to communicate efficiently. Stoicism was a system founded in the fourth century B.C. by Zeno, an Athenian, and found its way to Rome, where Cicero and Seneca were among its adherents. It urged (but did not offer) freedom from all bodily passions, in this way hoping to rise nearer to the divine. Diogenes (c. 412-323 B.C.) founded Cynicism (after the Greek word for 'dog'), a negative philosophy which allegedly held pleasure, ease and sincerity in contempt. The gospel does not offer a Midas touch. Midas was a fabled king of Phrygia, whose touch turned all things to gold.

In short, a sacred cycle is, or ought to be, in oper?ation: the Corinthians give generously according to their means - God responds no less generously according to his means - the former find themselves prospered - they acknowledge that their benefits are of grace and not of merit - they concentrate their minds upon what to do next 'for every good work' (there is no limitation; they can set themselves to any relevant task) - they act - other Christians elsewhere are helped by them - God responds - and so on. The cycle need not end. This is why the Corinth?ians and such as they should abound in the work of the Lord; labour is never in vain (1 Cor. 15:58). The apostle provokes his first readers: can they afford to help the Judean saints? Yes. Do they want to experience the goodness of God in their lives? Yes. Do they want to be involved in doing good beyond their own church and within the wider kingdom of God? Of course. Then let them see to the matter in hand before the team arrives.

The privilege of cheerful giving is reinforced by a quotation of the Septuagint's translation of the first part of Psalm 112:9 (Ps. 111 in the Greek version), which the apostle introduces with 'just as it has been written'. The Greek verb gegraptai behind 'has been written' is in the perfect tense, as also in 4:13 and 8:15 and other places in Paul's letters, indicating that what has been put into writing presents an undying principle.

The psalm eulogizes the man who fears Yahweh and who delights in his commandments. Although the metaphor of giving money as a species of seed-sowing is not explicit, the idea is implied: money is 'distributed' to the 'poor' in Israel for much-needed maintenance. The generous donor sets up what is in effect a life-support system for others. In consequence, 'His righteousness remains for ever.' 'Righteousness' means that the giver proves his love for God by demonstrating his care for the Lord's needy people. Also, the right relationship between Yahweh and the pious Israelite is reciprocal in that, whereas the Lord graciously justifies the individual, the object of grace reflects the love of God for him by rendering obedience. Because God's laws specify love for one's neighbour, the Israelite honours Yahweh by dissem?in?ating his wealth in the direction of the poor. Lev. 19:18; cf. Lev. 25:35; Deut. 15:7-11. Barnett insists that Ps. 111:9 in the Septuagint refers to the righteousness of God, not to that of the pious Israelite (The Second Epistle to the Corinth?ians, p.440). But, as the preface to the psalm indicates, the subject is the man who fears Yahweh. Does not Barnett's approach injure Paul's overall exposition, which is that the God of grace gives so that gracious saints can continue to give? Kiste?maker notes helpfully that 'As God is gracious and compassionate (Ps. 111:4) so the righteous man should be (Ps. 112.4)' (II Corinthians, p.314). Our Lord teaches that this is how it ought to be for dis?ciples: 'Take heed that you do not do your righteousness before men, to be seen by them' (Matt. 6:1); 'Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me' (Matt. 25:40; cf. James 2:14-17).

This personal righteousness endures for ever, says the psalm, and Paul is not slow to advertise the truth. The point is that a relationship between God and the believer will issue in the latter's enduring concern for the poor in the church. The man with money has given to various people at a particular time, yet his rightness stays. He plans to repeat the operation, and he will be given the means to do so. This is neither the first nor the last time in the Corinthian correspondence in which the apostle stresses the continuity between Israel under the old covenant and the Israel of the Messiah. Some things never change.

Another reason for the citation of the Greek version of Psalm 112:9 might be that it incorporates a slightly unusual word for 'poor' (penes, not ptochos), implying an innocent inability to meet one's needs, a situation in which circumstances defeat the struggling individual. It could be that Paul implies that if the Jewish Christians are poor it is through no fault of their own. For this reason they are worthy.

If the recall of Psalm 112:9 in 9:9 meditates upon the pious Israelite's generosity, 9:10 focuses upon God as the Lord of the harvest and upon his readiness to aid the Corinthians when an occasion for generosity arises. And arise it will, because by the time the letter is delivered the three-man team will be at Corinth with Paul close on their heels.

The apostle unfolds the metaphor he introduced in 9:6, promising that God will 'multiply' the Corinth?ians' 'seed', by which is meant their money, and shows that both segments of his seed-money metaphor exhibit the providence of God. This parallel is brought to the fore to stimulate the church to give well.

In the realm of agriculture it is God who 'supplies seed to the sower'. Paul employs spovron, seed for sowing, rather than spevrma, 'seed' considered in the abstract. Notice again the intrusion of the present tense ('supplies'): this is how it is. The farmer stores his seed after the harvest has been taken in because otherwise there will be nothing for next year's sowing. But it is God who gives him his seed. It is assumed that when springtime comes round again and the farmer repeats the task of sowing he will be aware of the truth.

God also provides 'bread for food', The apostle brings in brw`si~, which suggests the actual consumption of food rather than food on a plate. 'supplies' taking a double object, 'seed' and 'bread'. Paul is saying that (1) the farmer who sells to the miller, and (2) the miller who grinds the grain to sell it to (3) the baker, who sells it to (4) the retailer are all alike instru?ments in the hands of God. Making use of human agency, the Lord retains control. Whenever there is seed-gathering, sowing, harvesting, milling, baking and retailing, there is the Almighty. And he is no less absent when grace is said at the dining table. The apostle knows that the Corinthians will understand.

Further, there is a differential between the volume of grain collected and then sown and the quantity of baked bread upon the table: little can yield much. Two Old Testament passages, Isaiah 55:10 and Hosea 10:12, are brought in here to make the point. Isaiah depicts the Word of God as rain which irrigates the earth, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, the principle being that the success of the farmer and the satisfaction of the eater derive from a heavenly source, God. This is the principle which Paul wishes to stress. Hosea bids his readers to 'sow for yourselves righteousness', 'righteousness' being a man's proper response to the God of Israel and of the same order as that of the pious Israelite in Psalm 112 and, the apostle hopes, as that of the Corinthians. By means of these recalls he once again shows that his teaching does no more than apply the wisdom of the Old Testament to the Messianic situation.

As has already been said, Corinthian money is 'seed' which God will both supply and multiply; it is with local finance as it is in the field because he remains in control of both. If the Corinthians are unselfish they will discover that the Lord multiplies their resources after they commit themselves; they will not be worse off. And he will do more than this: the 'yield' (Greek, gennemata; things that come into being) which flows from their 'righteousness' is to be increased. The rule is that giving can achieve disproportionate results, copious blessings deriving from intelligent generosity. We have only to recall the miracles of the feeding of the five and of the four thousand and the teaching of Jesus about the widow's mite, Matt. 14:13-21; 15:32-39; Luke 21:1-4. which almost certainly would have been known to the apostle, to realize that he accommodates both to the Old Testament and to the mind of his Master.

This verse completes the sentence commencing in 9:10: ' ? and will enlarge the yield of your righteousness, you in everything being enriched in all simplicity, which through us produces thanksgiving to God.'

In the preceding verses Paul has indicated that the Lord blesses those who give unstintingly for emergency relief elsewhere. This heavenly reaction to saintly action is summed up by 'enriched', The present passive participle ploutizovmenoi may stand in place of a finite verb (perhaps ploutivzesqe). Barrett is almost unpleasant, writing that this participle suggests that 'Paul has forgotten how the sentence is going, and loses control of it' (C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Black's New Testament Commentaries, London: A. & C. Black, 1973, p.239). Can we not credit the apostle with knowing more about the Greek of his day than do those scholars of a different culture living two millennia later? meaning that liberal Corinthians will benefit from divine generosity. But with what? Money is a species of seed, and when seed is sown it is replenished at source. That is, those who give from their substance find that God enlarges their resources. But it would probably be a mistake to limit divine generosity to monetary supply, one reason being that Paul gives an immediate qualification, '? in everything being enriched in all simplicity'. The Greek behind 'in everything', en panti, is identical to 'in all things' (9:8), signifying a total spectrum of opportunity, from one end to the other, Hodge is insistent: 'The reference is not to inward or spiritual riches, but, as the whole context demands, to worldly riches' (Charles Hodge, A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974 [first published 1857/1859], p.600). Interestingly, he passes no comment on the meaning of 'in everything', and this may weaken his argument. and implying that the Corinthians can expect to be helped in every respect, spiritually as well as materially, so that their 'simplicity' might be given further outlets.

'Simplicity' has occurred in 8:2, and will reappear in 9:13 and 11:3. aJplovth~ - 'simplicity', 'liberality', 'singleness'; cf. Rom. 12:8; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22. Cross-checking with other instances in Paul's letters, here the word probably evokes the uncomplicated mind-set of a person who desires to help others for the glory of God. This being so, truth is allowed to search the recesses of the purse for what is available.

And the apostle thinks ahead, supposing that the church will live up to its promises. When the day arrives for transferring money from the Jerusalem-bound team ('us') to the Jewish saints, the Corinth?ians will doubtless have grown in maturity. And the recipients will thank the Lord, not only for timely help but for the grace of God shown to non-Jews. When at an earlier time Peter reported to the Jerusalem congregation that Cornelius the Roman and his family had turned to the Lord, the church 'glorified God, saying, ?Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life?' (Acts 11:18). Paul indicates that others in the same city will rejoice again, and for a similar reason. He proceeds to expound.

These verses form one extended sentence in which the apostle spells out why the collection will prove a benefit for the recipients, for the donors and for other churches. 'For' (or 'because') in 9:12 introduces the explanation: 'For the ministry of this service is not only bringing up to fulness the shortfall of the saints, but also abounds through many thanksgivings to God?'

'Ministry' translates the Greek diakonia, as in Acts 12:25, referring to the commission fulfilled by Paul and Barnabas in conveying famine relief to Judea (Acts 11:30). 'Service' translates a different word, leitourgia, which is richer in meaning and which was used in the secular world of the time to designate a service performed by an individual for the state and usually offered free of charge. There was no necessary theological connotation. But why does Paul write, 'for the ministry of this service', rather than 'for this service'? The probable answer is that the apostle is at pains to show that the ministry to which the Corinthians and others have committed themselves is not simply a matter of relieving the poverty of the Judean saints; it is a project worked out as a service for the Lord: 'the ministry which is this service'. The genitive th`~ leitourgiva~ tau`th~ is a genitive of appos?ition, as, e.g., 'he received the sign of circumcision' (Rom. 4:11), which means 'he received the sign which is circumcision'. Or, 'the book of Genesis', meaning 'the book which is Genesis'. There is an overriding spiritual dimension.

Paul continues. Money sent to Judea will be 'bringing up to fulness' the wants currently experienced by the 'saints'. Note the loaded word 'saints': long-standing racial animosities are meant to tumble. 'Bringing up to fulness' represents a Greek compound verb, prosanaplerousa, meaning something like 'towards-fill-up' or 'filling up in addition'. So Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.444, n. 43. Occurring again in 11:9, it implies complete rather than partial relief: when the Judean Christians receive the collection their immediate material problems will be at an end. Their empty vessel will be full. It is not as if the Corinthians and others are to send a token contribution to signify a degree of fellow-feeling. This would not be good enough. Their supply has to eliminate extreme poverty in the Judean churches.

None the less, the alleviation of material want for Christ's sake is not the strategic goal of the exercise. Paul explains that there is a further dimension, and brings in the powerful 'but' (Greek, alla) to make his point: '? but also abounds through many thanksgivings to God'.

The key word is 'abounds', which has occurred in 9:8: 'God is able to make all grace abound towards you, that you ? might continue to abound for every good work.' Because God proposes to bless the Corinthians abundantly they will have an abundance for others, the final outcome being that their giving flourishes by means of many expressions of thanks to God. 'To God' may attach itself to 'abound' ? Jewish praise being a proof to heaven, if proof is needed, of the high quality of the Corinthians' concern ? or it may qualify 'thanks'. Either way, God, the Greeks and the Jews all abound. The Judean recipients will be aware that only the grace of God experienced by the Corinthians and others can have prompted them to give. Although they will be deeply grateful to the Greeks, this is not what Paul is saying here. His meaning is that the Jerusalem saints will soon acknowledge the goodness of God in bringing Gentiles to faith. This is the divine plan, and for this Paul labours. God is to be adored.

The content of this thanksgiving is given more detail in 9:13. The apostle senses how believing Jews can be expected to respond to funding from Corinth and elsewhere. It is not that they will be grateful that their needs have been met, important though this is. Their appreciation goes further in that they are now aware that Paul has gone to great lengths to generate a collection from many Gentile churches and that in so doing he has put these churches to the test. When the money arrives in Judea the saints there will see the 'test of this ministry', meaning 'the proof consisting in this administration'. Paul, having gauged the calibre of the foreign churches in 'this' avenue of service, has not found them wanting. The Jews conclude that the apostle's work in Asia and Europe has not been vain since only the Lord could have done this thing. God is acknowledged 'through' the thanksgiving of the Jewish believers (9:12) which in turn is triggered 'by means of' proven foreign generosity (9:13). Note the two appearances of diav + genitive (= 'by means of' / 'through') in 9:12,13.

The Jewish saints, therefore, bless God not just because they have been given help, but because it was sent in the name of the Lord. Both Jews and Gentiles now see that their churches are essentially one in the faith. The present verse, 9:13, continues: '? they [the Jews] are glorifying God because of your [the Gentile Corinthians'] confession's submission to the gospel of Christ ? and because of the simplicity of your fellowship towards them and towards all?'

'Your confession's submission to the gospel of Christ' Perhaps yet another genitive of apposition. Cf. 'adminis????tration of [= which is] this service' (9:12); 'to' translates eij~. means that the Jews are aware that the gospel demands the obedience of faith: So 10:5; Rom. 1:5; 16:26; 1 Peter 1:2,14. in that the Corinthians confess Christ they have been submissive to the Lord, as have their Jewish brethren, whom they love and whose necessities are upon their hearts. Notice that Paul brings in 'Christ' rather than 'Jesus' or even 'the Lord Jesus'; the Jews accept that foreign idolaters have yielded to the Messiah of Israel (John 4:22).

Paul also expects that believers in Judea will glorify God for the practical faith of these Greeks. In 9:13 'fellowship' implies the collection: a common allegiance among the churches is demonstrated by a voluntary cash flow (cf. Rom. 15:26). Moreover, the final 'and towards all' suggests that the Jewish recipients sense that the donors will be no less ready to help other Christians elsewhere, should there be a pressing need, and that those who are both the natural and the spiritual children of Abraham have no special status.

The message of 9:14, which runs on from 9:13, is that God will also be glorified in a third way: by means of Jewish prayers on behalf of the Gentile Christians. This interpretation gives good sense and grammatical co?hesion. Or, as a genitive absolute, verse 14 might stand apart from its predecessor as an independent sentence (so Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.447, n. 61). The former view may be preferable. Following the successful delivery of money to the Jerusalem saints, the latter stir themselves to pray for the contributors in whom they now have so much confidence. Further, not only do Jews pray for Greeks, a glorious thing in itself, but they are 'longing' for them, which probably means that they would want to meet them if it were possible. This is because Gentile brethren have also become the objects of 'the surpassing grace of God'. Compare this with Ephesians 2:7, which teaches that salvation has been granted to both Jew and Gentile so that 'in the ages to come he [God] might show the exceeding riches of his grace towards us in Christ Jesus'. That the Lord has shown such favour to the Jew is now paralleled by an equal display to the Gentile. The glorious aftermath is that the former, having accepted considerable aid from abroad, desire to look into the faces of erstwhile polytheists, gratitude mingling with reverent curiosity. In the meantime, they glorify God for these other sheep, and pray for them.

Having indicated that the Jewish saints will soon thank God because of imminent Gentile help, Paul adds his own outburst of praise, yet with a difference: he blesses God because of a greater 'gift' which the Lord has bestowed, and of which the collection is an effect (cf. Rom. 8:32). This prior gift is a redemption which brings God to men, men to God and men to one another, in this order. Paul's point is that these three components stand together and that if there is no genuine oneness among Christians it is doubtful that the faith of some or all is mature. By their fruits they are known (Matt. 7:16). The apostle implies his commendation of the Jew who wisely receives and the Greek who no less wisely gives. Each works out his faith, and both are magnificent.

None the less, it is all from God. 'Thanks' (Greek, charis, also meaning 'grace') has been the key-word in Paul's exposition, introducing itself in 8:1 and now bowing out. cavri~: 8:1,4,6,7,9,16,19; 9:8,14,15. The apostle's immediate point is that the gift of a Saviour, though obviously so effective in the world at large, cannot be comprehended fully. 'Indescribable' ajnekdihvghton - 'indescribable'. The word is not found elsewhere in the New Testament and is absent from the Septuagint. Its next known occurrence is in the Epistle of Clement 61:1, c. A.D. 95. This does not necessarily mean that Paul coined the expression. means that the dimensions of the good news elude us rather than that the gospel is incapable of expression. After all, Paul and many others with him did speak about the gospel, and the message still goes round the world. What is meant is that we are given to know as much as we need to know, but no more.

Notice that the apostle assumes that the Cor??inth?ian church is living up to expectations: the three-man team is coming to them, Paul will travel to Corinth, assembled monies are to be handed over ? and the Judean churches will be deeply appreciative of what has been done, and why. Let God be thanked. By the way (it is implied), where are the false apostles in all this? Nowhere.

Application

There is a profound truth behind 9:11, which is that one of the best ways to rid ourselves of dislikes, personal antipathies and resentment of others, particularly if they are within the church, is to help Christians. Sacrificial giving for the Lord disinfects the heart and gets rid of the cobwebs and bugs which often lurk there. Giving enriches the giver.

How does Paul's overall teaching about the collection for Judea affect the widespread practice of tithing? Lenski seems to hit the nail on the head: 'If tithing could have been Christianized, the man who could and would have done it was Paul, and no better opportunity offered itself than this great collection which he planned for all his churches simultaneously. Paul shunned tithing. All the apostles shunned it. Not one word of Jesus favours it.' Lenski, I and II Corinthians, p.1172.

As in New Testament times, so now: we live in a world at war with itself. Only Christ, God's unspeakably wonderful gift, can bring true unity. This is why those Christians who have a heart for man's inhumanity to man ought to pray and work for the prosperity of the gospel. This should be their priority.

9. Paul and his 'little folly'
(2 Corinthians 10:1 - 11:33)

Timidity and humility
(2 Corinthians 10:1-6)

As in 6:1, the apostle will appeal to the church because matters of moment are to be addressed. Super?ficially, the false apostles who by now have appeared on the scene are magnificent, whereas Paul as a man and as a minister has for some little while been the target of unjust criticism. The point which he is about to make is that the Corinthians remain at fault in that they mistake humility for timidity; they incline to the view that because of his alleged cowardly streak Paul writes forcefully yet wriggles away from personal confrontations.

Not so, indicates the apostle. Preparing to travel, he begs the church to mend its ways so that he may not have to deal severely with those who have made out that he is an unspiritual, carnal Christian (10:2,6). It is true that his methods are not those of his opponents, but the difference proves that it is they who are artificial rather than he (10:3). Paul's ministry has been blessed to the conversion of many (10:4-5), whereas, it is implied, the Judaizers and their cronies have thrown down few, if any, citadels of unbelief.

This verse introduces the four final chapters of the letter dealing with Paul's next visit and the problems posed by false apostles. Paul defends his credentials, an essential ploy because if his opponents triumph the havoc they cause must be beyond repair. The apostle displays no desire to justify himself as an individual; throughout these intricate chapters their author is concerned to demonstrate that he is a commissioned servant of Jesus Christ, from which it follows that the church remains the apple of his eye. This is why resolve is tempered with love and meekness, the apostle bearing no grudge and refusing to display his hurt feelings. Clothed with humility, he insists in the strongest possible manner that, unlike him, the pseudo-apostles and what they have to say are not from God.

Moreover ? and this would have made his en?emies writhe ? Paul states in 10:1 that he reflects both the lowliness and the authority manifested by Christ during his earthly ministry, of which, he assumes, the Corinthians are not ignorant. He declares that he is Christlike. And when in the second part of the verse he picks up the jibe which his opponents must have been levelling at him, the apostle implies that they are not walking with the Lord.

He asserts his individuality. 'But I myself, Paul, appeal to you' leaves out any display of status; there is no necessity, an emotive 'Paul' being sufficient to daunt the recalcitrant and woo the humble. It is none other than this man who puts his name to what the remainder of the letter will have to say. Because his words are prefaced with the ambassadorial signature, the apostle demands that what follows must be absorbed. Let the people accept that Paul writes with tender concern yet implicitly ex officio. Compare with Galatians 5:2, where he says, 'Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.' Authority, warning and affection blend.

The apostle issues this exhortation 'through the meekness and gentleness of Christ'. 'Through' signifies 'by means of', diav + genitive. the claim being that what Paul has to say is mediated to the Corinthians by means of both Christ's meekness (his inward virtue) and the Lord's gentleness (the outward expression of inner humility). This is tantamount to an assertion that Paul is indwelt by the Messiah (cf. Gal. 5:22-23; Phil. 2:5). That he points to 'Christ' rather than to 'Jesus' may be a shrewd opening gambit alerting the church to some who have professed to belong to Christ alone (1 Cor. 1:12). If so, the apostle is claiming that they are not the only ones in relationship with the Lord, whose character traits he reflects. Even so, to assert that the Lord's humility will characterize what he is about to say might suggest to some the exact opposite: that here is a superb example of egocentricity.

It happens that only in Matthew 11:29 ('I am meek and lowly in heart') and in Matthew 21:5 ('Your King is coming to you, meek, and sitting on a donkey') is our Lord described in this fashion, Cf. Psalm 45:4 (44:4 in LXX), where the Messianic King is described as meek. and that nowhere is he explicitly said to be 'gentle', although Paul must have been aware that the ascription is appropriate. The two references in Matthew to Christ's meekness appear in contexts which expound his uniqueness: no one knows the Father except the Son (Matt. 11:27); and the lowly person seated upon a donkey is the King of Zion (Matt. 21:5). The apostle is conscious that as the Lord's emissary he radiates the personality of his Master, but that meekness and gentleness do not mean giving way to an unjust opposition. The Lamb can be indignant, and the meek shall inherit the earth.

In short, Paul pre-empts criticism by informing his readers as clearly as possible that if there are matters which he must discuss with them, and if he seems to be authoritarian, they must not diagnose megalomania: he does no more than reflect the mind of the humble yet assertive Christ (10:1a).

The second part of 10:1 is almost certainly a résumé of what his opponents at Corinth (and elsewhere?) are known to be saying about him: that in a face-to-face situation Paul is 'lowly' or servile, and can grovel when it suits him, but that, secluded in his ivory tower and insulated by distance from opposition and criticism, he is 'courageous' when dispatching his imperious missives to the churches. Being 'present' is augmented by 'among you', the latter referring to physical presence ? a neutral state of affairs ? and 'present' (literally, 'according to the face') implying dialogue and immediate challenge. When placed in a corner this man wilts, they claim, and shows himself for what he is, an insensitive upstart. It is true that the apostle can be bold, and has said as much three times in this epistle (5:6,8; 7:16), but not in the way his enemies imagine. The reality is that he does not want to come to the church to exercise discipline, desiring rather that his beloved Corinthians do not undergo the experience. But he is not a weakling, and if at times his letters exude strength, so will his next visit if occasion demands.

And the apostle might have to do this. To make the point Paul brings in three words, each of which exudes authority: 'to be courageous' (Greek, tharresai), 'confidence' (Greek, pepoithesis) and 'to be brave' (Greek, tolmao): 'But I am begging, lest being present I shall be courageous with the confidence with which I reckon to be brave with those who reckon us to walk according to the flesh.'

The accumulation of near-synonyms is as striking as it is deliberate. In conciliatory fashion Paul begs the Corinthians to put their own house in order so that when he does see them he will not have to assert himself against some unnamed individuals who have been levelling recriminations of the type mentioned in the preceding verse. Clearly, the church as a whole is not to be the object of such action, and when they hear the letter read the Corinthians will know that he alludes to those who have not abandoned sin (12:20-21) and possibly to some who still accept the 'different gospel' mentioned in 11:4. Paul trusts the people to back him.

Nevertheless, he is prepared to deal courageously with some who maintain that he walks 'according to the flesh', acting the coward by sending a letter instead of returning to the church to confront his detractors. It may be assumed that the critics are prepared to accuse him of unworthy motives (perhaps in this case a desire to filch church money to line his pockets). Compare with 1:17, where he writes, 'Do I intend according to the flesh [as some say]?' The apostle's policy is to encounter such misguided people ? when necessary ? with a God-given courage. Because there is nothing for which he has cause to be ashamed he addresses his gain?sayers with conviction.

And this policy will be applied directly at Corinth should the situation not improve. Let the church be under no illusions. Those who malign Paul behind his back, insinuating cowardice and cupidity, should beware, and the apostle urges the church as a whole to cope with them before he arrives. If they do not, he will act ? and it will not be pleasant. But Paul loves these people, not excluding the malcontents, and he does all in his power to avoid difficulties.

It may be significant that when the apostle did arrive in Corinth (Acts 20:2-3), he was able during his three-month stay to write the letter to the Romans (Rom. 16:1). In it there are no allusions to local troublemakers, which might suggest that 2 Corinth?ians was blessed by God and did its work, and that the slanderers had by then either taken to their heels or, we may hope, had come to their senses.

Paul's opponents insinuate that he is unspiritual (10:2). The apostle turns the expression around, accepting that he is 'walking in the flesh' (Greek, en sarki), this not being the same as walking 'according to the flesh' (Greek, kata sarka; cf. 5:16: 'We know no man according to the flesh'). The underlying logic is that if his ministry is fruitful ? which is undeniable ? it is because the Lord has been pleased to use him; he has achieved nothing by himself. To 'walk' means to live and move in the world as it is, an inevitable activity. Thus Paul can refer elsewhere to 'the life which I now live in the flesh' (Gal. 2:20). But to walk 'according to the flesh' means an acceptance of the standards set by a world which has alienated itself from God. 'Those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh' (Rom. 8:5) and are motivated by self-interest. Within the church this sort of thing, when it happens, usually means evaluating believers in terms of their worldly status and social pedigree, or the lack of them. So, 'You are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?' (1 Cor. 3:3).

The apostle admits to being a warrior, yet asserts that he does 'not wage war according to the flesh'. 'Wage war' is much stronger than if he were to write, 'We do not fight according to the flesh,' the Greek 'polemeo' behind 'fight' being a term he never employs. strateuvw, not polemevw. Cf. 1 Cor. 9:7; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:4. Extending to 10:6, there now begins the most elaborate use of military imagery in Paul's letters: he has a campaign to pursue, an enemy to overcome and a cause to serve, and he intends to employ all legitimate means to secure final victory.

Perhaps there is nothing distinctively Christian about this metaphor in that most people have to strive to achieve their targets. Nor is this wrong, of course. But the difference between the world and people like Paul is that the weapons of the former are sometimes stamped with duplicity. Worse, even when there is a degree of honesty, there is at best scant regard for the Almighty. Although the apostle's war was being waged in the interests of the glory of the Lord and for the benefit of men, 'some' in Corinth (10:2) were saying that he lacked both the fear of God and love for his fellows. Then as now, religion was often a lucrative means to a selfish end, and Paul's seemingly imperious summons to give hard-earned money to Jewish believers needed, they mumbled, to be assessed realistically.

Not so, rebuts the apostle by way of anticipation. He has gone to the wars, but neither with a worldly arsenal nor for unworthy motives. Striving against unseen powers, the implication is that he has availed himself of what he describes elsewhere as 'the whole armour of God' (Eph. 6:12-13). With regard to the Corinthian church, he is opening up his campaign against adversaries who attempt to pull him down. The remainder of this letter shows Paul in action, championing the kingdom of heaven by assailing enemy territory; he well understands attack to be the best form of defence.

Were Paul writing in English, 10:4 would possibly be put in brackets or in parenthesis. This is because the apostle interjects this statement between verses 3 and 5: 'We do not wage war according to the flesh - 4 - We are tearing down arguments ?' That 10:4 is a parenthesis is denied by some on the ground that Paul often employs nominative participles without any connection, as in both 10:3 and 10:5 (cf. 7:5; 8:20; 9:11). It is likely that he has in mind the Septuagint's version of Proverbs 21:22, which reads in translation: 'The wise man has scaled the mighty cities and has brought down the stronghold in which the ungodly had been confident.' If so, and if some of the Jewish troublemakers who have invaded Corinth know their book of Proverbs, they are being issued with a subtle challenge: where is wisdom?

Constantly in action, Paul has deployed his weaponry with effect. These military assets are said with breathtaking simplicity to be 'not fleshly but ? powerful'. 'But' is the strong Greek alla, what the apostle utilizes and how he refuses to operate being placed in poignant contrast. Philo writes that justice is able to throw down every argument which might persuade the mind to turn from holiness (The Confusion of Tongues, 129-31). The vivacity of the metaphor was not apparent to Paul only, but this does not mean that the apostle borrows. He does not rely upon rhetoric, graft, former social prestige, a careful packaging of the message in entertainment mode, or philosophic jargon, in order to appeal to his more sophisticated hearers. Although the last ploy would have pleased those Corinthians who did not despise excellence of speech (1 Cor. 2:1), had he employed such instruments he would have failed long since. Positively, his weapons remain spiritual (cf. Eph. 6:14-18), 'powerful to God for the tearing down of fortresses'.

The military siege tactics of the period demanded that after capitulation a city would have its walls pulled down. Judas Maccabaeus, when fighting the Greeks, demolished Hebron, among other cities, and burned its towers (1 Macc. 5:65). The Old Testament offers numerous examples. But why, we want to ask, does the apostle describe his ministry in such terms? The answer is that men's hostility to the things of God is so intense, so ingrained and so pervasive that they feel secure behind what they fondly imagine to be the impregnable ramparts of Castle Unbelief. The nations rage (Ps. 2:1). Nevertheless, the soldiers of the cross know that their cause is invincible and that when God deigns to bless their preaching the most formidable walls are made to tumble. This is why the apostle introduces the metaphor. What these strongholds were in his day, Paul tells in the next part of the verse.

'Powerful to God' is capable of more than one explanation, 'To God' - tw/` qew/`. such as 'mighty for God', 'mighty before God' or 'mighty with God' (= 'in his sight'). Another interpretation could be that the apostle shows his Jewishness, introducing a Semitism meaning something like 'divinely strong' or 'exceedingly powerful'; what is great in God's sight must be truly great, and he will bless such weaponry. dunata; tw/` qew/` - 'great / fair to God'. Cf. Jonah 3:3, and note also ajstei`o~ tw/` qew/` (Acts 7:20). And this is Paul's experience in that he has seen strong fortresses ? those, for instance, of rampant sin, gross idolatry, Jewish malice, blanket materialism and culpable indifference ? yield to truth. The metaphor indicates that over the years the apostle has been persuading men to confess Christ and live in holiness, achievements inconceivable without a divine initiative. Winning evil hearts by, say, emotional compulsion, immediate promises or clever logic would have been like bombarding citadels with pea-shooters.

Paul picks up the thread from 10:3. Although, for ease of reference, the verse division in the text follows that of the English versions, the United Bible Societies' Greek Testament used as the basis for the translation in this commentary concludes 10:4 with 'tearing down arguments'. The NKJV, NASB etc. commence 10:5 with these words, as does the Trinitarian Bible Society's Greek text. The fortresses assaulted by the apostle and his fellow-soldiers have been 'arguments', the background word logismous meaning rational decisions. The other place in the New Testament where it occurs is Romans 2:15 in the phrase, 'between themselves [their] thoughts accusing or else excusing [them]', the sense there being that because men possess an instinctive, God-given sense of right and wrong, however much blurred by sin, they assess continuously the merits of their own actions and those of others. Here the apostle assumes that unbelievers conclude that they should live without God, Cf. Ps. 14:1-4; Rom. 1:18-25; 1 Cor. 1:21-25. opposing the claims of the gospel of Jesus Christ when privileged to hear it.

Paul reveals to the Corinthians that he always endeavours to show unconverted hearers that they are morally wrong, intellectually insecure, spiritually miserable and personally culpable when banishing the true God to the realm of oblivion. The apostle reasons with men who are unreasonable. If, by God's grace, some are honest enough to admit that the apostle is right and that they are at fault, they find themselves on the way to conversion. Their outer defences have been breached. This form of gospel aggression is summed up neatly in Romans 6:17, where Paul reflects upon how some sinners have become saints: 'But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.' The meaning is that God graciously exposed Roman believers and others to the principles of the gospel ('that form of doctrine'), that their minds acknowledged it to be true, that their hearts were inflamed ? and that they yielded their obedience. It may also be that the apostle has in mind the epistle we know as 1 Corinthians, which he is aware has by now brought many in the church to their senses.

Thus the 'arguments' of sinful men being ranged against the gospel are like obstinate and arrogant ramparts which defy knowing God. Notice that the apostle's present tenses, 'tearing down ? bringing', stress that grandiose objections to his message collapse like castles of cards; there is no defensive system able to resist destruction, 'every elevation' being potentially vulnerable to the good news of Jesus Christ.

In short, Paul provides an acute analysis of the human predicament. Man's philosophies and religions can and do vary, yet share a common denominator in that all range themselves 'against the knowledge of God'. Inimical to truth and generated by the flesh, they constitute a worldwide concert of opposition to God and to what he says both through natural and special revelation. Because men do not wish to know the Lord they synthesize their religions. Paul understands this, yet is persuaded also that when the Lord chooses to attack he overcomes. Ephesian converts destroy their books of magic (Acts 19:19).

Not only have castle walls been demolished, prisoners have been taken: '? bringing every thought into captivity for the obedience of Christ'. The military metaphor is expanded: when the artillery of the gospel opens cavities in the perimeter walls of a fortress under assault, infantry penetrate the inter?ior. None escape, and 'every thought' is led prisoner to obey Christ. By 'thought' (noema) is probably meant every product of human wit and wisdom, every design that is the fruit of rational yet godless artifice. Compare with 3:14 and 4:4, which speak of the hardness and blindness of unbelieving Jewish and Gentile minds. Paul testifies to having seen men of all backgrounds coming to faith in Christ. Nearly two millennia later it is obvious that the Lord has consistently shown himself able and willing to save sinners in every part of the world.

'Every' in 10:5 does not, let it be said, mean that all who hear Paul's preaching are converted: pa`n, meaning 'all sorts of', 'every type of'. This adjective appears also in the next verse, 10:6, 'all disobedience', where it is comprehensive: each and every act of disobedience will be dealt with by Paul. How pa`n is to be interpreted in the New Testament depends upon the immediate context. some fortresses remain firmly in situ after the apostle has exerted himself to the utmost to reduce them to rubble. Here the word is inclusive in that converts have been streaming in from all directions, just as in every place some remain as the Lord found them ? in their sins. That the latter are apparently bypassed relates to the justice of God, who remains under no obligation to save, and does not imply apostolic inefficiency. That others come to faith is strictly a matter of discriminating grace and does not imply apostolic prowess. Jewish perversity and Greek and Roman idolatry are never strong enough to hold out against Christ, but this does not mean that all Jews, Greeks and Romans who hear Paul's gospel become Christians.

Observe also that the gospel is humane. The great Conqueror takes captives and installs them in his service. Although Paul lived in a time when conquering armies often took no prisoners, Jesus overcomes in a myriad situations in order to reclaim; erstwhile resentful unbelievers are more than glad to obey him. Believing Rahab is absorbed into the camp of Israel (Josh. 6:25). Further, insofar as conversion is sometimes portrayed as 'obedience to Christ' (Rom. 1:5; 16:26), it can be said that although faith is not a virtuous work by which the believer gains credit from God, it is nevertheless a duty. Allegiance to the Lord Jesus is not an option, and the issue is life or death.

This verse continues 10:5. Not only does Paul's gospel triumph in the world of men, but the apostle is striving to ensure that the demands of his message, which in its way is a law, are given respect within the churches (cf. 1 Cor. 9:21: 'not being without law towards God, but under law towards Christ'). e[nnomo~ Cristou`, meaning 'subject to the law of Christ' or even 'true to the law of Christ'. See William F. Arndt & Wilbur F. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979 [first published 1957]), p.267. Paul, an ambassador of Christ, is now fully prepared 'to avenge', to exact retribution (Greek, ekdikesai), in every instance of non-compliance when the Corinthians' obedience is full.

These words are vivid, and it is likely that they extend the military metaphor. As suggested by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinth?ians, NICNT series, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988 [first published 1962]), p.354; Lenski, I and II Corinthians, p.1211. In action, the apostle has seen fortresses tumble and captives reduced to willing submission. One such campaign was that at Corinth where a large church has come into being. Although Paul never discloses how many members it had, nor the size of the congregation(s). Apparently, he would not have enthused over published statistics. Although most of the Christians in this 'garrison' community are loyal soldiers who give strict attention to all that the apostle says, there remain some dis?affected souls who stir up trouble. Paul's point is that he knows that the church plans to greet him on his arrival. So, following his review of how they have dealt with internal difficulties, and when they have given a complete display of their obedience, the apostle will institute courts martial for any dissidents who may lurk, the reason being that in an immediate post-war situation military discipline has to prevail. Paul stands 'ready' Philo notes that Roman governors retained resources 'ready for' an uprising (e[conta~ ejn ejtoivmw/ ? The Embassy to Gaius, 259). The Greek is similar to Paul's ejn ejtoivmw/ e[conte~. to act in every instance of insubordination. If, sadly, he finds himself compelled to do so, his reluctant action will be no more than justice, which is why the provocative word 'avenge' is introduced. To fail would be both unfair and detrimental to all concerned.

So the apostle waits for the obedience of the Corinthians to be 'fulfilled'; they are being reminded that it is their responsibility to look to themselves, advice preceding visitation. The identities of the offenders and the nature of their misdeeds are not revealed, except for the implication that they have been challenging Paul's apostolic status, probably by insinuating that he is carnal (see 10:3-4). What action he proposes to take is not disclosed. The Corinthians can identify the troublemakers and, to judge by the possible precedent of 1 Corinthians 5:3-5, they must realize that Paul will not be lenient: the dissidents face the prospect of being removed from the church because they do not belong.

Application

Paul dealt with local issues by invoking truth. Although the names and faces of those who tried to destroy his ministry vanished long ago, his words remain essential reading for Christian workers who fight their war both against castles of unbelief and against those within the churches who are disruptive. The apostle's point is that his gospel vanquishes the toughest opposition when God so chooses. Paul, of course, had experienced this because, as Saul the Pharisee, he was an utterly determined opponent of the Lord.

Interestingly, 10:5 introduces 'thought' (again, the Greek noema), implying that the numerous faiths of this world are all capable of intellectual refutation. This principle is important for evangelicals when confronted by the pretentious claims of false sects and historic religions alike. Not only is the good news the ultimate philosophy, it remains the only valid philosophy, able to falsify all rivals. It follows that we need to know the mind of the Lord to such a degree that we can recognize where the oppos?ition falls down. For example, without a living relationship with God the most brilliant scientist will probably succumb to Darwin.

Paul's enemies at Corinth

It might be useful at this point to draw together the various indications that give contour to the apostle's opponents at Corinth, personalities usually other than local believers who were childish (1 Cor. 3:1), who resented the imposition of apostolic discipline, and who in consequence despised Paul as a man and a minister. Although names and origins elude us, inferences can be drawn from what the apostle has to say about them. Let's imagine that we are detectives trying to flesh out photo-fit likenesses.

1. Professing Christians, these enthusiasts had intruded from elsewhere, probably without any invitation. They bore letters of recommendation to justify their trespass on Paul's territory (3:1; 10:13-15) and were not slow to offer themselves to the church as leaders (10:12).

2. They were heretical, to judge by the sombre revelation that they proclaimed 'another Jesus' (11:4). That they can be identified with the false teachers mentioned by Galatians 1:6-8 is uncertain, although there may have been a connection. Intentionally deceitful, they were servants of Satan (knowingly or otherwise) who were disguising themselves as true ministers of the gospel (11:13-14). This meant that they were worse than unthinking Christians who, like Peter and Barnabas at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-14), stumbled temporarily.

3. Furthermore, the intruders must have been Hebrews eager to boast about their descent from Abraham (11:22). This was not necessarily wrong (cf. Phil. 3:5), but they highlighted their Jewish origin in order to distort the gospel, and by doing so abused both. It is possible ? although this cannot be proved ? that, as Bruce observes, 'they simply conceived it as their mission to impose the authority of the mother church [that of Jerusalem] over the Christian world', F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998 [first published 1977]), p.278. and this notwithstanding Paul's intense efforts to encourage fellowship between the churches of Asia and Greece and those in Judea.

4. In short, they were undoubtedly Judaizers, which explains why in the earlier part of the letter the apostle goes to great lengths to contrast the old and the new covenants. In 2 Corinthians Paul refrains from commenting about the Jewish sabbath, circumcision, dietary laws and the traditional programme of feasts, and in this respect there is a contrast with his remarks in the Galatian and Colossian letters. Although they may not have been silent about such matters, it can be inferred that his opponents came to Corinth as 'superlative apostles' to depreciate Paul's status (11:5; 12:11), 'Superlative / most eminent' apostles' - tw`n uJperlivan ajpostovlwn, the adjective meaning 'exceeding', 'beyond measure', rather like our 'hyper'. even though it is the apostle who introduces the term 'superlative'. There can be little doubt that they paraded themselves, their authority and their effectiveness. This is why Paul takes careful aim.

5. To judge by the apostle's statements about the folly of fleshly wisdom (1:12), of specious knowledge (10:5) and by his positive teaching about the fragrance and the light that reside in Christ (2:14; 4:6), it might appear that there was more to these Judaizers' syllabus than a simplistic observance of Mosaic rites. Their deviant pattern of religion would probably have centred around esoteric, privileged knowledge which, no doubt, they were prepared to divulge to their adherents. It was not only the Athenian idolaters who were on the lookout for some new thing (Acts 17:21). Bruce notes that 'Their doctrine, however, might permissibly be described as ?incipient Gnosticism?' (Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, p.261).

6. The alleged emissaries of Christ sought to fleece the sheep, craving the Corinthians' money for selfish reasons rather than for the development of inter-church fellowship. For this reason the apostle made such a point of ministering at no cost to the church, by his own example both defending himself and implicitly assailing his opponents (11:7-9; 12:13,18).

7. They lacked the spiritual experience of Paul, had not suffered for the sake of the gospel, and had never been granted the credentials of apostleship (12:12). This is why Paul asks the Corinthians to bear with him in a little folly (11:1), that of outlining his vo?cation and ministry. There was no comparison between the intruders and him, notwithstanding their bluster and superficial prestige.

8. Finally, to judge by the sixfold repetition of 'themselves' in 10:12, it seems that the interlopers' mission was well organized. Merciless, they must have radiated self-confidence.

Paul criticizes his critics
(2 Corinthians 10:7-11)

In the previous section (10:1-6) the apostle outlined the methodology of his mission. Here he turns his attention to the Corinthians in general ('your', 10:7) and to his critics in particular ('anyone', 10:7; 'they say', 10:10; 'such a person', 10:11). We sense that the troublemakers' whisperings about Paul have infected the church, it being put about that when at last people see this man in the flesh they are aware that he lacks leadership qualities, having concluded already that his epistles are devoid of substance. For these compelling reasons he ought to be disregarded.

Not so, writes the apostolic object of scorn, as some may find when he returns to Corinth. In any case, if they care to exercise their minds they will recall that their church came into being through his ministry (10:7). Can it be possible that he is a villain?

Launching his main assault on the false apostles, Paul addresses the church in scathing terms because he is deeply concerned. Love cannot restrain itself, a truth which has been demonstrated elaborately in the earlier chapters.

The opening part of the verse can be translated in more than one way: 'You are looking at things that are before your face' (a statement of how things are); or, 'Do you look at things that are before your face?' (a question); or, which is better, 'Look at the things before your face' (a command). Throughout the New Testament blevpete is always an imperative, with the exception of Heb. 10:25. Also, an imperative here would tie in with the imperative 'consider' later in the same verse. Paul is aware of how matters stand at Corinth and does not need to interrogate. These effervescent, wise-foolish people lack that degree of spiritual perception so essential if they are to evaluate the pressures within their community. They have been dazzled by intruders who appear to have so much on offer. Where is Paul? Not where they are. What does he give? Little, apparently, but he wants a great deal (their money, and as much of it as possible). This opening statement could be placed alongside 5:12, referring to those within the church 'who boast in appearance [= 'face'] and not in heart'. Outward aspect and inward reality can be in tension, and many Corinthians have not chosen the better part.

Paul is ironic, and his imperative can be paraphrased thus: 'I know that you look about you to see things as they really are. By all means. Look at these others (you know their identities, and so do I), and then at me. Who is it who introduced you to Christ and who taught you the alphabet of the gospel? I, not they.' Compare with 1 Corinthians 9:2, where he tells them, 'You are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.' This being so, is it not likely that Paul, who has been used by God to establish the church at Corinth, is a Christian? Definitely. Conversely, do his credentials suggest that the apostle possesses a depth of spiritual experience significantly inferior to that of a residual opposition within the church? No. (Paul appreciates that, unlike him, the Corinthians and his rivals have not come to faith ? if the latter have come to faith ? by direct revelation from Christ. Cf. Gal. 1:11-16.) That he should write in such terms reveals the intensity of the criticisms being raised against him, both his usefulness and his status as a believer being called into question. Nevertheless, his conscience reminds him that there are no grounds for impeachment; nowhere in this letter or elsewhere does the apostle apologize for specific errors. Were there any he would be sufficiently humble and honest to say so. His integrity enables him to attack.

Now comes a follow-up: 'If anyone is confident in himself that he is Christ's, let him consider this again ? with himself ? that just as he is Christ's, so also we.' Paul visualizes a critic, perhaps someone converted through his own ministry but now a satellite of the false apostles, who reckons himself to be the property of Jesus Christ. pevpoiqen - 'has been, and remains, persuaded' (the Greek perfect tense). So be it. The apostle does not question the validity of the claim. That Paul switches his gaze from the false apostles to a naïve believer who may or may not have fallen prey to them seems likely because of the use of the singular ti;~ in 10:7 (cf. the singular again in verses 10,11). The enemy is always spoken of in the plural, 'certain ones', who are presented in terms of what they were doing. This being so, let the individual look 'again' at Paul in a less depreciatory manner and digest the truth that the apostle enjoys a similar standing.

The implication that some Corinthians reckoned that they belonged to Christ is not easy to interpret. Were they among those who saw the Lord during his earthly ministry, and were they therefore claiming a status superior even to that of Paul? (cf. 5:16: 'and if we have recognized Christ according to the flesh ?'). This is most unlikely since the apostle is addressing Corinthians who have possibly never been to Judea. Or were they the mainstays of the 'I-am-of-Christ' group (1 Cor. 1:12), presumably bragging that they depended upon no one, not even the apostle? Perhaps. Better still, bearing in mind that Paul is writing to local believers who are unhappy about his earlier visit, is he alluding to their undoubted status as Christians? We cannot tell, but if 'of Christ' means being in relationship with the Lord, the apostle is saying that not only is he a believer, but that, as their apostle, he has been granted a ministry beyond that given to other mortals. This being so, his authority is ? to say the least ? not inferior to that of the alleged emissaries who, even as he writes, are happy to leave their grubby fingerprints all over the church.

Paul's tactic is to overwhelm his opponents by the weight of his credentials. The previous verse required the Corinthians to look at realities, and now the apostle reveals that if he expounds the details of his calling and ministry he will not be indulging in wrongful exaggeration, unlike his adversaries. He is issuing an advance notice to the church that they should evaluate what he is about to write in the awareness that it will be no more than the truth, amazing though it might seem to be.

So, if the apostle should 'boast' in his 'authority' 'somewhat excessively', more than is his wont, he is incapable of being put to shame. 'Excessively', from perissovteron ti, is probably comparative, 'more than usual'. The transition from the subjunctive, 'should boast', to the indicative, 'I shall not be ashamed', shows Paul's confidence: he will never be discomfited. And this is important because if his critics are able to prove that he lacks office, his service for the Lord will be in jeopardy, not excluding the anticipated mission to Spain (Rom. 15:28). Happily, whereas he intends to attack the false apostles in the knowledge that his arrows will penetrate, their shafts can never find their intended target. Paul, secure in the knowledge of Christ's call, remains invulnerable when he flaunts the glories of his ministry.

In detail, the Lord Jesus has given him 'authority', by which the apostle means the prerogative inherent in his office to exercise discipline. 1 Corinthians was sent not only with a view to the church's taking action over someone who had fallen into sin, but, more fundamentally, to test their 'obedi?ence' to Paul 'in all things' (2:9). Expecting to be heard, when he arrives at Corinth he proposes to deal severely with any agitators, as well as with false apostles and their cronies if they have not been sufficiently astute to depart.

This barrage is delimited by an important qualification, which is that Paul's right to discipline the church is strictly for 'building up' rather than for 'tearing down' (Greek, kathairesis). We should compare the latter with the same word in 10:4,5. The parallel cannot be coincidental, being introduced to show that the motivation of the false apostles and that of Paul are diametrically opposed: he preaches the gospel in the world at large in order to destroy fortresses of unbelief. Possibly recalling Jeremiah's ministry of destruction and reconstruction (Jer. 1:10; 24:6; 31:27-28; 45:4), Paul indulges in some exquis?ite word-play: Christ's captives are grouped into churches, and the apostle's business with these is to build them up in the faith; out of death comes forth sweetness. On the other hand, what of the false apostles? Belonging to the world and with no interest in imitating Paul's negative and positive activities, they entice naïve Christians to step across their threshold and thereby bid farewell to their apostle and his gospel. They endeavour to raze to the ground the churches established by Paul and his colleagues.

In sum, the apostle intimates that his arrival will be a benefit to the Corinthians. Although they need not fear him even if he is ready to exercise discipline, and might do so, they must protect themselves from the enemy lingering within their gates.

In the previous verse Paul, employing irony, insisted that his authority is real though not harmful. In 10:9 gentle raillery continues, a probable translation being, 'May I not appear to be terrifying you through letters,' The initial i{na followed by dovxw and then an infinitive (ejkfobe`in) possibly state a conviction: 'for I do not consider that I terrify you' (cf. 1 Cor. 3:18; 7:40). The Greek is not the easiest to interpret. Kistemaker notes that 'The Greek text unfortunately lacks precision in syntax. Translators are forced to modify the wording in order to convey the meaning of this sentence' (II Corinthians, p.342). There may, it is true, be for us an apparent lack of precision, but the verse would, surely, have been understood by the Corinthians when it was read out to them. Commentators should be cautious when facing up to Paul. or, possibly, 'Let me not seem to be frightening you through letters.' C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960 [first published 1953]), p.145; Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.474, n. 36. The former seems preferable: Paul asserts that he had never been commissioned to frighten Christians or, for that matter, anyone else.

Most of the Corinthians appreciate that the apostle's writings are helpful and that he never fails to answer questions when they are put to him (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:1: 'Now concerning the things about which you wrote to me?'). As 2:4 implies, when he writes he always affirms his love for the church. Sadly, such is the malice entertained by some that they travel far out of their way to misrepresent both Paul's manner and motivation, putting it about to all and sundry (10:10) that his epistles are 'weighty' and 'strong', and that he touches sensitive matters in a heavy-handed, gauche manner, manifesting the attributes of a bull in a china shop and doing considerably more harm than good even if he tries to correct others. This is because he desires to throw his weight about, wanting to intimidate his readers. 'Terrifying' (Greek, ekphobein) occurs only here in the New Testament, although the related adjective appears in Mark 9:6 and Hebrews 12:21, telling respectively of the dis?ciples' fear in the presence of the transfigured Jesus and of Moses' dread at Sinai. Allegedly, Paul craves to reduce the church to abject terror when he descends from the heights, deigning to lower himself momentarily to communicate with the minions as their overlord. As his opponents see it, he is no good: there is a beam lodged fast in the apostle's eye which prevents him from helping others.

Worse, 'they' ? whoever they may be ? are vocal. The Greek fhsivn is third person singular from fhmiv, 'he says'. Paul may refer to an individual critic, but most commentators interpret this as a general comment going the rounds at Corinth; cf. the French 'on dit'. Anonymous, delicious slander is abroad, and arrows fly by night. Paul has learned what is being reported, and he throws it back into the teeth of his critics. There is no need to assume that the apostle directs his remarks against an individual ringleader among the opposition whom he chooses not to name: 'they' are claiming that Paul's actual 'physical arrival' ('arrival', from the Greek parousia) is 'weak' or undistinguished. Parousia suggests a visit by an important personage and was probably being used sarcastically at Corinth with reference to an earlier journey there by the apostle, when he had come across to some disaffected souls as a disappointment ? or so they have said. They also claim that his 'word', his manner of speech, ought to be deemed 'contemptible' by right-thinking folk. 'Contemptible' translates a Greek perfect participle, exouthenemenos, suggesting that as an orator Paul has always been an object of scorn. Notice that the apostle, in reciting what is being said about him, does not include the pronoun 'his': 'they' refer contemptuously to 'the letters ? the arrival ? the word' of a nonentity who, in the interests of good taste, need not be named. He is certainly not a senior servant of the gospel.

All this is malicious nonsense. Consider, for example, the grandeur of 1 Corinthians, and particularly chapter 13 of that letter. The Acts of the Apostles shows that Paul was more than able to give an excellent account of himself at all times and in all places. In the best possible way he was a man for all seasons. Actually, the mere recital of these false charges becomes an effective refutation of them. The apostle implies that it is true that his correspondence has displayed a certain weight and forcefulness, yet he has never been crude, clumsy or domineering. He is aware that there are very many people, mostly Christians, who would not accept that both in content and in presentation his public speaking is inept, even despicable. Not that Paul needs to say this in so many words: he appreciates that most of the Cor?inthians are eager to side with him and to distance themselves from such defamatory attacks.

No man is perfect, and the apostle is no exception. He has long since diagnosed the plague of his heart ('For I know that nothing good dwells within me,' Rom. 7:18). Yet to assert, as some do, that he is fickle and inconsistent (cf. 1:17: 'Or the things which I intend, do I intend according to the flesh?') is sophisticated malice. They, the watchers in the shadows, make out that he is unprincipled, a spiritual vagrant with no consist?ent message. In detail, they claim that, although disciplinary measures have been broached, they will never materialize because the 'apostle' is cowardly.

Paul, sensitive to these criticisms, issues a severe warning to each individual of this ilk who takes it upon himself to malign him when he is out of sight. Tasker notes that 'Such an one does not necessarily refer to a single individual; the expression could be used of anyone who might bring a charge of inconsistency against the apostle' (R. V. G. Tasker, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester: IVP, 1983 [first published 1963]), p.139). This is the approach taken here, although some would disagree. Let 'such a person consider this', the present tense being employed because each slanderer needs to continue to evaluate his position, considering that what the apostle shows himself to be through his letters when absent, he will, if necessary, prove to be when at Corinth. If the critic does not rethink his attitude before Paul arrives he must become the object of reluctant but certain rebuke (cf. 13:2,10). The first person plural, 'we', possibly alludes to Paul's colleagues as well as to himself: because there is unity among them the opposition should not aspire to divide and conquer.

And perhaps there is a little more to these words than is obvious at first sight. The apostle implies that any attack upon his integrity and upon his written ministry is an assault upon his office, this in turn being nothing less than a negative assessment of the wis?dom of Christ in appointing Paul. He protects him?self because he is compelled to do so in the inter?ests of the gospel and of his Lord. And if necessary this self-defence will involve castigating those who belittle him. It is no idle threat.

Application

A congregation disperses after the service, and someone might ask a friend, 'What did you think of the sermon?' A possible answer could be: 'Well, it must have been good because there were so many in the congregation. That's what we need.' Or, 'I don't plan to go back because it's a small church, isn't it? What we want are numbers.'

Beware of assessing the quality of a ministry or a church primarily in terms of influence and statistics. Some Corinthians had fallen into that trap. Although numbers are certainly desirable, the indicators that really matter are more subtle.

On the other hand, whereas ministers can be mini-tyrants, in his day Paul kept an eye on his commission. His entreaties are always couched in a spirit of love, even when ? and especially when ? his language is strong. Christians may do silly things, but they remain the Lord's people and not ours. In fraught situations gentleness can break hard hearts.

Paul and the intruders
(2 Corinthians 10:12-18)

The Corinthian church has been invaded by men who put themselves forward as authentic apostles and who try to downgrade Paul. It is likely that he has them in mind in the reference to 'peddlers' in 2:17, and he will be specific in 11:5; 11:13 and 12:11. At this point the apostle turns his attention away from those within the church who maul his reputation, referring obliquely to the intruders almost as if they do not matter. The welfare of the church remains his overriding concern.

Paul implies that because there is no common ground between him and these men he is able to comment, almost dispassionately, on how they relate to one another and how they trample down other men's work for the Lord. The complete section is laced with heavy irony and is based upon the undeniable fact that the Corinthian church has been established by none other than Paul, and certainly without the assistance of the newly-arrived interlopers.

Paul can be audacious, and has said as much (10:2), although his audacity does not derive from his nat?ural capacities, nor from the spiritual gifts with which he has been endowed so liberally (He could say, 'I speak with tongues more than you all,' 1 Cor. 14:18). In addressing the church as a whole, he looks sideways at the predators who have invaded Cor?inthian ? and his ? territory. Paul's daring springs from his awareness that he is an apostle of Jesus Christ, who has given him authority to build up the churches (10:8). This is why he asserts his office.

Here the apostle deploys the weapon of sarcasm, precarious in other men's hands but always safe with him because he never lacks love. An explanatory 'for' takes us to the heart of the matter, which is that although the false apostles are also audacious, their courage stems neither from an appointment from the churches nor from the Lord. Instead of their looking to Christ or to the true apostles or to the churches for validation, their ploy is to revel in self-commendation, advertising their expertise and background as qualifications which, they claim, are not to be overlooked by Corinthian novices.

Paul declines to enrol among the number who indulge in self-appraisal, or to compare himself with them in terms of gifts and proven usefulness. Cleverly, he brings in two somewhat similar Greek words, translated here as 'classify' (egkrinai) and 'compare' (sygkrinai), but which, for the sake of assonance, might be rendered 'compete' and 'compare' or 'pair' and 'compare'. 'Classify' bears the idea of enlistment, E.g., Josephus employs the word when relating how a candidate might be enrolled in an Essene commune (Jewish War, 2.138). the idea being that because the trouble?makers are a select clique, he, Paul, lacks the temerity to sidle up to them in the hope of being welcomed as a favoured satellite, let alone one of the inner circle. It follows that as an outsider who can never meet their requirements, any comparisons he might make with them must be invidious.

Therefore the apostle stands aside and comments about their antics. The 'but' (Greek, alla) introducing the second half of the verse emphasizes that there is a gulf between them and him in the manner in which the former have sought a high credit rating. Retaining no genuine mandate, their method has been to commend themselves and even to write references for one another (3:1). They have no concern for Christ or his people; what the latter think is of small account.

Paul expounds this unhappy methodology by bringing in the reflexive pronoun 'themselves' a further four times in this verse. 'Among themselves' they measure 'themselves' according to their individual criteria. Then, arriving at mutual assessments, they proceed to draw up a sort of league table, 'comparing themselves with themselves'. Inevitably, every man becomes his own reference-point against which he estimates the others in the set. Each judgement reflects either adversely or favourably (probably the former) upon the immediate objects of scrutiny. The charade would not have been a pretty sight, and we can imagine, as Paul must have done, the mayhem generated by such perversity. These false apostles were far from being a co?hesive, happy band of brothers. Contrast with 'we' in 10:11, which implies that Paul and his colleagues stand together.

The verse concludes with a terse assertion about the adventurers: 'they ? do not understand'. Anyone, particularly if he is a fool, can measure others against what he imagines he is, and then claim that he, at least, has not fallen short. Some commentators translate with: 'They do not realize that they are measuring themselves by their own standards.' But, as Barrett notes, 'They [Paul's opponents] knew quite well that they were using their own standards, and did not mean to use any others' (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.263). What they do makes no sense. Paul's words are an understatement which is, in its way, a condemnation: here are men who reckon that they are a superior breed of apostle, who allegedly exceed Paul in capacity and usefulness, who clamour for the approval of the Corinthians ? but who know nothing. Self-praise is no praise. They are wilfully ignorant of truth in all its parts.

The assault opens out. Not only do the opponents indulge themselves with self-commendation, they trespass upon another man's territory, possibly bragging that they have ventured in heroic fashion all the way from Jerusalem to Corinth. For his part, Paul will never meddle, and does not expect it from others. Compare Romans 15:18, where he states, 'For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me.' Did they pioneer the mission to Corinth? (Acts 18:1). Have they delegated the baptism of converts to other men for fear of becoming figureheads? (1 Cor. 1:14-17). Is the Corinthian church the seal of their ministry? (1 Cor. 9:1-2). Has the congregation ever written to them for help or sent them a delegation bearing important questions? (1 Cor. 7:1; 16:17). Was it they who conceived the plan for a collection for the saints in Jerusalem? In each case, the answer is 'No'. But Paul has been involved with the Corinth?ians from the first, from which it follows that if he needs to measure himself by any criterion, the standard would properly be what he has achieved among them. Looked at in this way, the false apostles remain nonentities. This is the thesis of 10:13, and in this light the verse becomes clear.

Although some translations, such as the New King James Version, bring in 'sphere', as if Paul is alluding to his theatres of activity, a more literal interpret?ation might be better: 'We will not boast beyond limit, but ? in accordance with the measure of the gauge which God allocated to us as a measure ? of reaching even as far as you.' The apostle declares that, unlike the adversaries, he and his colleagues 'will not boast' (notice the future tense) in those things that are beyond his limits, by which are meant fanciful speculations about hypothetical future triumphs, the substance of which God had not measured out for them. 'Beyond limit', ta; a[metra, stands for what the Lord had not measured for Paul, a standard which he had no right to employ, that which was beyond his scope. Others may gratify themselves, but 'we' will never do so. The apostle proposes to retain the standard which the Lord long ago placed before him.

To understand the metaphor, imagine a schoolboy's mathematics ruler. On one edge there may be centimetres, and on the other, imperial inches. The young student can calculate with one or the other measure, as he (or his teacher) wishes. Paul's situ?ation is that the Lord has handed him a ruler with a single straight edge upon which is inscribed one linear measure only, and it is by this that the apostle has to work: 'reaching as far as you'. There is nothing else. The line which he draws is marked off by God with people and places and newly established churches, and the apostle's overriding ambition as far as the Corinthians are concerned has been to come to them where they are, to lead them to Christ and then to ensure to the best of his considerable ability that they are built up in the faith. This is what the Lord always wanted of him, and the will of the Master remains supreme. This is his invariable standard. What Paul might be is of no importance, any more than is his office if considered in the abstract. What is vital is that at the point of contact he reflects the mind of Christ. And what applies in one place is true wherever he might be sent.

The apostle has been entrusted with a commission ? and he honours it. 'Gauge' translates the Greek kanon, from which is derived the English 'canon', a principle or general law. 'Canon' - oJ kanwvn - Hebrew hn,q;, 'cane', 'reed' or 'measuring rod'. Josephus refers to Moses' law as 'the standard and rule [kanwvn]' for Jews (Against Apion, 2.174). Here it is just possible that Paul has in mind a lane marked out for a runner on a track, an athletic metaphor comparable to the one he uses when he writes, 'Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty' (1 Cor. 9:26). Or he might imply a sphere of influence, which would make sense: As in the non-canonical 1 Clement 41:1: 'Let each one of us, brethren, be well pleasing to God in his own rank, and have a good conscience, not transgressing the appointed kanovna of his ministration, with all reverence.' he was given a task, that of preaching the gospel among the Gentiles (Gal. 1:11-17; 2:7-10), and he has travelled to yet another territory, Corinth, in which to honour his obligation. As suggested by Strange, '2 Corinthians 10:13-16 Illuminated by a Recently Published Inscription'. The inscription, discovered in 1976 in what was ancient Galatia, is an edict of a local governor, Sotidius, who served c. A.D. 13-15. He wanted the citizens of Sagalassus, which lay about sixty miles south of Antioch of Pisidia, to assume their responsibilities in providing transport for officials of the empire. The word he uses for the schedule of services they were to perform within a designated territory is kanwvn: 'I have promulgated in the individual cities and villages a kanwvn of what I judge desirable to be supplied.' The false apostles received no such summons.

Developing the previous verse, 10:14 falls into two parts. First, the apostle provides a double negative, explaining that he is not like the opposition with respect to what they have not achieved at Corinth. Then he outlines what he has been enabled to do.

The church is asked to contemplate a nightmare scenario in which Paul becomes a false apostle. As one among other religious quacks he stretches himself improperly towards Corinth in order to destabilize the church, but does not succeed because the congregation has been established upon a firm foundation, that of genuine apostolic teaching (1 Cor. 3:11). Happily, the nightmare is unreal because Paul is no impostor. In part one of the verse the first negative controls the remainder of the statement. Here is a near-paraphrase: 'For, unlike the false apostles, this is not what happened to us: we did not overextend ourselves, thereby not reaching you?' The second negative, mh;, shows that the case is only supposed (cf. 1 Cor. 4:18: 'Now some are puffed up, as though I were not coming to you'; but see also 1 Cor. 9:26). The Greek ejfiknouvmenoi standing behind 'reaching' is unique in the New Testament, and means, 'to come to where someone is'.

The apostle has not, so to speak, been standing on tiptoe with outstretched arms trying to grasp something just beyond his reach, then falling flat on his face. But it is otherwise with his opponents, the melancholy consequence for them being that they seek but do not find, fumble but never make contact ? and exhaust themselves in vain. Whereas their conquests at Corinth are as superficial as they are ephemeral, it has not been so with Paul. Because he remains in place as a commissioned servant who has obviously been blessed by God, he proceeds triumphantly to the second part of the verse: '? for we came as far as you with the gospel of Christ'. He was obedient to the heavenly vision and the Lord prospered his ministry. He, Paul, led the Corinthians to faith.

There might be more. 'Came' in 'we came' translates the Greek phthano, which means 'to precede', 'to arrive before [others]', possibly having this sense here. Cf. Rom. 9:31; Phil. 3:16; 1 Thess. 2:16. A parallel could be found in 1 Thessalonians 4:15: 'We who are alive ? will by no means precede those who are asleep.' In addition to being com?missioned, Paul and his colleagues were the earliest messengers of the gospel to arrive at Corinth. In this case first was best, and because it was through Paul's labours that the people came to know the Lord they ought to be suspicious about unfriendly interlopers who have exploded onto the scene.

In the event, although some were influenced by them, 2 Corinthians fails to mention that their stay was fruitful. Had it been so the apostle would not have withheld credit, even as in later days he reminds the Colossians that they learned about the grace of God from Epaphras, his 'dear fellow servant' (Col. 1:6-7). At Corinth the intruders overstretched themselves only to be repulsed by the body of the church. The subtle emphasis upon what 'we' achieved before the opponents crept through a door which they pushed open is a reminder about their signal failures. Whereas they stretched out to contact the Corinthians, lost their balance and collapsed, Paul is still touching the Corinthians, and with effect.

There are three issues addressed by these verses as they continue the sentence beginning at 10:14. First, Paul distances himself from the mind-set of the false apostles, parasites who have fed on other men's labours. Second, the Corinthians are not yet as he wants them to be. Third, the apostle is looking beyond Corinth to further missionary endeavours. Having planted a church in the city, he desires to travel elsewhere to proclaim the gospel. These three matters weave together, the first leading to the second, and the second to the third in a logical pro?gression of thought.

First, the apostle is aware of the dimensions of service set before him by the Lord. Having planned in prospect he measures in retrospect every detail of his call to be a pioneer. He expounded this truth to some extent in the previous verse. As we read between the lines we infer that the pseudo-apostles were refusing to share Paul's scruples and (astonishingly) rejoiced in his work at Corinth, substituting their names for his and those of his team as the evangelists who first broke ground in the city. Of course, there is nothing wrong in giving God thanks for what he has been pleased to accomplish through the ministry of other men. We ought to do so. Nor is it necessarily wrong to continue another's work. Modern preachers proclaim, or ought to proclaim, Paul's gospel. But although the apostle has no objection to this prin?ciple ('I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it,' 1 Cor. 3:10), the intruders celebrated as if his achievements were their own accomplishments. Unhappy about associating with Paul, they boasted that the church was built up through their labours, putting it about that the Corinthians were in their debt.

This was evil. Practising what he preached, Paul had long since repudiated any desire to designate other men's achievements as his own: 'not boasting beyond [our] limit, that is, in other people's labours'. This is probably a sarcastic allusion to the arduous toil (as they claimed) undertaken by the false apostles. They probably did exert themselves, resembling certain Pharisees of whom it is said that 'You travel over land and sea to win one proselyte' (Matt. 23:15). kovpoi, which is behind 'labours', usually means hard work undertaken for the Lord (e.g. 1 Cor. 3:8; 15:58; 1 Thess. 1:3; 2:9; 3:5; Rev. 2:2; 14:13). But why should Paul make this rather obvious point? The answer is that, as the remainder of 10:15-16 shows, his philosophy controlled his missionary strategy. His manner of working was governed by his thinking.

Second, most of 2 Corinthians, and particularly chapters 1-7, is designed to improve the relationship between Paul and the church. Although Titus has accomplished much, there are still wrinkles which need to be smoothed out: hearts at Corinth are not yet entirely open to the apostle ('You are restricted in your own affections,' 6:12), and Paul is not certain that when he makes his visit he will not have to exercise discipline ('so that being present I may not act severely according to the authority which the Lord gave me', 13:10).

Clearly, the healing process must continue, which is why the apostle issues a diagnosis: some of the people have problems with Paul because they are out of step with the Lord. Were their faith more robust than it is, they would be more resistant to the intruders and more accommodating to their true apostle. Additionally, residual difficulties at Corinth have to be rectified in order to finalize the collection and to prepare the way for Paul to travel onwards with the gospel. The apostle needs the love and practical support which only a united fellowship can give.

Nowadays missionaries are often subsidized by their home churches with whom they retain long-term membership: money flows from a larger and financially wealthier church to finance the worker who operates where there may be fewer Christians able to give support. The point here is that Paul's ministry was never underwritten in this way. Although he returned to Antioch in Syria or to Jerusalem after his missionary journeys, Acts 14:26; 18:22; 21:17. we are not told that he ever received a permanent salary from these churches. What happened was that when one church or group of churches had been brought into being, local believers were usually prepared to maintain Paul so that he could proceed elsewhere; infant congregations became stepping stones. For instance, the Philippians were unusually kind to the absentee Paul (Phil. 4:15-16), and this is the 'hope' which he entertains for the Corinthians. When the latter's faith 'grows' to such an extent that they are no longer dazzled by the false apostles, Paul will be 'magnified ? abundantly' or honoured by them 'according to our gauge' (Greek, kanon). To be 'magnified' translates megalunqhvnai, 'to broaden'. Metaphorically, it means to magnify, or to praise or commend (as Luke 1:46,58; Acts 5:13; 10:46; 19:17; Phil. 1:20). Some commentators (e.g. Kistemaker, II Corinthians, p.350) suggest that the anticipated enlargement is a widening field of service for Paul, and the NKJV gives this sense. But it seems better to understand enlargement as a deeper appreciation. They will realize that he has honoured his commission, that he is no intruder and that what he has achieved in their city he desires to repeat elsewhere. Paul hopes that they will see matters in this light, and says as much.

Because it is the apostle's policy to rely on ma?terial support from newer churches in order to continue his ministry, he makes a third observation. He plans to go to 'regions beyond you', that is beyond Corinth. Destinations are not specified, but Rome must have been in Paul's mind at this time (Rom. 15:24,28). He refuses to work by a different 'gauge' (again, the Greek is kanon), and will not allow himself any hollow triumph in those things that are 'at hand'. 'Regions beyond' translates ta; uJperevkeina, an expression thus far undetected in the surviving Greek literature of the period apart from this reference. This does not mean that it is a word coined by Paul, nor that it is ungrammatical. 'At hand', or 'ready', or even 'prepared', ta; e{toima - 'things that are ready'. would be established congregations, the fruit of other men's ministries. Paul, it is true, anticipated encouraging and being encouraged by the Roman church (Rom. 1:12), but he never regarded the heart of the empire as a field for pioneer evangelistic enterprise.

Finally, and with respect to modern critical opinion, the interweaving strands within 10:15-16 plead for the unity of 2 Corinthians in that they presuppose (1) the need for a step forward in the quality of church life, (2) the distinction between the old and the new covenants (chs. 1-7), (3) that further arrangements for the collection will be necessary (chs. 8-9), and (4) a disparagement of the false apostles (chs. 10-13). Paul hopes that the church will support him as he travels to 'regions beyond'. We begin to discern the intricate organization of this letter, the genius of which may elude some of its students.

No predator, the apostle refuses to boast about notional associations with other men's work. In the past he has forged ahead by himself because he was appointed a pioneer, and this remains his settled plan of action. Taking his argument a stage further, Paul declines to exult in what the Lord has achieved through him. Cf. Acts 14:27; 21:19.

And the apostle needs this protection, anticipating his detractors leaping with glee at a further opportunity for slandering him as an arrogant showman, a man never reluctant to parade both what he has done and what he proposes to achieve. So, glorying neither in other men's work (10:16) nor in his own (10:17), he does boast 'in the Lord', that is, in Christ.

The apostle summarizes Jeremiah 9:24, Cf. the Greek version of 1 Sam. 2:1. which he cited in 1 Corinthians 1:31, where he wrote 'that, as it has been written, ?He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.?' There Paul rebuked some Corinthians because they felt themselves to be superior vis-à-vis others in the church. Here he turns Jeremiah's imperative upon himself: the apostle's outstanding ministry has been nothing in contrast to the glory of knowing Christ as Saviour. Because it is right to display emotion when there is good reason, Paul's point is that if someone is a Christian let him praise the Lord, in whose shadow all else becomes obscure (cf. Gal. 6:14).

Jeremiah 9:24 points the children of Israel to Yahweh, in whose mercies they ought to have gloried. The apostle applies this text unhesitatingly to Jesus, implying without embarrassment or explanation that the Saviour is Yahweh incarnate (10:17). See the notes covering 1:1-2,19 (vol. 1, pp.47-8) and 8:9 (vol. 2, pp.27-8). His refusal to magnify his own achievements is not only wise in the light of what others might be whispering about him, but also ? which is more important ? with regard to what the Lord thinks. The false apostles' self-indulgence has done them no favours. 'It is not that person who commends himself who is approved' emphasizes 'that person', the apostle implying bitingly that for 'that' type of person self-praise is destructive. On the contrary, what is essential is that the Christian strives to be approved by God. In 10:18 Paul brings in yet again the adversative 'but' (Greek, alla): 'but whom the Lord commends' is approved.

The apostle asks his readers to imagine a triangular relationship. At one corner there is the divine Saviour, at another there is the apostle, and the Corinthians are standing at the third. Paul rejoices and rests in the Lord rather than in his own labours, and the Lord commends his servant to the church by stimulating the consciences of those who have been helped by his ministry. Compare with the reference in 4:2 to 'commending ourselves to every man's conscience', and the statement in 5:11 that '[We] ? have become evident to God ? and I hope also to have become evident in your consciences.' The church has sense enough to know that because God has blessed many through this humble man they ought to support him.

Application

In his commentary on 2 Corinthians Denney remarks that '? two feelings are compounded all through this passage: an intense sympathy with the purpose of God that the Gospel should be preached to every creature ? Paul's very soul melts into that; and an intense scorn for the spirit that sneaks and poaches on another's ground, and is more anxious that some men should be good sectarians than that all men should be good disciples. This evil spirit Paul loathes, just as Christ loathed it.' Denney, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.309.

Sadly, the church of Christ has all too often been a cockpit where men fight. When we are strident, Christ and truth can recede into the shadows. It is true, of course, that there may on occasion be just cause for separation and to say with Luther, 'On this [upon God's Word] I take my stand,' Citing from Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, p.283. and Paul's opponents were evil schismatics who had to be avoided. Let us praise God for what he allows other men to achieve, work with them if invited ? but pray hard for the means to pursue our distinctive callings. We have to give our personal account.

The serpent, Eve and the superlative apostles
(2 Corinthians 11:1-6)

Throughout chapter 10 Paul has worked towards a decision. The intruders claimed much for themselves, and some Corinthians are still impressed. Should the apostle imitate their tactics and attract his own following, or would it be better to draw a veil over his apostolic career? In the event, he proposes to annul the maxim of 10:18 and to succumb to self-commendation, the result being the 'fool's speech' introduced by 11:1. What the Judaizers have done, he will do, and yet ? and the proviso must not be overlooked ? with two signal differences.

First, if Paul feels compelled to speak about himself, he will do so by assuming the mask of a fool: it is not the genuine apostle who indulges in autobiography, but a jester, someone who deliberately plays a part remote from his true character. Paraphrasing Denney, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.312, because his comments could hardly be bettered. The adversaries gloat because it is in their nature to do so; he, untypically, speaks of his experiences with immense reluctance and with no intention of telling anyone how good he is. The sentiments of Romans 7:24, 'Wretched man that I am ?', as yet unwritten, would have been impressing themselves upon his mind. It is care for the church that impels him to write as he does.

Second, the apostle refuses to boast in his positive achievements and in what God has done through him. Rather, he will parade before their attention sufferings endured in the service of the Master, knowing that the intruders, and indeed a number of the Corinthians, have given nothing for the Lord, nor are they likely to do so. Irony predominates.

The ploy is subtle, a stroke of genius rather than an evidence of despair. In that Paul begs leave for a little folly (11:1), he is aware that the Corinthians will perceive that he has snatched the false apostles' lance from their hands and is tilting at them with their own weapon. Pierced by their victim's mock boastfulness, the impostors will be seen for what they are ? ridiculous. If we indulge our imagination we may detect here and there faint sniggering as this part of the letter is read out, and note that most within the congregation are shocked into an embarrassed silence. As we glance at the red faces of those departing swiftly from the meeting, we sense that not a few are ashamed because they have listened to the Judaizers.

Although they are never mentioned by name, Paul has emphasized that the false apostles are wrong to have allocated to themselves credit for his pioneering work at Corinth. He will soon insist that they have no more right to consider themselves apostles than has Satan in proposing himself as an angel of light (11:13-15). Conversely, he has stressed already that it is as prudent as it is proper for the Christian, whether or not he is an apostle, to boast in the Lord, rejoicing that God is undeservedly kind to him (10:17).

Paul craves permission from his readers to 'put up' with him in what he terms laconically 'a little of my folly'. Although he does not say as much in this introductory verse, his tactic will be to brag about certain aspects of his ministry up to the time of writing. 'Little' suggests that the apostle will not divulge all that he could tell, unlike the false apostles, who have had so much to relate. But he feels constrained to boast, and boast he will. In the ensuing narrative Paul employs the first person singular, 'I', far more than the plural 'we', indicating that he is responding to personal attacks launched against him: if the Corinthians are given an opportunity to examine his record of service they must acknowledge that there is no comparison with these men. Whereas they are false, Paul remains true.

Although it is repugnant to him to write in such a fashion, so great is the menace posed by the pseudo-apostles that it is essential for him to display himself in this unusual manner. This is why Paul requests that the Corinthians bear with his apparent folly as he descends to the level of his opponents, his initial 'Oh' possibly implying that, no, they will not accord him this favour ? or will they? o[felon is an interjection, with the imperfect, as here, pos?sibly expressing an unattainable wish; cf. 1 Cor. 4:8; Gal. 5:12; Rev. 3:15. If the Corinthians are prepared to accept those who harm them (11:4,19,20), will they not afford him, their friend, a similar kindness as he launches into a lengthy digression about his past? In the second part of the verse Paul either remarks that his readers are already doing just this ? 'you do put up with me' ? or commands them to do so: 'but also put up with me'. The former is the better interpretation. The indicative sense is probably just another instance of apostolic irony, Paul expecting that they will hear him out because they have a taste for personal reminiscences. Observe that in this 'little folly' he never alludes to his ability and integrity.

In effect the apostle has begun the process of boasting. Consider how chapters 10 through to 12 are studded with this emotive term: kaucavomai, kauvchsi~ - 'boast'.

Table

2 Corinthians 10:8	Paul can properly boast about the authority given to him by the Lord.
2 Corinthians 10:13	He will boast (to himself) about the ministry granted to him.
2 Corinthians 10:15	He refuses to boast in other men's labours.
2 Corinthians 10:16	Nor will he boast in the proven accomplishments of others.
2 Corinthians 10:17	He will boast in the Lord.
2 Corinthians 11:10	He is able to boast that he does not invoice the church for services rendered.
2 Corinthians 11:12	Because his rivals boast about their liberality, Paul will not be less generous.
2 Corinthians 11:16	Even if boasting is foolish, he will do it.
2 Corinthians 11:17	The apostle's boasting is not vacuous: he speaks the truth.
2 Corinthians 11:18	If others boast 'according to the flesh', so will Paul.
2 Corinthians 11:30	He proposes to boast about his bodily (not moral) weaknesses.
2 Corinthians 12:1	And he will boast about visions and revel????ations vouchsafed to him.
2 Corinthians 12:5	Again, he boasts in his infirmities.
2 Corinthians 12:6	In a sense his boastfulness is not a folly because Paul is truthful, thereby implying that some others are not.
2 Corinthians 12:9	Yet again, he boasts in his numerous infirmities
2 Corinthians 12:11	Paul has become a fool because he boasts. 'In boasting' is omitted by some texts.

Paul's beloved Corinthians are addicted to sen?sationalism, and the false apostles have latched on to this. Descending to the church's level of comprehension (here, a wise move), he proposes to mimic his opponents. Although he has declared that he will not dare to classify or compare himself with such men (10:12), paradoxically, this is exactly what he does. The difference is that because his motives are pure he publicizes no spurious glory about what he imagines he is. Realistically, he portrays himself as a man who needs and receives chastisement, thereby showing that God alone is worthy of praise. Boasting is confined within these parameters.

The explanatory 'for' follows on from 11:1, leading to an explanation of why Paul proposes to boast: he has to explain matters to shield himself from criticism. The apostle's little bit of foolishness is a product of his concern for the Corinthians and nothing other than an expression of Christ's burden for them. It would be an error to suppose that we see Paul struggling to bolster his own authority, resentful that other capable men have presented themselves to the church. A literal reading might be: 'For I am jealous [or, zealous] for you with a jealousy [or, zeal ] of [= from] God.' Compare John 2:17: 'Zeal for your house has eaten me up.' In the Old Testament Israel is said to be the bride of Yahweh, who is jealous of any infidelity, E.g. Isa. 54:5-6; 62:5; Jer. 3:1; Ezek. 16:8,23-33; Hosea 2:19-20; cf. Judg. 2:17; 8:27; 1 Chr. 5:25; Ps. 106:39; Ezek. 6:9; Hosea 4:12; James 4:4. and the apostle writes in the awareness that the Corinthians are an integral part of the Messianic Israel: Cf. Rom. 2:29; 4:9-10; 9:6-8; Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:3. I have argued in 1 Corinthians (e.g. p.184) that Paul bases his overtures to the Corinthians upon the continuity between the Israel of the old dispensation and the Messianic Israel. If this is so, the presumption controls the apostle's thought in 2 Corinthians. This thesis is without prejudice to the fundamental differences between the old and the new covenants, 'old' and 'new' being relative terms. he stands in the succession of the prophets. In the words of Charles Wesley's hymn, he exercises 'a jealous, just concern for thine immortal praise'.

Paul, the spiritual father of the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 4:15), likens himself to a fond parent selecting a suitable husband for his daughter. He arranges the betrothal and intends to preserve the young lady exclusively for this 'one man'. Or, it is possible that the apostle has considered himself the appointed agent for the Father in gaining a bride for his Son (cf. Abraham's servant in Gen. 24:2-4). As suggested by Richard Batey, 'Paul's Bride Image: A Symbol of Realistic Eschatology', Interpretation, 17 (1963), p.176. The Mishnah, Kiddushin 2.1, enacts that 'A man may give his daughter in betrothal while she is still in her girlhood either by his own act or by that of his agent.' Either way, when the day arrives for the two to unite, he, Paul, will be involved in bringing the girl to her affianced husband. His responsibility will then be at an end. The imagery stems from the Oriental pattern of betrothal when the bride was pledged to the groom, thus making the two legally man and wife, yet without allowing him to claim her. The interval between the earlier betrothal and the subsequent wedding feast might have been as long as a year, According to the Mishnah, Ketuboth 5.2. and the procedure was altogether unlike that of modern Western society where an engagement is often little more than a conditional promise to enter into marriage at a future time.

Seen in this light, we can understand how important it is for Paul that the established bond between the Corinthians and Christ be preserved inviolate prior to the occasion when the Lord arrives to take his bride to himself. The apostle dreads the possibility that the girl will fall into sin, thus committing de facto adultery. Philo discusses this problem. Acknowledging that some Jews considered post-betrothal and pre-marital immorality to be midway between fornication and adultery, he takes the latter view. Recalling Deut. 22:23-24, his argument is that 'The agreements, being documents containing the names of the man and woman, and the other particulars needed for wedlock, are equivalent to marriage. And therefore the law ordains that both should be stoned to death' (The Special Laws, 3.72). This illustrates Jewish sensitivities to the seriousness of betrothal. Her chastity has to be maintained. It is assumed that there are, so to speak, unscrupulous men close at hand prepared to make light of her commitment and who will seduce her if she is willing. There is a real and present danger, and the apostle has every right to be concerned.

'I betrothed' translates a Greek verb, hermosamen (from harmozo, 'to harmonize', 'give in marriage'), which appears in the middle voice, indicating that Paul's ministry at Corinth is not altogether disinterested. He is infinitely more than an honest broker setting up a union between the Corinthians and Christ. Rather, he resembles a devoted parent showing an intense personal concern for his daughter's future, and immensely satisfied in that she has entered the married state with the best of husbands. But satisfaction is not unmingled with concern: he understands her!

Considering himself, then, as a parent, the apostle both protects and encourages his 'daughter' by demonstrating that the arrangement he has set in place is right and good, and that these other men intend to harm her. Paul boasts to his charge about the integrity and perfect dignity of the one to whom she is now betrothed, which means that until the day arrives she needs to keep herself to herself.

At this point the apostle's delight seems to take an unexpected twist. Not only is he the father of the girl, he is also a servant of Jesus, her husband; the Lord sent him to her to institute betrothal proceedings. This is the rule by which the apostle has always measured his activities: she learned about the Master and fell in love with him after listening to his emissary. Again, compare with Abraham's servant and Rebekah, who heard from him about Isaac, her husband-to-be. When asked by her brother and mother if she would travel with 'this man' and his entourage to Canaan, she declared her readiness to do so. Accompanied by her nurse, she departed (Gen. 24:58-59). If the apostle can convince the Corinthian young lady that his credentials remain immaculate and his teaching pure, she may well shake her head at the false apostles and sigh for the Lord to whom she has committed herself. This is Paul's tactic.

Because the metaphor is not absolute it has to be interpreted within its limits. Consider Ephesians 5:27, which anticipates Christ presenting the church, his bride, to himself, an activity in which Paul's participation is not obvious. It might be that in his capacity as a soul-winner the apostle looks forward to escorting the Corinthians to the Lord on the great day. His role on that occasion will be that of the friend of the bridegroom who rejoices (see John 3:29).

Furthermore, it has been accepted since time immemorial that a girl who sacrifices her pre-marital chastity cannot redeem it even though she may marry at a later date. In this dismal situation a snow-white bridal dress at the wedding becomes a hypocrisy. It is true that the Corinthians were sinful prior to conversion, some notoriously so ('and such were some of you', 1 Cor. 6:11), but having turned to the Lord they are reckoned by him as legally righteous and free from guilt: 'It is God who justifies' (Rom. 8:33). Notwithstanding what they used to be, the Corinthians can look forward to a union free of hypocrisy when Christ appears ? but only if they do not succumb to the predators.

Paul assumes, not for the first time (cf. 10:17), that Christ is the incarnate Yahweh. The servant is zealous for the Master in the same way that Elijah was jealous for the honour of the Lord God of hosts (1 Kings 19:10,14).

As presented by the New King James Version, this verse presents a textual problem because, unlike some other translations and not a few underlying Greek texts, 'simplicity' is not followed by 'and pur?ity'. But if the latter word is part of 11:3, giving '? he might corrupt your minds from simplicity and purity to Christ', it would make better sense. The longer reading, which recalls the chastity of the bride prior to the wedding feast, is followed here.

The apostle, still concerned for the relationship between the Corinthians and their Lord, develops rather than changes this metaphor, pointing his readers to the temptation of Eve by Satan in the guise of a snake (Gen. 3:1-7). Notice that Paul expects the Corinthians to be acquainted with the Genesis record, no mean achievement in a time when handwritten portions of the Scriptures were hard to come by, and that he accepts without demonstration that there was such a woman and such a serpent, and that in Eden she was led into sin by the Evil One; the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis remains a cardinal dogma for the apostle. See the notes covering 4:6 (vol. 1, pp.176-9).

When Satan confronted Eve she was living with Adam rather than being betrothed to him. Although she had never been given away by a human father, her estate was essentially that of a wife, and as such she remains the exemplar for all married women. This is the implication of Genesis 2:24, which states, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.' Further, her relationship with Adam was an anticipation of the union between Christ and the church (Eph. 5:31-32), and this principle is germane to Paul's argument.

Genesis 3:1 states that the serpent was 'more cunning' than any beast of the field. This implies that the reptile in question was uniquely devious because, unlike other creatures, it masked a rational yet malevolent personality. Paul takes this up, showing that the enemy contrived the deception of Eve, that she allowed herself to be tricked into accepting that what Satan said to her was right and that she acted decisively on his suggestion. The apostle brings this out by using a strong Greek verb, exepatesen, behind 'deceived', meaning complete, out-and-out duplicity. He introduces the same expression with reference to Eve in 1 Timothy 2:14: 'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into trans?gression.' In 11:3 the serpent utterly deceived (ejxhpavthsen) Eve. According to 1 Tim. 2:14, Adam was not 'deceived' (hjpathvqh), whereas the woman was, as in 11:3, 'completely deceived' (ejxapathqei`sa). The latter verb is an intensive compound, brought in to expound the completeness of Eve's deception. Apart from Exod. 8:29 (8:25 in LXX), the verb does not appear in the Septuagint, suggesting that in 11:3 and 1 Tim. 2:14 Paul applies himself to creative yet correct exegesis. The apostle is able to comprehend the enormity of the woman's sin because in Romans 7:11 he writes in this way about himself prior to conversion: 'For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.'

Paul's ongoing fear is that 'somehow', in one way or other, through one or another person (he refuses to predict exactly how, the Greek panourgia behind 'trickery' implying all manner of activity ? pan-ergon ? in that the devil is versatile), Cf. 4:2. There is no hard evidence to suggest that Paul interpreted the encounter between Satan and Eve as sexual in nature, and it is impossible to demonstrate that the apostle 'is also drawing on an extra-canonical source' (Martin, 2 Corinth?ians, p.333). Angels, even those who have fallen, cannot entertain sexual relations with women (Mark 12:25), and Paul is concerned in context with the corruption of the mind rather than that of the body. See Kistemaker's excellent comments (II Corinthians, p.360). Nevertheless, it may be presumed that the false apostles were not blocks of wood, and that bad conduct accompanied bad doctrine. Batey reminds us that 'Just as Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel called Israel from consorting with Baal, the fertility deity, so Paul warns against misalliance which would forfeit the church's sanctification' ('Paul's Bridal Image', p.177). This makes good sense. the Evil One will 'corrupt', that is, destroy, the Corinthians' 'minds' with respect to (1) the simplicity and (2) the purity that they enjoy in Christ. Satan precipitates this dual catastrophe through clever teaching issuing from the false apostles. The apostle's words are well crafted.

'Minds' (Greek, noemata) occurs here for the last time in 2 Corinthians, the other occasions being 2:11; 3:14; 4:4; 10:5 (cf. Phil. 4:7). The word signifies a mind-set, a determination to act in a certain fashion, a deliberate resolve concerning the way ahead. So, in 2:11, Paul claims that he is not ignorant of Satan's 'devices'. Here he states that the enemy's strategy has been to turn the Corinthians from their set policy, which is to follow Christ. As the one who 'deceives the whole world' (Rev. 12:9), it is his purpose to wreck their standing within the kingdom of heaven. Because the God-given animosity between the serpent's seed (in this case, the false apostles) and that of Eve (here, the church at Corinth) is ongoing, as Genesis 3:15 insists, Satan exerts himself continuously to achieve this end even though he must be crushed.

In listening to the snake Eve harmed two relationships: that with God and that with her husband, Adam. Sin always has vertical and horizontal components, never separate yet ever distinct. This is how it is for the Corinthians: Satan would bring to nothing their relationship with God by infecting their single-minded and pure affection for Christ, their husband, the implication being that the Father and the Son are distinct persons. The Greek word translated here as 'simplicity' has appeared in 8:2; 9:11,13, and in this instance stands for the single-minded devotion of a wife to her husband and hence of the Corinthians to their Lord. Thus far, the union has been untrammelled by any wrongful liaison, the woman, in this case the church, caring for none other. 'Purity' is the outward expression of inward, undistracted affection. Impure denial of the faith has not yet been contemplated.

It is significant that in 11:3 Paul assumes that the Corinthians' unsullied attitude to 'Christ' is intact. In all probability the false apostles never conceded that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, which appears to be why the next verse alludes to their habitual emphasis upon 'another Jesus'. At the moment the Corinthians are taking a different view, that presented to them by Paul, and this is a problem for the serpent. Resenting their fidelity, he fights for their apostasy.

Does this imply that the apostle believes that the Corinthians can actually fall away from salvation? If not, why are his words so strong? If so, how can we accept that Christ will never allow his sheep to be snatched from him? (See John 10:28). The answer is almost certainly that Paul judges that if he is unmindful and if his readers are careless, the Evil One will wreak havoc: although their redemption is not in doubt, many in the church might experience the tragedy of being saved 'so as through fire' (1 Cor. 3:15).

Satan is seeking to subvert the faith of naïve Corinth?ians by bringing in men who proclaim a pseudo-gospel radically different from that declared by Paul. Enough is revealed, albeit cryptically, in 11:4 for us to estimate something of the content of their hostile ministry. The verse opens with 'for if', which suggests a real condition rather than a hypothetical possibility, as is suggested by 11:19-20: 'You put up with fools gladly? You put up with it if someone enslaves you.'

Paul's attack is acute, but he cares for his readers, addressing them with a familiarity tinged with sarcasm, knowing that they will not reject him. Having asked them to endure him in his little folly (11:1), the apostle reminds the church that they have shown themselves willing to 'put up with' 'someone' who 'comes' to them preaching with seeming authority 'another Jesus', to 'receive a different spirit' other than that which they received from the apostle and to accept a 'different gospel' of a type they had not accepted from Paul. Paul employs a[llo~ once and e{teron twice. It would probably be a mistake to insist on any variation in the basic meaning 'different' (cf. Gal. 1:6-7). The unexpected use of the first person plural, 'we have preached', as also in verses 6,12,21, probably replaces the singular for rhetorical purposes. The present tense behind 'you put up with' (Greek, anechesthe) shows that the church is being stubborn. Very well, if they are happy to entertain an enemy bent on harming them, can they not be hospitable to their spiritual father, whose sole desire is their good?

At the beginning of the letter Paul states aggressively but necessarily that he is 'an apostle of Christ Jesus' (1:1), and later he will insist on his apostolic com?mission (11:5; 12:11-12). An 'apostle', of course, was someone who was sent (from the Greek apostello, 'I send'), and this gives weight to Paul's acid comment concerning any one of the false emissaries rather than their leader, supposing they have one: 'someone [= whoever he may be] comes': what is true for one is true for all. The intruder arrives at Corinth, issues his grandiose claims, drags a following after him (some people always hanker after a new view), but remains an impostor who has the effrontery to disturb the church. Unlike Paul, the Lord never sent him. His credentials are unreal.

What of the preaching of this representative servant of Satan? (cf. 'his [the devil's] ministers', 11:15). Paul discloses his estimate of what such a person has been saying, splitting his analysis into three components.

First, the intruder 'proclaims another Jesus', as if he is an appointed herald. But his presentation, as reflected by Paul, is simplistic to the point of error. In his letters the apostle hardly ever refers to the Lord merely as 'Jesus', Exceptions: 4:10-11; Rom. 3:26; 8:11; Eph. 4:21; Phil. 2:10; 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:14. None of these impinges upon the interpret?ation of 11:4. conventionally presenting him as 'Christ', 'Jesus Christ', 'our Lord Jesus Christ' or 'Christ Jesus'. Whereas Paul reckons Jesus of Nazareth to be the divine-human Messiah, the Lord of glory, a representative false apostle has considered him to be no more than a man, 'Jesus', probably laying emphasis upon his earthly life yet disregarding the resurrection and its implications. This is in spite of the fact that the intruders have almost certainly offered themselves as 'apostles of Christ' (11:13). In much the same way Jehovah's Witnesses write and speak boldly about Jesus but refuse to assign to him the title 'Lord' because for them he is not a proper object of worship. At Corinth some tended to interpret Jesus as someone whose mission it was to validate Moses, whose law, they asserted, retains its supremacy. In 11:4 Paul employs lambavnw and devcomai. A comparison with 'you received the word of God ? you welcomed it' in 1 Thess. 2:13 suggests that there is no essential difference in meaning between 'accepting' and 'receiving'. It is hard to agree with Hodge, who claims that the 'other Jesus' was 'another person than the son of Mary' (1 & 2 Corinthians, p.630). The intruders did have something to say about Jesus of Nazareth.

Second, the visitor imparts 'a different spirit'. What is meant? Paul cannot be referring to the Holy Spirit, about whom he has had much to say in the earlier part of the letter. Together with all believers, the Corinthians have 'received' the Spirit and are being transformed into the image of Christ 'by the Lord, the Spirit' (3:18). In the New Testament the Spirit is often said to be 'received'; e.g. John 7:39; 14:17; 20:22; Acts 2:38; 8:15-17; 10:47; 19:2; Rom. 8:15; 1 Cor. 2:12; Gal. 3:2. The apostle and his opponents are not promulgating two rival systems, each proclaiming a distinctive doctrine of the Holy Spirit. What he probably means, therefore, is that the intruders have infected the church with a worldly spirit, perhaps a spirit or attitude crying up human wisdom or knowledge (1 Cor. 2:12). In turn, this leads to a spirit of bondage, or a spirit of fear eman?ating from doubts about peace with God. Cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 2:4; 2 Tim. 1:7. The struggle for salvation by good deeds, however the latter may be defined, is necessarily a common feature in all religious systems other than that of the Bible, and always breeds a spirit of insecurity, the reason being that sinful men can never satisfy the holy and affronted God ? and they sense it. And this has happened at Corinth: a bad spirit has arisen in the church. The apostle is probably sarcastic: 'You received the Spirit through the gospel which I preached; and you generate a bad spirit among yourselves by listening to the intruders.'

Third, although the Corinthians endorse the apostle's teaching, they have shown themselves not averse to entertaining what Paul terms 'a different gospel', alleged good news essentially dissimilar to his message. This must have been a refined form of Judaism, possibly less crude than that propounded in the Galatian or Colossian churches, where the innovators required acceptance of Jewish rites. E.g., Gal. 5:2; 6:13; Col. 2:8,16-18; cf. Phil. 3:2. Had the false apostles and their adherents been so unsubtle Paul might have mentioned details. His silence on this score requires interpretation and, as has been noted, it is reasonable to suppose that the opponents were Jews who strove to convince the church that they retained apostolic status, which explains Paul's allusions to them as 'superlative apostles' (11:5; 12:11). Deploying the emphasis of understatement, Paul says that because the opposition's good news is 'different' it is worse than useless. This reflects Galatians 1:6-9, where the apostle castigates the 'different gospel' proclaimed by some others as 'not another', then anathematizing with vigour those who deviate from his presentation. Sadly, although the word of God had been accepted by many, For the reception or acceptance of the word or the gospel, e.g., Luke 8:13; Acts 8:14; 11:1; 17:11; 1 Cor. 15:1; Gal. 1:9,11-12; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2:13; James 1:21. the Corinthians imbibe a spurious though no doubt superficially attractive creed.

In short, the church is in grave danger. The improving relationship between these people and Paul has not been allowed to blind him to the fact that more work needs to be done to re-establish the congregation. Here we witness the apostle fighting for the life of a church which has travelled far from the truth, showing itself unable, and perhaps unwilling, to appreciate the seriousness of the doctrinal shift introduced by the interlopers, men with whom it bears 'well' or 'beautifully' (Greek, kalos).

Irony continues. Whereas the intruders have published their credentials, Paul declares his status with respect to these men. A literal rendering might be: 'For I reckon in no way to have come short of the superlative apostles.' Contemplating his record and theirs, he concludes that there are no deficiencies on his side and that at no time have they excelled him in the quality of their work. 'To have come short' - uJsterhkevnai, perfect infinitive, implying that the difference remained. There is no comparison because they and he serve different ends.

Two questions arise concerning the qualifier 'superlative'. First, this word translates a Greek expression, hyperlian, unknown apart from here and 12:11 until, apparently, a twelfth-century A.D. occurrence. None the less, it would be unsafe to suggest that Paul coined the phrase, and it might have been a colloquialism of the time. See Hughes, Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.379, n. 40. More importantly, does the expression 'the superlative apostles' point to the false apostles or to Paul's apostolic colleagues? Opinions have been divided, and a good case can be made for the view that Paul draws a not unfavourable parallel between himself and the Jerusalem apostles. Hodge is almost persuasive (1 & 2 Corinth?ians, p.632). After all, he has claimed that he 'laboured more abundantly than they all' (1 Cor. 15:10), his purpose being to show that, notwithstanding his unworthiness, the risen Christ allocated to him a ministry not granted to the original apostolic band. On the other hand, if in 11:5 Paul alludes to the false apostles his concern will be to point out that their pretensions are vain. This would be consistent with the flow of thought in 11:1 - 12:13, in which the contrast lies between the apostle and his adversaries. Unlike them, he is conscious that he will be no hypocrite if he indulges in a touch of autobiography. He sets out to embarrass his opponents.

It has to be admitted that the view that Paul has genuine apostles in mind does make sense. If so, he ignores for a moment the specious claims of the intruders and places himself in front of 'those who seemed to be something', the 'pillars' of the infant church (Gal. 2:6,9). Peter, John and others were persons to be reckoned with, and the impostors at Corinth would hardly have dared to discount them. Accordingly, Paul's point is that if he does not fall behind them, it follows that the false apostles are nonentities. But plausible though this approach is, one weakness is that in the early church there was no office higher than that of apostle (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11), which suggests that within the apostolic community there were no levels of greatness or seniority; division of function, yes, but superiority, no. Cf. Gal. 2:8.

On balance, the local interpretation seems better. Paul deploys high sarcasm in contrasting himself with the 'superlative' false apostles, trespassers who have made out that they are in receipt of a divine commission. Although he glows with the prestige of a Jerusalem background, Acts 22:3; 26:4. he takes pains never to flaunt it. They, reckoning themselves to be no less qualified, impress upon the Corinthians the hollow benefits of what is a false gospel.

This verse makes more sense if the 'superlative apostles' mentioned in 11:5 are the 'false apostles' referred to in 11:13. Paul's irony intensifies, and he says that he has never fallen behind the self-styled supreme emissaries of Jesus even though ? and he makes the concession with his tongue strictly in his cheek ? his oratorical powers are somewhat plain: 'And if ordinary in speech, yet not in knowledge ? but in every way having made this apparent to you in all things.' 'Apparent' (or 'manifest') translates fanerwvsante~, the aorist active participle. It is used absolutely in place of the indicative (cf. 4:8-9). There is no direct object, which possibly means that Paul stresses that in both manner and message there was no concealment: what others saw, he was. Variant passive forms, fanerwqevnte~ and fanerwqeiv~, the former reflected by the NKJV, are probably scribal alterations intended to simplify the text ('I was [ = we were] made manifest to you').

The Greek idiotes behind 'ordinary' occurs also in Acts 4:13, which notes that Peter and John were observed by the Sanhedrin to have lacked their own formal education and were, so to speak, laymen in matters divine. Cf. 1 Cor. 14:16,23-24. The point in 11:6 is that the pseudo-apostles have claimed to possess rhetorical powers far superior to those of Paul, possibly as a result of an allegedly better training in earlier years. It might also be the case that they asserted that they were better evangelists than Paul, if we bear in mind 11:4, which tells us that the interlopers 'proclaim another Jesus'. We can compare with the Jews' negative attitude to Jesus (John 7:15). That this is the probable contextual meaning of ijdiwvth~ is well illustrated by a statement by Dio Chrysostum (c. A.D. 40-120), a Greek who came from Bithynia in Asia Minor. Never a Christian, he eventually became a skilled rhetorician yet always reckoned himself to be far less talented than many. He writes that 'Whenever I consider myself and my inexperience, my inexperience in simply everything, but especially in speaking, recognizing that I am only a layman [ijdiwvth~], I am minded for the future to live the life of a layman' (Discourse, 42.3). Perhaps the apostle's foes also gloried in their mastery of Greek, which would have been at least their second language and possibly their first. We know that Paul, never an academic snob, was far from being 'slow of speech and slow of tongue' in the way that Moses made himself out to be (Exod. 4:10). Although the Athen?ians said that he was a 'babbler', they nevertheless brought him to the Areopagus, which suggests that they were not unimpressed (Acts 17:18-19). Another example of the apostle's prowess would be his confrontation with 'a certain orator ? Tertullus' who was hired to represent the Jews against Paul (Acts 24:1). In Acts 24:1 Luke employs rJhvtwr, 'rhetorician', to describe Tertullus. Paul refused steadfastly to be a speaker of this stamp. In court the lawyer began his prosecution with a flourish but ended with a whimper (Acts 24:2-8), so much so that his apostolic prey did not have to take him seriously.

Here Paul states that he has never attempted to mimic the flowery declamation so appreciated by the Hellenistic world in which he moves, an artificial style developed to the ultimate degree by the intruders. Cf. 1 Cor. 1:17: 'not with wisdom of words'; 1 Cor. 2:4: 'My speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom.' If he does lack in this respect ? and from his point of view it is no great deficiency ? he makes up for it in 'knowledge', by which would be meant 'the knowledge of God' (10:5). Because he prefers to affect hearts rather than titillate ears, there has always been a courteous plainness in the apostle's preaching which sets him off from the opposition and which is patent to all who have a mind to think.

And he says as much in the second part of the verse: '? but [the strong alla] in every way having made this apparent to you in all things'. Paul's Greek is clipped, and with ejn pa`sin we have to decide between 'in all things' (neuter) and 'among all men' (masculine). The former gives emphasis, and the latter avoids tautology. On balance, the former seems preferable. There is no situation in which Paul fails to explain the gospel in an understandable fashion. Because Christ is the repository of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3), the apostle's duty is to make him known. When we read the New Testament it becomes obvious that there was never any man who, listening to him, came away confused about what was said. Often there was unbelief, but those who were disobedient must have known enough in order to refuse the truth, just as those who believed the gospel necessarily understood the rudiments of it: Paul always explained. He informed Agrippa that 'I know that you do believe,' even though, as far as is known, the prince was never converted (Acts 26:27). In each case minds and intellects were informed. The apostle's business was to proclaim what he had seen and heard, Acts 22:15; 26:16-17. and as he ends 11:6 he stresses that it was so with the Corinthians: '? to you'. Let them ask themselves if Paul has failed to communicate with success. Let them acknowledge that, whatever his critics are saying, they know that they received the good word of God from the apostle. Nothing can detract from this truth. Of what use is rhetoric if it has nothing of value to share? Paul says that whereas his opponents have failed at Corinth, he has succeeded brilliantly. He boasts.

Application

'Though with a scornful wonder men see her sore oppressed, by schisms rent asunder, by heresies distressed.' So writes Samuel Stone concerning the churches of Christ. Over the centuries there have been many versions of the gospel and many variant Saviours. And not a few have required others to accept them as authentic followers of the apostles. Because of the dimensions of such assertions they need to be examined with care. Upon investigation, the New Testament makes it clear that those who believe, obey and proclaim Paul's teachings, given to him by Christ, are his true champions, a claim which has been endorsed by Bible-loving Christians over the centuries.

In his day the apostle was insistent that the Jesus whom he preached (11:4) was uniquely the truth. Further, Paul loved the church to which he sent the letter. Nowadays, ministers who are close to the Lord and to his Word will love their people. They will know holy jealousy. They will not spare themselves to maintain the integrity of the gospel and to protect their charges. The two concerns necessarily run together. But false shepherds care neither for the Great Shepherd nor for the sheep. Down at Corinth in the mid-first century of our era this was the fault line between Paul and the Judaizers.

Churches are volatile. We note that although Paul indicates that the Corinthians were liable to veer from the truth ? they were prepared to receive anyone who proclaimed 'another Jesus' (11:4) ? he shows no surprise. This shepherd understood his charge. He appreciated, too, that the way to reclaim them had to incorporate a genuine expression of concern, which he is quick to give. Erring Christians will usually accept criticism if it is just and if it is not offered in a censorious or condescending spirit.

Eroding the claims of the false apostles
(2 Corinthians 11:7-15)

Storms were raging at Corinth, and some maintained that Paul's care for the church was sadly lacking, one ground for the slander being that the apostle's refusal to accept local financial support proved that he was unqualified. The bogus emissaries of Christ had welcomed payment on the basis of the principle that a servant is worthy of his hire, and insinuated that if Paul were genuine he would not be so reluctant, his pretended scruples masking a bad conscience. A sham, he lacked the gall to demand payment. Perhaps they also whispered that he had indemnified himself by filching from the collection for Judea (12:16-18).

The apostle sees through the tactic. Whereas the intruders are agents of Satan and 'false apostles' (11:13-14), he is genuine. Paul is aware that they have turned up at Corinth in order to fleece the church, and have then raised the issue of ministerial salaries as a ruse to protect themselves, the stratagem being to pressurize him to accept handouts so that he will be unable to criticize them. If the apostle falls into their carefully laid trap, the consequence will be an enhancement of their prestige at his expense and possibly his ruin.

But the controversy about finance is a feint, the opponents being Judaizers who assume the guise of apostles in order to subvert the apostolic gospel. Paul is unsurprised because he recognizes them as 'servants' of Satan (11:15). Their labours are diabolical, not divine. The apostle gives notice that his message of free grace will remain free at the point of delivery.

Public speakers usually expect to be paid for their services. In 1900 and 1901 Winston Churchill, ex-soldier and war reporter, earned himself over £5,000, a handsome amount at the time, from his lectures in Britain and the U.S.A., in the process making himself financially independent. Ted Morgan, Churchill: The Rise to Failure: 1874-1915 (London: Triad / Panther Books, 1984), p.157. It was not different in ancient times, and the accepted principle of being rewarded for oratorical skill lies behind the present verse.

Apart from a fleeting visit to Corinth at some point during the three-year ministry at Ephesus (2:1; Acts 20:31), up to the time of writing this letter Paul's only stay there had been when he first took the gospel to the city (Acts 18:11). At that time he declined to extract financial support from very recent converts. Why he did this is explained in 1 Corinthians 9. But here we have to read between the lines in order to interpret.

Paul implies that memories die hard, and that during the six months or so between 1 and 2 Cor?inth?ians questions have been asked about him, possibly by the false apostles, men who were almost certainly not there during his pioneering ministry. Why, for example, has Paul declined a salary? Conversely, why does he insist that the church's giving for the Jerusalem saints be planned so meticulously that when he arrives again at Corinth, he can transport their contribution with him on his departure? Further, in that 'the superlative apostles' have been ready to accept (or even to demand) support from the Corinthians, thereby indicating their esteem for the church, Paul has snubbed the congregation. Unlike Macedonian contributions, their money does not appear to be good enough for him. Furnish suggests that 'To refuse a benefaction was an act of social enmity, for which in Paul's day an elaborate protocol had been developed' (Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, Anchor Bible, vol. 32A, New York: Doubleday & Co., 1984, p.508). If this was the case at Corinth, the apostle had renounced the Corinth?ians' status as a patron congregation, thereby repudiating their friendship. But, one would think that, lacking documentation, this interpretation might be too elaborate. Yet Plummer notes that in ancient Greece teachers of philosophy accepted large fees, oratory being a profession. Those who spoke gratuitously did so because they knew that they were worthless. He remarks sens?ibly that 'It is likely enough that the Judaizers uttered similar sneers against St. Paul' (A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, ICC series, Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1915, p.302). To add insult to injury, were he a speaker of quality, which some deny (so, the ironic 'ordinary in speech', 11:6), in those earlier days he would have pressed for re?muner?ation. That he did not was tantamount to an admission of the charges against him.

What can Paul say? First, he acknowledges that he has lowered himself. The Greek behind 'lowering' is tapeinon, a verb cast in the present tense, meaning that as a matter of policy the apostle continues to allow himself to appear outrageous in the eyes of some (cf. 10:1). He accepts that he has been doing what other circuit-speakers ? which he is, if looked at from a secular perspective ? would never do. So, is he wrong? Is he such an inept orator that for fear of being unmasked he neither asks nor expects to be paid? Or is there some hidden, ulterior motive? He challenges the Corinthians: 'Or have I committed sin, lowering myself?' Not at all. There are sound reasons for a mode of behaviour that appears in retrospect bizarre to many and iniquitous to others ? or so they claim. And this is apart from the fact that, as an apostle, it would be a serious mistake for him to descend to the level of blustering demagogues always eager to proffer their expense accounts.

Second, his message at Corinth was 'the gospel of God'. The Greek reads literally 'the of-God good news', 'of-God' appearing before 'good news' for emphasis (to tou theou euangelion), and meaning 'about God' or 'from God', or both. As also in 1 Peter 4:17, which reads fairly literally: 'What will be the end of those who do not obey the of-God gospel?' Significantly, Paul employs both verb (eueggelisamen: 'told out the good news') and noun (euaggelion), implying deliberately that all he has to say is goodness. Whereas the false apostles and their adherents proclaim 'another Jesus' (11:4), Paul's preaching originated with the Lord and is designed to glorify him. Controlled by truth, the apostle's actions are true. Conscious of his stewardship, he asserts that there was, and is, nothing underhand about his motivation.

Third, Paul's reluctance to accept money from new converts appears to have been a matter of policy. Acts 18:3; 20:34; 1 Cor. 4:12; 1 Thess. 2:9. Cf. 2 Thess. 3:7-9. Perceiving that others make healthy profits from religion (cf. 2:17), the apostle determined that his presentation of the good news of God's grace would be gratis for his hearers. If heaven gave freely, why should he charge?

Fourth, his confidence that the gospel is 'the power of God to salvation' (Rom. 1:16) indicates that he was always sure that some Corinthians would respond positively. During Paul's first visit Jesus had informed him that 'I have many people in this city' (Acts 18:10). Now he introduces the concept that the converts have been 'exalted' by being brought to Christ, this being the only occurrence of the word both in Paul's letters and in his declarations in Acts, 'You might be exalted' - uJywqh`te. thereby suggesting a subtle word-play: the apostle has abased himself so that the church might be lifted up (cf. Eph. 2:6). The logic of 11:7 is that because the Corinthians have been blessed, Paul cannot be a rogue: to have lowered himself in order to raise others is clearly not wrong. He has been 'poor but enriching many', even as Christ 'became poor, that you by his poverty might become rich' (6:10; 8:9). The apostle's question is its own answer.

Two powerful words, 'robbed' and 'wages', are brought in to defend the policy of proclaiming the gospel at no charge. Earlier in the letter Paul introduced the terminology of war (6:7; 10:3-5), and he may be doing so here. 'Robbed' signifies an act of pillage, a carrying away of the spoils of battle when soldiers run amok and vandalize a sacred place. Josephus employs the term when he notes that Socrates, the Greek philosopher, was executed although 'he robbed no temple'. 'Robbed' - sulavw. Against Apion 2.263. Cf. Rom. 2:22; Col. 2:8, where related verbs occur. 'Wages', too, has a military tone, sometimes meaning ration-money paid in lieu of food, 'Wages' - ojywvnion, from o[yon, 'cooked food', and wjnevomai, 'I buy'. The word can also mean pay for other than military service, as in Rom. 6:23: 'For the wages of sin is death.' and occurs in Luke 3:14, where John the Baptist tells soldiers to be content with their pay.

The point is that when the apostle stayed with, say, church 'A', he could properly expect to receive maintenance from it. When he moved on to church 'B', church 'A' had no further responsibility for his upkeep, a duty which would reasonably fall to church 'B'. What Paul did in practice was to reverse the system: at Corinth he declined to imply that they (in effect church 'B') might contribute to his legitimate material needs, yet accepted money from elsewhere ('A'), congregations which by that time were under no obligation to pay his way. The effect was that in obtaining his services free of charge, the apostle became the Corinthians' lever for extracting money from very poor churches who nevertheless cared (remember 'the depth of [Macedonian] poverty', 8:2). The policy was tantamount to inter-church robbery, and Paul is embarrassed. In military terms, those on whose behalf he fights should support him, but do not, and those from whom he has departed and who are by now independent have sent him money. The maxim of 1 Corinthians 9:7, 'Whoever goes to war at his own expense?', has collapsed. Paul likens himself to a rapacious soldier, ransacking other shrines to augment his wages when he goes into action on the Corinthian front.

Not surprisingly, there is a delicate subtlety here in what is effectively a dialogue between Paul and the Corinthian waverers. He implies that, far from being an unworthy representative of the gospel, he is one whose true worth is recognized by others, and the latter have been prepared all along to finance him in regions beyond, in this case Corinth. He never insisted on this, but has been glad to accept voluntary, and no doubt highly useful, tokens of their love for him, not to mention their giving for the Jerusalem saints (8:8). How wrong, then, are local critics who impute unworthy motives to Paul because he has not demanded a fee from the church! As it is, those in Corinth who deem the apostle to be a money-grabber remain in confront?ation with other churches. Let Achaia learn how to blush and be prepared to learn from northerners who, relative to them, are financially disadvantaged.

Although many personal reminiscences appear later in the chapter, at this point the apostle anticipates with a trace of autobiography, basing what he writes on his work as a tentmaker with Priscilla and Aquila during the first visit (Acts 18:1-3). At that time he declined to accept maintenance. Paul's declaration that 'I burdened nobody' incorporates a Greek word, katenarkesa, which is found in the New Testament only here and in 12:13, and which means 'to stupefy or disable', or 'to crush'. A compound from katav and narkevw (whence 'narcotic'; cf. the Septuagint's version of Gen. 32:25,32 [26,33 in LXX]; Job 33:19). Many of the people to whom he travelled were very poor (1 Cor. 1:26-28), and the apostle would neither aggravate their hardship nor, in anticipation of potential difficulties, provide ammunition for critics. He informs the Corinthians that at that time and in spite of his labours he was unable to earn enough to meet his requirements and was 'in want', implying a significant monetary shortfall. 'In want' - uJsterhqei;~, passive aorist participle from uJsterevw: circumstances reduced Paul to poverty. Although we do not know why this was, we can be sure that Paul was neither lazy nor reckless with money.

Upon discovering that his efforts to support himself were not proving successful, he abstained from holding out his hand to the infant church. This must have been hard because any injection of funds would have allowed the apostle to concentrate upon his real work, sewing tent cloth not being nearly as interesting as positive ministry. In 11:9 Paul implies that although his decision led him into difficulties in that his income dried up, a monetary gift (not payment) was made available by certain brethren who travelled to Corinth from Macedonia. In consequence, the apostle was able to preserve himself from being a burden to local Christians. The visitors, possibly Silas and Timothy (1:19; Acts 18:5), more than complemented his own funds so that at the time expenditure was covered. The verb is a double compound, prosanaplhrovw, meaning to fill something up, adding to what is there already. It occurs also in 9:12. Nor is it impossible that an awkward deficit was converted temporarily into a useful surplus.

Proposing to minister free of charge when he revisits, Paul expounds his intentions in the next verses. He cannot allow misunderstanding: no one will ever be able to say that this man has been a handicap, wheedling money out of the church when he could, and should, have worked for his living.

These words must be interpreted in the context of reports circulated by Paul's critics, who imply that the apostle is no speaker because he refuses to accept a stipend as a fitting acknowledgement of his stature. They attack Paul remorselessly and seem to have generated a hearing, as may be suggested by 11:20: 'For you [the church] put up with it if someone enslaves you.' Furthermore, the opposition lets it be known that Paul declines to accept money from the Corinthians because he is unconcerned for their welfare, whereas he obviously retains considerable affection for the northerners in that he pockets their silver. Nor is it improbable that long-standing racism intrudes its ugly head: because the Corinthians are Gentile trash, this wandering Jewish entrepreneur is unprepared to soil his hands with their minuscule dole. Richer pickings can be obtained more easily elsewhere, and along the way Paul has no scruples about selecting favourites (or victims). It needs to be said that this inference is extracted from the apostle's words, but there can be little doubt that he does respond to some such attack.

Given, first, Paul's admission of monetary problems during the eighteen-month Corinthian ministry and, second, the double criticism that he is as inept an orator as he is callous, we can see that there must have been an enormous temptation for the apostle to accept a salary. But there would have been a sacrifice, since Paul would then have been unable to boast that even as he had received salvation freely, so he shared the gospel with his hearers at no charge. He has pondered the matter, and a careful calculation leads him to continue as he has begun: first, the satisfaction of being a giver is the only recompense he requires; second, he has no intention of prejudicing his reputation. In fact, the hallmark of free service is now his boast. 'What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel' (1 Cor. 9:18).

This is the background to 11:10-11. The two verses open with an affirmation rather than an oath. Literally, 'The truth of [= from] Christ is in me [when I say] that this boasting will not be closed down for me in the regions of Achaia.' Cf. 1:18,23; 2:10; 11:11,31. Of these, 1:23 would appear to be an oath rather than an affirmation. Even as Jesus is truth incarnate, so his appointed ambassador will be truthful, his policy of preaching without cost to others being a reflection of the mind of his Master (cf. 1:17-22). Declarations of joy about this practice are not to be blocked off by any man, and Paul will maintain his policy when he returns to Corinth. 'Close' comes from fravssw, 'to shut, stop up, to block or bar'. It occurs also in Rom. 3:19 and Heb. 11:33, with reference to, respectively, the mouths of men and of lions. Others may say what they will, but they are unable to dent his resolve.

Why is the apostle so adamant? Although some downgrade him, he refuses the luxury of self-advertisement. 'But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you' (1 Cor. 4:3). Nevertheless, the slur that he is unconcerned for the Corinthians is not to be disregarded. Far from being a sign of aloofness, publishing the gospel freely is a mark of affection which takes into account both the acute poverty of most of his hearers and the criticisms that will inevitably be raised if Paul accepts support on the spot, thus implying that he has made demands. Conceding that his opponents voice a low opinion of him, he asks if it is true that he does not love the church. He does, and therefore of what importance are their words? Echoing the protest of 5:11, '? but have become evident to God ? and, I hope, also to have become evident in your consciences', the apostle insists that 'God knows'. So also do the Corinthians if they are prepared to relax their less than supple imaginations.

Two realities lie behind this verse. First, a large number of the Corinthians have come to know the Lord through Paul's ministry, a service for which he never requested money. In this way, among others, he has commended the grace of God to the infant church and rests happy in the awareness that they will never forget. Nor are they ignorant that, unlike Paul, the pseudo-apostles are far from reluctant to accept payment. Indeed, they have been 'boasting' about it. Paul remains impregnable in that, whereas his ministry cost nothing yet has proved to be of inestimable benefit, the impostors, supplying nothing of worth, charge their victims for the dubious privilege of receiving their attentions. The false teachers are rather like those physicians who, in their inability to heal a sick woman, reduced her to poverty (Luke 8:43).

Second, the pseudo-apostles, or their satellites, search for any 'opportunity' to make life difficult for Paul, 'opportunity' possibly being another military term meaning a base for operations. ajformhv - 'opportunity'. Being devious, they hope that their behind-the-scenes character assassination will induce the apostle to accept some form of remuneration when he returns to Corinth. Not unlike Tobiah and Sanballat, who tried to compel Nehemiah to meet them where they were (Neh. 6:1-4), these men seek to intimidate Paul. If they can succeed in getting him to accept payment, he, along with them, will be 'found' (Greek, heurethosin) to be some sort of professional orator, the parallel automatically diminishing his claim to independent apostleship, and they becoming invulnerable to the charge of being money-grabbers: if Paul takes local money, what they do cannot be wrong! Further, if the apostle desires a salary, why should anyone regard what he says as any improvement upon the Judaizers' system? There emerges for them a triumphant, and for Paul, a disastrous, equality, the latter's 'gospel' now being no more than an option.

The apostle backs away. What he has done ? ministering at no charge to the beneficiaries ? he will continue to do. He remains determined to 'cut off' any occasion from those who, even as he writes, desire that the policy of taking expenses ? which makes them rub their hands in glee ? be accepted at long last by Paul. More, if they have been bullying him, the apostle for his part now exerts a subtle pressure on them. Because his 'free-at-the-point-of-delivery' tactic has gained him a respect not accorded to his opponents, he challenges them to emulate his generosity, knowing full well that they will never do it. The adversaries and he lock horns.

It should be said that some commentators offer a different interpretation, suggesting that the antagon?ists, having offered their services to the Corinthians at no charge, attempt to coerce Paul to accept re?muneration and thereby fall below their elevated stance, the ploy being to enhance their reputation at the expense of the apostle. Aware of their duplicity, Paul, it is claimed, does not alter his policy, thereby cutting the ground from under his opponents' feet.

The main problem with this approach is that according to 11:7 it was being put about that the apostle sinned because he ministered at no cost. It is improbable that his critics would have indulged in a similar 'sin'. Because they had draped themselves with the apostolic mantle, they allowed, or even constrained, the Corinthians to maintain them, knowing that there were genuine apostles who did accept payment (1 Cor. 9:14). Moreover, as has been noted, 11:20 observes that some in the church were being enslaved, which could mean that they were foolishly paying the impostors. The first explanation is better. The grammar of 11:12 prejudices the alternative view, which demands something like the following translation: 'But what I do, I will also do, that I shall cut off the opportunity of those who wish for an opportunity, and that [I may bring it about that] they may be found even as we are.' This makes the second i{na clause run awkwardly in series with the first, connecting with poihvsw at the beginning of the sentence. The point is that Paul did not want to remain just like his opponents. Rather, they wanted to compel the apostle to imitate them.

It might be helpful to summarize the reasons which prompted Paul to minister at no charge to his immediate hearers. First, he was generous; because he received freely he gave freely (cf. Matt. 10:8). Although the apostle never quite says as much, it must have been so. Second, he had no desire to appear as a mini-tyrant, abusing his authority in the gospel (1 Cor. 9:18). Third, many of his converts were extremely poor and could hardly afford to give ('not many mighty', 1 Cor. 1:26). Fourth, because bad religion was a money-spinner, Paul did not want to prejudice his reputation by seeming to peddle the gospel (2:17). Fifth, on the road to Damascus the Lord called Paul to be an apostle, and the question of being the paid employee of other men did not enter into the matter. Although Paul sometimes accepted monetary gifts, they were just that, gifts which he never solicited. Finally, by way of recapitulation, had he accepted cash, the apostle would have justified impostors who were never slow in this respect (11:12) and would have prejudiced his ministry and office.

Paul turns from irony. Throughout chapter 10 and again in 11:1-12 he has pointed repeatedly to his antagonists, marauders who came uninvited to Corinth with the twin intentions of fleecing the church and discrediting the apostle. Although he has refused to name names, his multiple allusions leave us in no doubt about what they were like. The present verse shows that they presented themselves to the Corinthians as apostles, the expression 'superlative apostles' (11:5) having justified the inference.

In his counter-attack Paul deploys the principle that 'By their fruits you will know them' (Matt. 7:20): 'For such people [that is, men who conduct themselves as they do] are [obviously] pseudo-apostles.' Whatever their impressive credentials, and whatever they have to say for themselves, their demeanour and activities show them to be bogus ambassadors. Further, that they are industrious is not to be denied, but they are, nevertheless, 'treacherous workers'. The Greek behind 'treacherous' (dolioi) means 'to be cunning or dishonest', Cf. dovlo~, 12:16: 'I took you in by trickery.' and 'workers' might have been almost a technical term for recognized ministers of the gospel. Cf. Matt. 9:37-38; Phil. 3:2; 1 Tim. 5:18; 2 Tim. 2:15. Close scrutiny has revealed their true character. Far from being sincere but misguided souls who will reform if handled gently and with discretion, they have been busily 'changing [themselves] into apostles of Christ'.

This is a remarkable statement because the trespassers could not have pretended that they belonged to the original Twelve, an assertion which would have been swiftly disproved. Did they claim to be later additions to the original apostolic college, much as Paul asserted that he was 'one born out of due time'? (1 Cor. 15:8). It is virtually certain that their contention with him concerned their respective interpret?ations of what Paul terms the 'old covenant'. This assertion is denied by, among others, Martin, who supposes that the debate turns on who exhibits the genuine signs of an apostle (12:12) rather than on questions about Torah (2 Corinthians, p.350). Surely, the earlier part of 2 Corinthians has concentrated upon the true significance of Moses' law. If we accept that the letter was originally an integrated whole comprising our thirteen chapters, the issue between Paul and his antagon?ists is not unclear. The point is that because the apostle proclaimed a pure gospel of salvation by faith, and they did not, they could not have been servants of God; Christ does not send opposing gospels to a fallen world. All this coincides with Galatians 4:9, where the apostle asks, 'How is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?' To Judaize, whether in Galatia or Corinth, was a voyage into outer darkness.

'Changing', or even 'transforming' (Greek, meta?schematizomenoi), repeated for emphasis in verses 14 and 15, means to mutate both the outward and inward forms of something, to transfer from one mode of being to another. Thus Phil. 3:21, which states that Christ shall 'transform our lowly body', and 1 Cor. 4:6, where Paul transfers, or applies, certain principles of Christian conduct to his own situation and that of his friend Apollos. The impostors have come to Corinth claiming to be apostles, yet lacking the assurance of a divine commission. This is why they remain uneasy. Not sure about their fraudulent presentation, they work hard to perfect their guise as genuine 'apostles of Christ', worried lest some misdemeanour should give them away, probably realizing that Paul, at least, has discerned their hypocrisy. This is one reason for their determination to bring him down: if the church tests them against Paul, their standing will collapse. Like the pseudo-apostles at Ephesus, they must be seen to be liars (Rev. 2:2). In 11:13 Paul brings in the compound word yeudapovstoloi, and Rev. 2:2 identifies those who term themselves 'apostles' as yeudei`~. If the double occurrence of the root pseud- is more than a coincidence, we are left with the distinct suspicion that the threat posed by such men was not confined to any particular church or area, and that it did not die away rapidly.

Paul, however, has never doubted his calling. Nor has he failed to manifest the 'signs of an apostle' (12:12). This is why his strictures are clear, precise and penetrating. If it transpires that these locusts are gone from Corinth when Paul arrives, leaving behind a church largely reconciled to the apostle, they will without doubt be feeding elsewhere, ever seeking to pervert the faith of naïve souls. As the next two verses explain, they are incapable of acting differently. This is their life. They are as restless as they are insatiable.

The apostle frequently depicts conversion to Christ as a transfer from darkness to light. On the road to Damascus he was surrounded by blinding light, and part of his charge was to illuminate the Gentiles. Acts 9:3; 22:6; 26:13,18. In our letter Paul develops the theme of the fading glory of the old covenant by insisting that in context the creation of light on the first day remains the only adequate analogy to portray the knowledge of God in Christ (4:6; Gen. 1:3). Believers were once darkness but now are 'light in the Lord' (Eph. 5:8) and are all 'children of light' (1 Thess. 5:5). This understanding is, of course, not unique to Paul. Peter tells Christian pilgrims that they have been called by God 'out of darkness into his marvellous light' (1 Peter 2:9).

However, apart from 11:14, the New Testament never employs the expression 'angel of light' (but remember, for example, Peter's experience when in prison, Acts 12:7). The nearest approach in the Septuagint is Daniel 10:5, where the prophet relates his vision of the pre-incarnate Christ, from whom emanated light. ejk mevsou aujtou` fw`~ - 'from his centre, light'. It is certain that there are evil angels who in a sense preside over this darkened world ('the rulers of the darkness of this age', Eph. 6:12), and also that the holy angels may not improperly be characterized as 'angels of light' or 'shining angels'. The genitive 'of light' might be descriptive (= 'shining angels'). All this raises questions. Does Paul signify that Satan endeavours to change himself into a pseudo-Christ, or a holy (arch)angel, or that he intrudes himself in the churches through human ministers of the gospel whose task it is to disseminate light in dark places? Or is Paul being deliberately vague?

With regard to the first alternative, how, where and for what reason would the Evil One masquerade as our Lord? The idea is bizarre. The third alternative is no less difficult in that it is a nonsense to imagine that the devil incarnates himself as an individual 'angel of light' who molests the churches, or tries to do so. Not even the 'son of perdition', the 'lawless one' (2 Thess. 2:3,8,9), will be other than an agent of Satan. Because vagueness is not usual in Paul's writings, the fourth possibility may be put to one side.

Perhaps the second alternative is strengthened by Isaiah 14:12, in which the King of Babylon is named as 'Lucifer, son of the morning', and by Ezekiel 28:14,16, verses which liken the King of Tyre to a guardian angel (literally, 'cherub') who was expelled from Eden because of apostasy. Both monarchs reflect the attributes of Satan, by now a fallen angel. Young denies flatly that Isaiah alludes to Satan in that the prophet describes a king's downfall, whereas Satan continues his tyrannical acts (E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976-7, [first published 1965-72], vol. i, p.441). Even so, has not Satan also fallen from heaven, where supreme power is concentrated? (John 12:31). Accordingly, Paul's meaning might be that although the Evil One has been cast out (John 12:31) and can never retrieve his primitive glory, he nevertheless attempts to persuade the holy angels that he remains what he once was, implying that they should hear him. This suggestion is not meant to imply that Paul resorted to Jewish legend, such as that perpetuated by The Life of Adam and Eve, dated between 100 B.C. and A.D. 200. The Life (9) declares that Satan has 'transformed himself into the brightness of angels' (James H. Charlesworth ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983/5, vol. 2. pp.252,260). In the Dead Sea Scrolls the archangel Michael is referred to as the 'Prince of Lights' (The War Rule, 13:9-10; 17:6-8; The Community Rule, 3:20), which Johnson has suggested may imply that, according to 11:14, Satan disguised himself as Michael (Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. ii, p.260). This is pure specu?lation: the apostle's own experience had taught him enough about Satan's methods. Nor is it certain that Paul alludes to the Fall, when Satan disguised himself as a serpent (Gen. 3:1; Rev. 12:9), or to Job 1:6, which tells of Satan's intrusion among the angelic sons of God. And he does this even though they are immune to temptation, implying a titanic clash in heavenly places between the forces of light and those of darkness. Although they have lost the day, the ultimate impersonator and his angelic minions remain intent upon prolonging the struggle.

By a process of elimination one would opt very tentatively for this interpretation. Elsewhere, all Paul's references to 'angels' point to non-human personalities who serve God, the sole exception being the reference in 12:7 to 'an [impersonal] angel of Satan', the mysterious thorn in the flesh. Why should 11:14 stand apart? Further, verses 14 and 15 seem to juxtapose Satan as a '[spiritual] angel of light' against his ministers as '[human] ministers of righteousness'.

And, comments Paul, this is 'no wonder'. The men who have invaded the Corinthian church do no more than follow guidelines being established elsewhere by Satan: the devil is masquerading in a celestial sphere at the same time as the apostle, firmly on earth, writes about him. The activity of the Evil One is incessant. Deception continues. Apparently, in heavenly regions beyond our ken darkness hurls itself fruitlessly against light in order to extinguish it.

Paul's argument swings to and fro. Verse 13 tells us that the pseudo-ambassadors change themselves into apostles of Christ, and verse 14 informs us that this is no surprise because their principal, Satan, is engaged in a parallel activity, although, it seems, in a higher realm. In verse 15 we are taken back to the thesis of verse 13 and learn that it is 'no great thing' if Satan's 'ministers' pose as 'ministers of righteousness'. It is to be expected. For the first time the apostle states explicitly and unhesitatingly that the intruders at Corinth are servants of Satan, endeavouring to present themselves as those who uphold the cause of righteousness. Paul's language is not intemperate invective: between him and them there is no common ground. They are diabolically wrong.

Does this mean that the false apostles are consciously the ministers of Satan? In the light of such texts as, say, John 8:44, where the Lord tells the hostile Jews, 'You are of your father the devil'; Acts 26:18, where Paul narrates his original commission 'to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God'; and 1 Timothy 5:15, where he writes that 'Some [younger women] have already turned aside after Satan', the probable answer is negative. These Judaizers do not realize the gravity of their situation any more than they want to comprehend the errors inherent in their preaching.

It is likely that the apostle describes his antagon?ists as alleged 'ministers of righteousness' to draw attention to the unbridgeable chasm between his distinctive preaching and their ostentatious yet empty form of religion. In both 1 and 2 Corinthians he makes it clear that Christ crucified, risen and glorified, rather than adherence to the law of Moses, is the sole ground of the sinner's standing before God. E.g., 3:9; 5:21; 1 Cor. 1:30. The new covenant brings into being justifi?cation and sanctification, benefits beyond the scope and capacity of the Sinai arrangement.

In other words, in 2 Corinthians Paul draws attention to the Judaizing tendencies of the intruders, men who have involved Jesus in their scheme yet teach that subjection to the law of Moses is a medium acceptable to God, according to which the Almighty approves the sufficiently righteous law-keeper. A clear distinction needs to be made between those Jews in the earlier dispensation who honoured Moses because they, with him, anticipated the promised advent of the Messiah and were grateful to the Lord for all his benefits, and those who observed the law as (in Christian terminology) their medium of salvation. Some scholars, such as Longenecker, characterize the former as 'nomists' and the latter as 'legalists' (Richard N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977; [first published 1964], p.84). With all due respect to Longenecker, one finds it difficult to interpret Rom. 7:7-13 as neither strictly autobiographical nor strictly gnomic (ibid., pp.86-105). Longenecker's thesis that Rom. 7, except for the Christological emphasis of verse 25, '? to an extent ? could also have been his [Paul's] realization in Judaism' (ibid., p.97), builds upon his interpret?ation of Rom. 7:7-13, but is nevertheless problematic. Did not the clash between Paul and the Corinthian pseudo-apostles arise from the fact that prior to his conversion the apostle had been an acting legalist rather than a reacting nomist?

It is true that this interpretation is to a point conjectural since the apostle names no names and declines to give us a detailed sketch of the rudiments of the Judaizers' 'different gospel', incorporating as it does 'another Jesus' (11:4). None the less, remember that, unlike his polemic in Galatians, the issue between Paul's opponents and himself is personal, which explains why he is reticent. In any case, the Corinthians are able to identify personalities, and it is enough for the apostle to castigate them for what everybody knows they are.

There may be a bitter, yet just, irony in the last part of 11:15, which reads, 'of whom the end will be according to their deeds'. Even if these servants of Satan are superficially faultless, just as Saul of Tarsus believed himself to have been in his earlier years ('blameless', Phil. 3:6), the converted Pharisee has learned from experience that even the most assiduous disciple of Moses can never achieve acceptance with God by this route: 'By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified' (Gal. 2:16). Cf. Rom. 7:7-12; Gal. 3:10. Because their activities, let alone their thoughts, are stained with sin, the pseudo-apostles must ultimately fall into condemnation. In the words of the prophet Daniel, the final 'end' of such men will be 'shame and everlasting contempt' (Dan. 12:2). Cf. Rom. 3:8; 6:21; Phil. 3:18-19; 2 Thess. 1:8-9; 2 Tim. 4:14. Paul is concerned to point out the fate of those who wilfully distort or oppose the gospel. Their vaunted works, in all their inadequacy, lead them downwards rather than to the skies. If any one man can claim to be the Corinthians' 'minister of righteousness', it is Paul rather than a false apostle. This is his implication.

Application

After Simon Peter had confessed that Jesus is 'the Christ, the Son of the living God', our Lord announced that 'Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' (Matt. 16:16-18). The 'rock' was Simon's statement, and the 'church' the fellowship of those who, by God's grace, identify with what he said. Notice Jesus' assumption that the hostility between the two cities, that of God and that of Satan, is simultaneously supernatural and human, and that it is implac?able. The theme reverberates until the conclusion of the New Testament.

It is the reality of this warfare that governs 11:7-15. At Corinth Satan's soldiers counterattacked by penetrating the church's outer defences, then endeavouring to subvert apostolic foun?dations. But, in terms of our Lord's teaching, Paul was convinced that the intruders could never prevail because they were disgorging themselves from the 'gates of hell': destruction was printed in large characters upon their banner. They belonged to the city of doom, and knew it. There, like proud Capernaum, they would find their lasting abode (Matt. 11:23).

History teaches that the more potent enemies of the churches usually emerge from within, from which it follows that God's people need to look, to listen and sometimes to reject what they hear. And those who profess to be ministers should strive to lead their people to the Saviour. Only Christ crucified, risen and glorified receives sinners. Those who preach otherwise should take note of what must be their lot.

And were this world all devil's o'er,
And watching to devour us,
We lay it not to heart so sore;
Not they can overpower us.
And let the prince of ill
Look grim as e'er he will,
He harms us not a whit;
For why? His doom is writ;
A word shall swiftly slay him. So wrote Martin Luther in his 'Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott', and so we often sing. The hymn was probably written for the Diet of Speyer, when on 20 April 1529 the German princes made their formal protest against the revocation of their liberties, and thus gained the epithet 'Protestants'.

Apostolic suffering
(2 Corinthians 11:16-29)

Paul leads into his fool's speech, which begins formally midway through 11:21. Within the discourse at least six strands weave together.

First, the apostle builds upon his identification of the intruders as 'pseudo-apostles' and 'servants' of Satan (11:13,15). At long last he is specific. Battle commences.

Second, the 'fool's speech' addresses the whole church but points unerringly to the sham emissaries, almost as if Paul is speaking about them behind their back but with the intention that they overhear his remarks. Cupping his hand to his mouth in mock confidentiality, he wants them to know what he thinks.

Third, in that they have been quick to parade themselves (11:21), Paul will display selected features of his own life and ministry. He parodies their stance. To illustrate, imagine a jester at a medieval banquet caricaturing a high but devious and unpopular minister of state. The buffoon's exaggerated tones and body language cause king, queen and courtiers to giggle ? but also to ponder. The minister in question does not smile.

Fourth, there is a profound difference between the apostle and his counterfeit rivals. They boast about their Jewish heritage (11:22), their achievements as 'ministers of Christ' (11:23) and about their spirituality (12:1-4). For his part, Paul draws attention to his sufferings and the burdens he has endured for the sake of Christ.

Fifth, the apostle is aware that whereas the intruders care neither for the Lord nor for the church, his overriding concern has always been for the people of God (11:28).

Sixth, the 'fool's speech' is not just a clever ploy designed to pillory the false apostles. At heart theological, it reminds superficial Corinthians that divine strength is always and only manifested in human weakness. As it was with Christ, so it has been with his servant (12:10; 13:4).

Paul demolishes the pretensions of the opposition. Yet there is no rancour, no triumphalism and no sense of superiority. Although the apostle does not quite say so, these men are the fools. They have no ministry.

Although Paul has already exposed the pseudo-apostles for what they are, he has not yet finished with them. First, it is assumed that boasting in one's achievements is a characteristic mark of a 'fool', a man who has cast aside the true measure of himself and those around him, and who does not care how he comes across to others. a[frwn - 'unthinking'. Not mwrov~. 'I say again' means that the apostle returns to the theme which he introduced in 11:1, requesting that the Corinthians bear with him in his little folly as he recalls some of his own experiences. It is not unlikely that the Judaizers, in calling him a fool, have been boasting about their exploits. Very well. Knowing that those who hurl the epithet at others are themselves fools, Paul will mock. The difference is that he caricatures himself, yet in so doing reflects adversely upon them. Donning the cap and bells of the joker, he laughs in hollow fashion at the way in which the Lord has led him.

Notwithstanding the tactic, Paul has not taken leave of his senses, and trusts that his readers will acknowledge that what he writes is no more than a stratagem: '? let not anyone suppose me to be a fool'. Embarrassed about boasting, he asks to be heard sympathetically. Unfortunately, he knows that some will misunderstand, which is why he brings in 'but if not, then accept me as a fool so that I also may boast a little', eij de; mhv ge means 'but if not so': 'if you must think otherwise, taking me as fool'. the undiscerning critic prob?ably being a weak soul disaffected by the opposition and eager enough to find fault. 'Let not someone think me a fool' - mhv tiv~ me dovxh/ a[frona ei\nai.

And why, Paul wants to know, should he not be given a hearing even by those who do not perceive his gambit? Pseudo-apostles have advertised their credentials, have testified to their accomplishments and have been heard. It follows that those Corinthians who accommodate such clowns ought in fairness to accord him a similar reception: 'Accept me as a fool.' If the intruders have enjoyed their moment, let the apostle have his. Irony intensifies in that Paul's inane boasting will be only 'a little', in studied contrast to the twin torrents of bombast and denigration that cascade from the lips of the high-flyers. The Corinth?ians, who are not entirely lacking in common sense, will reach their verdict.

Thus Paul turns upon his opponents and brandishes their weapons. Unlike them (it is assumed), the apostle has all along been concerned for the honour of the Lord and for the welfare of the church rather than for cheap glory. For this he entertains neither care nor concern. He is 'jealous ? with God's jealousy' (11:2). The content of Paul's boasting is expounded all the way through from 11:22 up to 12:13, and it may be supposed that his selective catalogue is intended to undermine extravagant claims made by the 'ministers of righteousness' (11:15). Between them and him there remains a great gulf.

The last thing that Paul wants to do is to parade his achievements. Indeed, as an apostle he would deny that he, as an individual, has achieved anything of worth. Yet before he came to know the Lord he was undoubtedly proud of his status as a Pharisee, a man who was 'zealous towards God', living 'according to the strictest sect of our religion', calculating that he was outwardly faultless. But since being arrested by Christ he has come to reckon self-satisfaction, formerly in being an assiduous Jew and now as an eminently useful apostle, to be a hindrance to knowing the Lord, in whom alone he will glory. God forbid that it should be otherwise. Like other believers, he retains nothing that he has not received, and in his 'flesh', that is, in his natural self, 'nothing good dwells'. He never boasts about the past. Acts 22:3; 26:5; Rom. 7:18; 1 Cor. 4:7; Gal. 6:14; Phil. 3:6-11.

It follows that, as Paul admits, self-praise must be 'in accordance with the flesh'. The false apostles indulge themselves in this way, and are wrong, the reason being that they have not experienced the grace of God in Christ. Had they been truly children of God they would never have invaded Corinth with their assorted baggage of alternative gospel, bitter tongues and ostentatious display. Conversely, a modesty so intense that it refuses to brag is essentially 'in accordance with the Lord', that is, as Christ would have it, and it remains Paul's desire to conform to this standard.

'But' (the strong Greek word alla so beloved by the apostle when he contrasts what is of God and what is of the world), he will for a few fleeting moments clothe himself with the folly of these impostors. Appearing to reflect their gross methodology, he exults in his record as a servant of God. 'What I am saying' ? what he proposes to write concerning himself ? will be 'in this embodiment of boasting'.

The Greek hypostasis, translated in 11:17 as 'embodiment', appears in 9:4, where it is rendered 'matter', but is not employed by Paul elsewhere in his letters. It is also found in Hebrews 1:3 ('the express image of his person'), in Hebrews 3:14 ('the beginning of our confidence') and in Hebrews 11:1 ('faith is the substance of things hoped for'). The three italicized English translation words are different, suggesting that hypostasis may have possessed more than one shade of meaning. The Septuagint does not shed much light because it employs hypostasis when translating no less than twelve Hebrew words plus some of their variants, although 'My age [= 'time'] is as nothing before you,' (Ps. 39:5 [38:5 in LXX]), points the way: David's 'age' or hypostasis was his essential being. uJpovstasi~ - dl,j,, meaning the duration of one's life. Similarly, the English derivative 'hypostasis' stands for the substance or reality of a thing as opposed to its appearance.

Perhaps Paul introduces the word here to imply contemptuously that by nature and essence the 'many' Corinthian pseudo-apostles and their satellites are confident men 'who glory in appearance and not in the heart' (5:12). Self-confidence is ingrained. As in Heb. 3:14, according to which the knowledge of oneness with Christ should saturate the mind of the godly believer, becoming part of his substance. This explains the NKJV's use of 'confidence'. Unfortunately, their jubilation, though misplaced, is inevitable, given that they are braggarts, and this in spite of (or because of?) inner uncertainties (11:13).

Notice that the apostle proposes to boast because he entertains a massive self-assurance about his status. In a way his procedure is exactly that of his opponents, but in another sense it is radically different: whereas they lack a divine commission, Paul is assured that the Lord has elevated him. 'By the grace of God I am what I am' (1 Cor. 15:10). All the same, he descends to the miserable level of his adversaries to teach the Corinthians a lesson. If the former have shown off, so 'also' will he, although, unlike these outwardly complacent 'apostles' (11:5,13; 12:11), his folly and his boasting will be 'little' (11:1,16).

Some have suggested that in adopting this tactic the apostle was conscious that he departed from the mind of Christ and that his words are uninspired. Plummer remarks that 'Christ did not send His Apostles to glory about themselves, and St Paul knows that there is nothing Apostolic in what he is doing. He believes it to be necessary, but does not claim Divine authority for it.' Plummer, The Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, p.314. Criticism of this type is unsubtle. In 10:1 Paul exhorts 'through the meekness and gentleness of Christ', yet deems it necessary to engage his opponents with their own blunt weapons because they are too coarse to appreciate anything finer. Realistically, the issue of alleged non-inspiration does not arise: the apostle answers fools according to their folly, sure in his heart that he will not succumb to their vanity. Cf. Prov. 26:4-5. This is why, wanting to see the Corinthians blush, he introduces a subtle caveat: Paul does not admit that he will boast 'in accordance with the flesh'. There are varieties of boasting.

The apostle exposes the gullibility of the majority at Corinth, his examination tinctured with a crushing sarcasm virtually unparalleled elsewhere in his letters.

The Greek text of 11:19 opens the tirade with 'gladly' as if to emphasize the inadequacy of the Corinthians' sense of discernment. As in 11:16 and 12:6,11, 'fools' (Greek, aphronon) implies a lack of discrimination: in possession of their wits, the people have received the impostors because they profess to know the true worth of such folk. The apostle's criticism recalls 1 Corinthians 4:10: 'You are wise in Christ.' There he conceded with immense sadness that the Corinthians felt competent to modify the moral and doctrinal criteria laid down by Paul. They were wise fools. Translation English cannot reflect Paul's biting sarcasm: 'You bear with fools, being prudent' - ? tw`n ajfrovnwn frovnimoi o[nte~. Later, when the bogus apostles presented themselves, the church accommodated them in spite of a nagging suspicion that they were not what they seemed to be. In fact, the double occurrence of 'put up with' implies that the Corinth?ians have never been at ease with them. 'To put up with' - ajnevcomai. One does not put up with a situation which satisfies.

Verse 20 flows from its predecessor: 'You put up with it if ?' There can be little doubt that the apostle has been in receipt of intelligence forwarded from Corinth and that he knows how the pseudo-apostles have been treating the church. What he writes is an ironic comment about the relationship between the Corinthians and the parasites who have latched on to them. It makes gloomy reading. 'If someone' is repeated five times to rub salt into the wound: '? if someone enslaves you, if someone devours, if someone seizes, if someone exalts himself, if someone smites you in the face'.

First, the church is tolerant if someone, not necessarily a ringleader, 'enslaves' it. This menacing verb occurs in Galatians 2:4 with reference to 'false brothers' who were attempting to 'bring us [Paul and others] into bondage'. katadoulovw - 'enslave', 'bring into bondage'. Cf. Jer. 15:14 in the Septuagint: 'And I will enslave you to your enemies around in a land you do not know.' The parallel might not be accidental, and 11:20 could be measured in terms of the Galatians reference. The Galatian trespassers, professed Christians and would-be leaders who were neither, attempted to coerce the apostle to modify his doctrinal stance so that he would offer Moses' law to Gentile churches, thus reconstituting them as a weird baptized Jewish sect. The grace of God was being nullified. Paul saw that all who listened to these intruders were being enslaved, exchanging their freedom for an abrasive yoke which, as Peter observed at the Council of Jerusalem, 'neither our fathers nor we were able to bear' (Acts 15:10). If we compare with Galatians 4:8-9, it will be seen that the Judaizing burden was tantamount to the bondage of heathendom.

And this was happening at Corinth in Paul's absence in that the church allowed itself to be devoured by visiting Israelites who foisted their species of Judaism upon it. They were so undiscerning that their state as a gospel church was in peril. 'Devours' also occurs in Galatians 5:15, where the apostle issues the warning: 'But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another.' As in the Galatian theatre, the Corinthians were permitting themselves to be eaten up by an agenda which, whatever its clever format, denied justification by faith.

And there might have been more. Perhaps the Corinthians were being stripped of their material possessions, in just the same way that Jewish scribes devoured the livelihood of widows, who were among the most vulnerable members of society. Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47. Purveyors of bad religion usually line their pockets, but Paul had never been a burden (11:7,9). In their calmer moments the Corinthians would have wanted to admit the difference.

The apostle elaborates his dirge. If someone arises from the bogus band and proceeds to seize from the Corinthians, they bear it. Either the predators extract church money, or they march the people away as their virtual lackeys (or both?). In the light of 12:16, where the same Greek word (lambano) occurs in the phrase, 'I took you in by trickery,' the second alternative is better: it has been relatively easy for an intruder to carve out a regime at Corinth, being fairly confident that the people will follow. The latter are being taken like birds in a snare, or like fish by a bait.

But at what a cost to the church! Accorded apostolic office by the unwary, the aggressor flaunts his alleged prerogatives. The Corinthians smart under the lash yet do nothing. Parallel this assertion with 10:5: '? tearing down arguments and every elev?ation lifting itself up against the knowledge of God'. The false apostles have contrived to establish themselves as leaders by attacking the gospel and alienating the God who gave it. Beyond remorse, they are a danger to themselves as much as to the church.

Irony climaxes with a fifth assertion, which is that the Corinthians stand by meekly when any one of these intruders chooses to strike them in the face. Although Paul may be alluding to insults which have an impact on the church's sensitivities, there may have been exhibitions of gross intemperance and even physical violence in the assembly. If so, this would have been intolerable because the apostle believed that no man addicted to anger should be an elder or a deacon, let alone claim to be an apostle. 1 Tim. 3:3; Titus 1:7. On one notorious occasion the high priest Ananias ordered that Paul be struck on the face (Acts 23:2-5), and at Corinth similar physical abuse might have stemmed from petty men who clamoured for the obedience of the congregation. Perhaps Paul also experienced violence within the churches, which could be why he shows no surprise. Compare 1 Corinthians 4:11: 'We ? are beaten.'

It may be asked if the church was not right to allow itself to be treated in this way? Did not the Lord teach that we should turn the other cheek? (Matt. 5:39). Did not the apostle Peter write that it is commendable if a believer 'endures grief, suffering wrongfully'? (1 Peter 2:19). Sadly, the Corinthians were at fault because they accepted the claims of the self-styled 'apostles'. Had the latter been men sent by God they would not have behaved in this fashion, unholy wrath never being a fruit of the Spirit. Because the impostors' behaviour has unmasked them, the unthinking victims of aggression are taken to task by Paul.

The Corinthians do nothing; they acquiesce, not being alert to their danger. What the outcome will be they do not know. Perhaps they do not care.

Irony can be a deadly weapon, usually brandished in order to inflict damage. Here, the apostle wields it as a surgeon would his knife, in order to heal. Its cutting edge must have penetrated many a heart. Paul builds on the assumption that the 'superlative apostles' have taken pains to manifest their prowess to the Corinthians, and that the latter are dazzled. For his part, the apostle admits that he has failed to advertise his stature, by default allowing the intruders to install themselves in the church. He concedes that at no time has he attempted to impress the Corinthians with what he is, or with what he may have achieved for the Lord. For the moment he becomes the devil's advocate, almost agreeing that when he is present he comes across as nondescript and that his manner of speaking appears to be ignominious (10:10). He allows that he seems to have retreated, fleeing in panic from individuals who superficially are far more resolute and better equipped than he, a man who might be deemed to lack their moral fibre. Yes, he agrees that his critics have said much about themselves while he remains mute, providing no counter-claims. Yes, it is now clear to Paul that the Corinth?ians feel that they have been let down by him, and with a sickly grin he apologizes, acknowledging that, as some see matters, he has been unfair to the church: had their needs been upon his heart he would have been far more positive concerning his record. Had the apostle intended to shame the Corinthians he would have written something like pro;~ ejntroph;n uJmi`n (cf. 1 Cor. 6:5; 15:34). He grants that personal reticence has very nearly become his undoing, and that the alternative apostles have virtually driven him from the field. The first part of 11:21 reads more or less literally: 'I speak by way of shame, for we have been weak', emphasis being placed upon 'we'. The Greek wJ~ o{ti means either 'that' or 'for', the wJ~, 'as', being redundant, or 'as that', meaning 'people have said that'. If the latter, Paul agrees with those who said that he was weak (cf. 5:19; 2 Thess. 2:2). Most commentators prefer the first approach.

Yet at the last moment the apostle pulls matters together. Provoked by the forthrightness of these self-appointed champions of the Corinthian church, the weakling emerges from the shadows where he skulks. Untypically, the hare resolves to face up to the hounds: ' ? but in whatever anyone is audacious ? I speak in foolishness ? I also am audacious'.

Observe that Paul inserts a qualifier, 'I speak in foolishness,' writing in seemingly unthinking fashion. He tells the Corinthians that if the exhibition of prowess by the false apostles is a folly, should he parody his opponents' tactic he will reflect their foolishness. Further, if the church has been prepared to court this batch of fools, they must in fairness hear a man who apparently is no less irresponsible as he catalogues some of the elements of what he knows to be a genuine apostolic ministry. Let his little folly explode like a signal rocket above the raised eyes of the Corinthians. When the display is over, all concerned may return to normality. It is at this point that what is termed by some as Paul's 'fool's speech' begins, as marked by the intensive use of the first person singular ('I' / 'me'). Typically, Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.534.

But for the moment all is abnormal. Paul congratulates himself because he belongs to the elect race, that of the Hebrews.

We know neither the identities of the false apostles nor whence they came, although, by comparison with Galatians 2:12 ('certain men came from James') and Acts 15:1 ('certain men came down from Judea'), it is probable that they were connected in some fashion with the church in Jerusalem. What can be inferred safely enough is that they boasted about having pure Hebrew blood in their veins, about being Israelites and about belonging to the family of Abraham. These provided a foundation for self-congratulation. As Bengel well says (John Albert Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, trans. J. Bandinel, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1857-8, vol. 3. p.422). They were, it almost goes without saying, professing Christians who had undergone baptism.

First, they must have reckoned their lineage a superb qualification for the office of apostle. Not all, indeed perhaps not many, Jews were racially pure, as witness Timothy or, possibly, our Lord (Timothy's father was a Greek, Acts 16:1; in the distant past the aliens Tamar, Rahab and Ruth had all been maternal parents within the line of Judah, Matt. 1:3,5). Paul's point is that if his adversaries are 'Hebrews', he stands with them, a 'Hebrew of the Hebrews' (Phil. 3:5), that he has no Gentile ancestors (of the tribe of Benjamin, Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5) and, by implication, that he is no Hellenist. It is possible that 'Hebrewness' (to coin a term) implied the use of vernacular Aramaic (cf. John 5:2; 19:13,17,20; 20:16; Acts 6:1; 22:2), but this should not be overstressed. Longenecker observes that the assertion that Paul was a Hebrew 'can only mean a Hebraist as against a Hellenist' (Paul, Apostle of Liberty, p.22). The fact that he is a Diaspora Jew from Tarsus, although educated in Jerusalem, does not, he is well aware, prejudice his claim. Acts 9:11,30; 11:25; 21:39; 22:3.

Nevertheless, between the apostle and his detractors there is a fundamental difference. Although Paul never disdains his roots, unlike the opposition he neither here nor elsewhere implies that he is an apostle because, among other considerations, he was born a Hebrew. But if they wish to boast about this, he too is a Hebrew. To illustrate, the museum on the site of ancient Corinth exhibits a Greek synagogue inscription which reads 'Synagogue of the Hebrews' (not 'Synagogue of the Jews'). It is uncertain whether the inscription dates back to the time when Paul entered the synagogue to preach (Acts 18:4). What is definite is that there as elsewhere the Jews were eager to make their lineage known. The apostolic retort is that, within the context of the Corinthian controversy, he is not inferior to his opponents: 'I also'. 'I also' - kajgwv. The Corinthian inscription appears on a broken lintel and reads [SUN]AGWGHEBR[AIWN], possibly designating a meeting-place for Aramaic-speaking Jews, over against others used by Greek-speaking Jews (so Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, p.42). Eusebius declares that Philo the Alexandrian was 'a Hebrew by racial descent', and describes Trypho at Ephesus as 'the most distinguished Hebrew' (Ecclesiastical History, 2.4.2; 4.18.6). One did not have to be born and bred in Palestine to be racially pure.

Further, the intruders exult in the fact that they are 'Israelites', belonging to the covenant people. In the opening part of the Old Testament the line of redemption begins with the predicted offspring of Eve, is narrowed by stages to Abraham and his seed, is refined further to incorporate Isaac and his descendant(s) to the exclusion of Ishmael, and is then confined to the family of Jacob. In time this people accepted a relationship with Yahweh at Sinai: he chose them, and at first they responded eagerly. Eve's offspring: Gen. 3:15;
the seed of Abraham: Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 15:5; 17:7-8; 24:7 (cf. Gal. 3:16);
the descendant(s) of Isaac, excluding Ishmael: Gen. 21:10-12 (cf. Gal. 4:30);
the family of Jacob: Gen. 25:23; 27:27-29; 32:28 (cf. Rom. 9:11-13);
Israel in covenant: Exod. 19:8; 24:3,7.

The false apostles must have exploited their external covenant status, informing gullible Gentiles at Corinth, as well as any of Jewish descent who listened to them, that they were the men of the moment. Although Paul never bases his office upon being an Israelite, he admits here that he has not fallen behind his antagonists in this respect either: 'I also'. Because his credentials as a zealous Jew are immaculate, living as a strict Pharisee before conversion, Acts 22:3; 26:4-5; Phil. 3:5. he understands the hostility displayed by the intruders; there was a time when he persecuted the church of God, which in effect is what they have been doing. Acts 8:3; 1 Tim. 1:13. Cf. Phil. 3:2.

The temperature rises. The intruders have let it be known that they are of 'the seed of Abraham', meaning that they are among the patriarch's true children. Some years prior to the inception of Paul's ministry our Lord was confronted with a similar claim, and he informed his opponents that although this was true for them with respect to their racial origin, in spiritual terms they were children of the devil (John 8:33-41). In essence Paul reflects this analysis. Nevertheless, if the pseudo-apostles insist that Abraham was their remote ancestor, the apostle can match them again: 'I also'.

Their triple assertion is subtle because both sides in the controversy know that God promised Abraham that his 'seed' would be the appointed channel of divine blessing for the Gentile world. The impressive claim of the false apostles, then, has been that as pure Hebrews belonging to the covenant people of Yahweh, and as travelling representatives of the only family on earth appointed by God to convey his revelation to other races, they arrived at Corinth to fulfil both the word of the Lord and their own ancient calling. Paul's response is to boast, albeit with infinite reluctance, that he has not fallen behind them, from which it follows that he cannot be disqualified because of what they are.

A little more ought to be said about claim and counter-claim. Paul was immensely proud of his ancestry, knowing that the Jews were a uniquely privileged people. E.g., Rom. 9:4-5. Nor, when he dictated 11:22, did he decry this. What he does imply strongly is that, notwithstanding their credentials, the bogus apostles are ignorant: they have no awareness of the blossoming of the Messianic Israel in the form of the newly established Christian churches, of the advent of the Messiah, Jesus, the destined seed of Abraham, and about faith in Christ, by which alone both Jew and Gentile can find peace with God. The Messianic Israel: e.g., Gal. 6:16; Eph. 2:12; Phil. 3:3;
Jesus, the ultimate seed of Abraham: Gal. 3:16-17,19; cf. Rom. 4:13,16,18; 9:7;
the necessity for faith in Christ, the only way: e.g., Gal. 3:24. They do not realize that the law of Moses was provisional in that, introduced long after the inception of the covenant with Abraham, it was operative pending the advent of Christ, and that as a unified code it has become redundant (Gal. 3:17,24-25). Their Messianic expectations, supposing that they have any, are inadequate.

In brief, Paul implies that if the Corinthians are prepared to sit under the ministry of pure Hebrews, Israelites who are, to cap it all, of the seed of Abraham, they can do no better than hear him. Moreover, he retains the assurance that his zeal is not uninformed. Cf. Rom. 10:2. Sadly, the people have chosen the worst possible option in that they have followed these foolish men with their 'different gospel' (11:4).

Continuing to speak in a senseless manner, the apostle discards the injunction of Proverbs 27:2: 'Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips,' and launches into an account of what he has endured for his Master.

First, Paul asks if these men are 'servants [Greek, diakonoi] of Christ'. Here, diakonoi has a general meaning, the opponents not claiming that they are church deacons. Cf. Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-13. Although they make out that they are ministers of Christ, serving his interests and doing his will, they are actually servants of Satan (11:15). Taking them at face value as professing ministers of the Lord, Paul lets slip his grave suspicions by asking if it is so, and then delivers an immediate counterstroke: 'I, more'.

The apostle, not admitting for a moment that these men are ministers of Christ, affirms that he remains such. The Greek hyper ego behind 'I, more', unique in the New Testament, suggests that between him and them there is a distance so vast that it negates their claim: 'I, beyond them'. This is sarcasm, as if Paul has completed an outstanding marathon run, only to find that he is the sole finisher. He displays amazement, even apparent disappointment, in that the other competitors have fallen by the wayside even though in his heart he remains unsurprised. In real terms, whereas his rivals are counterfeit apostles, Paul is supremely an apostle: they have achieved less than nothing; he has accomplished so much. In full flow, he pauses to admit that this kind of talk is nonsensical and that he writes 'irrationally', as a fool. 'I speak irrationally' - parafronw`n lalw`. The participle parafronw`n, occurring nowhere else in the New Testament, has a strong meaning, 'being mad'. A related noun, parafroniva, appears in 2 Peter 2:16 with reference to a beast of burden confounding Balaam: 'the madness of the prophet'. Paul confesses to be virtually insane in that he writes in this fashion. He has taken leave of his wits. In the Septuagint (Zech. 7:11; 12:4 only) the meaning is similar. Even if it has to be, he must be taking leave of his senses to place himself on record in this fashion.

So what has the apostle suffered for his Lord? The catalogue, selective rather than exhaustive, opens up. Before the details are considered it is important to note what is not included. Paul makes no mention of a ministry that has brought, and will continue to bring, multitudes of Jews and Gentiles to faith. He has nothing to say about his writings, of which he was undoubtedly conscious that some were, and others, yet to be written, would be inspired, 1 Cor. 2:13; 14:37. and of which over the centuries the surviving copies have probably been more useful than the apostle's unrecorded sermons. Peter eulogizes over Paul's wisdom as encapsulated in his letters (2 Peter 3:15-16), but on this subject their author maintains a resolute silence. Nor does he mention the pastoral assistance he brings to so many believers in the churches which he has established. We hear nothing about his mir?acles, with the exception of 12:12: 'The signs of an apostle were worked out among you.' He does not mention the Damascus-road theophany which brought him from malignant Judaism to faith in the living God. Acts 9:3-9; 22:6-11; 26:12-18; cf. 1 Cor. 15:8.

Why this eloquent silence? The explanation has to be that the apostle is as cunning as he is wise (cf. 12:16: 'I took you in by trickery'). Aware that the Cor?inth?ians know both his record and that of his opponents, he realizes that as he lists some of his experiences, the church, never slow to make comparisons, will take into account the fact that the bogus apostles cannot stand with him. The implied negatives are impressive: the rivals never witnessed a theophany, have brought no one to Christ, have established no churches, have not contributed to the body of literature which, one day, will be accepted as the 'New Testament', have performed no miracles, have not assisted the collection for the Jerusalem saints and have failed to gain the esteem of established leaders.

Therefore Paul can afford to narrow his focus. He will concentrate on the less pleasant aspects of his work, knowing that here, too, the impostors are unable to match him. Developing 6:4-10, The parallels between 6:4-10 and 11:23-33 provide a strong argument for the unity of 2 Corinthians. his point is that if, having sacrificed so much for the Lord, he fights on, does this not suggest that he is what he purports to be, a genuine apostle of Jesus Christ, and that his adversaries are false? Have they suffered as he has? Have they suffered at all? No. In short, they know nothing of what it is to be a minister of Christ. There is a cutting edge to this presentation which must have shocked its hearers when 2 Corinthians was first read to the church. Can we doubt that many tears of remorse were shed?

As nearly every commentator observes, and as has been noted, there is no exact parallel between the ex?peri?ences of Paul as given in the Acts of the Apostles and what he writes about himself here. Equally, there is no contradiction. Neither does Luke, the author of Acts, incorporate a detailed biography of Paul, nor is 11:23-33 meant to be comprehensive. Both are selective, overlapping at times but keeping their distance at others. Here, the apostle declares himself carefully. First, he has been 'in labours, much more'. Superficially, this appears to state that although the false apostles have toiled for the gospel, Paul's endeavours exceed theirs by far. However, the comparative 'much more' may be a superlative, meaning 'most abundant'. 'More abundant' / 'most abundant' - perissotevrw~. Cf. 2:4; 7:13; Gal. 1:14; Phil. 1:14. Plummer remarks helpfully that 'We must not assume that the comparative adverb necessarily implies comparison with his opponents; it may mean ?more abundantly than most men? or ?than you would believe?' (The Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, p.322). In Hellenistic Greek there was a tendency for superlative forms to disappear, allowing comparatives to do duty for them (see Hughes, Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.405, n. 71). If so, the apostle indicates that whereas these men do nothing, his own labours are excessive. For example, have they been observed to support others as well as themselves? No ? but he has.

There would be a similar nuance to 'in prisons, much more'. The NKJV reverses the order, giving 'in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently', unlike the United Bible Societies' Greek text and also the Textus Receptus. 1 Clement 5:6 states that Paul was imprisoned seven times. Whereas Paul was in jail on many occasions and in different places, the intruders have probably never been incarcerated. Prior to the composition of 2 Corinthians there is reference in Acts to only one period of imprisonment, but we are told that several occurred later. Before writing 2 Corinthians: at Philippi, Acts 16:24-40;
elsewhere and later: Acts 22:29; 23:10-11,35; 24:23; 25:4; 26:32; 28:16-17; 2 Tim. 1:8. Undoubtedly, Paul expected to be locked up again and again following his impending visit to Corinth.

He has been beaten 'immeasurably', 'Immeasurably' - uJperballovntw~. Cf. the related verb in 3:10; 9:14. probably meaning that the ferocity of punishments meted out to him was extraordinary rather than that up to the time of writing he had been beaten many times, although this is likely. Two types of beating, by the whip and the rod, are mentioned in 11:24,25. In this respect also his sufferings were as yet incomplete.

And, admits the apostle, he has been 'in deaths, frequently', signifying that there were numerous occasions when he judged that he was as good as dead. This is why Paul writes in 1:8-9 that in Asia '? we despaired even of living. But we had within ourselves the sentence of death', and in 4:11 that 'We, the living, are constantly delivered to death because of Jesus.' The apostle foresees that when he completes his next journey to Corinth there will be more life-threatening situations. Although Agabus later warns him that if he travels to Jerusalem death must stare him in the face, Paul refuses to be dissuaded (Acts 21:10-14).

Because Luke opts for silence on this matter we are unable to tell when and where Paul was whipped by his fellow Jews. Hughes conjectures that the floggings might have occurred at Damascus (Acts 9:23), Jerusalem (Acts 9:29), Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:50), Iconium (Acts 14:2,5) and during the first months at Ephesus (Acts 19:9) (Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.409). All are distinct possibilities. What is so appalling is that these occasions preceded the composition of our present letter, and we can only conjecture what happened after the apostle completed his third missionary journey and sailed back to Palestine (Acts 20:16). Nor should the capacity of the Jews to strike terror into the hearts of the most august in the churches be underestimated. On one notorious occasion Peter lapsed into functional Judaism because he feared 'those who were of the circumcision' (Gal. 2:12; 6:12), although (apparently) he was in no danger of physical harm. For his part, Paul was deemed by his unbelieving fellow-countrymen to merit every punishment short of death itself, and he means to impress his readers by revealing that he has endured the lash, graphically described as 'the forty-less-one' no less than 'five times'.

This chastisement would have been applied in accordance with Deuteronomy 25:1-3. According to Moses, following a dispute between two individuals the guilty person received up to a maximum of forty strokes. In New Testament times whipping was applied within the precincts of a local synagogue and was limited to not more than thirty-nine blows. Matt. 10:17; 23:34; Mark 13:9; Luke 12:11; 21:12; Acts 22:19; 26:11. Possibly this number was selected to avoid a miscount, but also because of a bizarre Jewish tradition which decreed that the figure had to be divisible by three.

According to the Mishnah, a compendium of Jewish thought dating from the early centuries of our era, the victim was bound to a pillar and flogged with a lash of twined calf-hide. In the event of a maximum sentence, thirteen strokes were applied to the chest and twenty-six to the back. If the sufferer died under the hand of the officer of the synagogue the latter was not culpable. Mishnah, Makkoth 3.10-14. Although it is not certain that these prescriptions applied in Paul's day, Josephus, who was roughly contemporary, tells us that to 'receive forty stripes save one from the public lash' was 'this most disgraceful penalty' for a free man. Josephus, Antiquities, 4.238. And Paul was a free man, a citizen of Rome. Nor can there be any doubt that when he endured the whip the apostle remembered that before he came to know the Lord, he, as a matter of policy, had meted out the same treatment to believers. Here he displays no hatred for his persecutors. On the contrary, he records elsewhere that it remained his 'heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel ? that they may be saved' (Rom. 10:1; cf. Rom. 9:1-3).

It is emphasized that the whippings in question were 'by the Jews', not only because in Greek these words stand first, but also because no individuals are mentioned, implying that God's ancestral people had turned decisively against the Messiah and his emissary. Reading between the lines, was it the case that not even the lash could induce Paul to plead Roman citizenship, thereby avoiding much suffering but possibly at the cost of renouncing his Jewishness and creating an unbridgeable gulf between his kind and himself? Paul, a citizen of Rome: Acts 16:37; 22:27-28;
his pre-conversion cruelty to believers: Acts 22:19; 26:11.
Longenecker suggests that Paul's Roman citizenship could have saved him, but that the apostle elected to submit to the lash, even in these crises preferring to remain under the law to those who were under the law (1 Cor. 9:20 ? Paul, Apostle of Liberty, p.248). This makes sense.

Have the false apostles been similarly chastised?

Paul was also beaten three times by Romans, one occasion being that recorded in Acts 16:22-23. At Philippi the apostle and Silas received 'many blows' and, wrote Paul afterwards, were spitefully treated (1 Thess. 2:2). Luke does not mention the other two occasions. Although as a Roman Paul was theoretically immune to such punishment, there were times when the law was neglected by brutal magistrates. Acts 16:37-38; 22:25-26. Josephus says that citizenship was not always a safeguard (Jewish War, 2.309).

And on one occasion, the apostle informs the Corinthians, he had been stoned. This must have been when he visited Lystra during the first missionary journey. Luke does tell us that Paul, never a willing martyr, would have been subject to the same harsh treatment at Iconium also had he not fled rapidly to Lystra and Derbe. Malignant Jews followed him, and at the former place he was reckoned to be dead, being dumped outside the city limits. Stoning was the prescribed Jewish method of execution for blasphemy and, prior to his conversion, Paul himself had been an accomplice to the judicial murder of Stephen. The Jews threatened our Lord with a similar death because he claimed that his Father and he were one. Paul at Lystra: Acts 14:5-6,19;
stoning, the prescribed manner of execution for blasphemy: Lev. 24:16;
the death of Stephen: Acts 6:11; 7:57-60;
the imminent stoning of Jesus: John 10:30-31. That Paul survived at Lystra was, it may be supposed, due to the overruling grace of God because the Jews would have left little to chance.

Prior to writing 2 Corinthians the apostle had travelled by sea at least nine times, From Caesarea to Tarsus (Acts 9:30; cf. Gal. 1:21); from Tarsus to Antioch (Acts 11:25-26); from Seleucia to Salamis in Cyprus (Acts 13:4-5); from Paphos to Perga (Acts 13:13); from Attalia to Antioch (Acts 14:25-26); from Troas to Neapolis (Acts 16:11); from Berea to Athens (Acts 17:14-15); from Cenchrea to Ephesus (Acts 18:18-19); from Ephesus to Caesarea (Acts 18:21-22). and, so he tells the church, was shipwrecked on three occasions. The only such incident mentioned by Luke occurred when Paul sailed to Rome a number of years after the Corinthian ministry (Acts 27:41-44). Danger by sea was not unusual, especially in the winter months (Acts 27:9), which may explain why Luke omits details that would interest us greatly. Josephus records that when he travelled by sea to Rome he suffered shipwreck: 'Our company of six hundred souls had to swim all night' (The Life, 3). He was picked up by a passing ship and landed at Puteoli, where Paul also made landfall (Acts 28:13). The Emperor Augustus' war against Sicily 'was interrupted by two storms which wrecked his fleets', writes Suetonius, and 'in the summer too' (The Twelve Caesars, 2.16.1-2).

The 'night and day' spent by Paul 'in the deep' would have been the aftermath of one of the three shipwrecks, and it can be inferred that his vessel foundered at some distance from shallow waters. He must have clung to wreckage or driftwood to save himself from drowning prior to being rescued. It is likely that Paul was uncertain that he would be picked up, but he hung on tenaciously. The apostle mentions a 'night and a day' because he is a Hebrew, the Old Testament day being reckoned from evening to evening (Lev. 23:32), although here something less than twenty-four hours may be meant. The Jews calculated days and years in relation to the moon, even though the length of a day is determined by the earth's revolution on its own axis around the sun. From an astronomical point of view, the seven-day week is arbitrary. Because the crescent moon can be seen only after sunset, the Jewish day was reckoned from sunset and not from sunrise. The end of one day and the commencement of its successor are described as 'the evening and the morning' (e.g., the days of the creation week, Gen. 1:5,8, etc.).
The Greek nucqhvmeron is probably a noun, the direct object of pepoivhka: 'I made [= 'I have spent'] a night-day in the deep.' The whole represents the part, and it is not necessary to suppose that Paul spent a complete twenty-four hours in the sea, although it is possible. Paul's Jewishness was not forgotten when he was threatened with a watery grave. Nor does his memory slip as he writes to the Corinthians, the vivid perfect tense pepoieka, meaning 'I have spent time in the deep', suggesting that the horror is before his eyes: he can see it.

There is a further consideration. If it is assumed that the date of Paul's conversion was about A.D. 35, by the time he wrote 2 Corinthians he had spent some twenty-two years in the ministry. Averaging out the five Jewish whippings, three Roman beatings, three shipwrecks and one stoning (not to mention the addendum of 11:26-27 and the mini-catalogue of hardships in 6:4-5), we conclude that every other year, at the least, had offered an experience of suffering that might chill the heart and rack the body of the most hardy. That Paul was neither a physical nor nervous wreck speaks volumes about his emotional and bodily fortitude. Whatever a mysterious providence may have hurled at him, he coped. He refused to capitulate. He was determined to serve the Master.

Have his opponents been beaten and stoned? Have they risked their lives at sea to take good news to ignorant heathen and exclusive Jews?

These verses ensure that were Paul alive today he would be solicited by every evangelical publisher on the face of the planet. Here is the stuff of an all-time best seller, unmatched by those stirring biographies of evangelical worthies so properly beloved by the Christian public. Perhaps expanded by a ghost-writer and embellished with a bright cover, the first printing would come off the press in large numbers, this to be no more than a beginning.

What does Paul have to say about his further perils in the service of the King? Only the few words that we read. Yet they are enough for his purpose; let there be a limit to this insanity of boasting in one's adventures. The apostle, we recall, craves to be tolerated should he indulge in a little folly (11:1,16), and little enough it is.

Nothing would be gained were we to try to work out the events or places behind 11:26-27. Nor does the apostle desire his readers to make the effort. The point is that his ministry has at all times been perilous. There has been no relief. The Lord decreed that Paul must 'suffer many things' (Acts 9:16), and so it has come to pass.

The litany reverberates. He has always been on the move, both by land and sea, with all the fatigue that this entailed. On one occasion Paul travelled overland from Jerusalem to Ephesus, about 1,600 kilometres, a remarkable feat. Acts 18:22; 19:1. He had to ford unbridged and swollen rivers, and during his incessant travels he was always vulnerable to attack by bandits and at the mercy of the Jews. The apostle was never free from Gentile menace in city streets, and was permanently exposed to natural hazards in lonely places and at sea. Worse, he found himself in constant peril from 'false brothers' (cf. Gal. 2:4). These, almost certainly associated with the Judaizing 'false apostles' mentioned in 11:13, rather than Christians who failed to live up to expectations, were more intimidating than threats to life and limb, which is why the danger appears at the end of 11:26, even as in 11:28 Paul's care for the churches is mentioned last because it was his heaviest burden.

'In labour and exertion' would point to the apostle's manual labours to avoid being a financial burden to the infant churches. Cf. 11:9; 12:16. The same expression occurs in both 1 Thessalonians 2:9 and 2 Thessa?lonians 3:8, where Paul states that he worked by night and day. The monetary shortfall must have been severe and almost a commonplace state of affairs. Declining to beg, borrow or to complain, he spared no effort to make ends meet, unlike the false apostles who, it may be presumed, were not reluctant to urge their needs upon others.

To what does being 'without sleep' allude? To prayer far into the night, when others slumbered? To overnight travel in order to be at the next rendezvous by crack of dawn? To labour following (or preceding) a day's demanding ministry? Or to all three? This man had much to do for the Lord and little time in which do it. Therefore, it appears, Paul refused to addict himself to sleep. What of his opponents?

'Hunger and thirst' would not have been voluntary fasting but those many occasions when there were insufficient food and water. In our comfortable society it is rare to be without basic essentials. Not so for Paul, a travelling missionary who took his life in his hands. Have the sham apostles lived like this?

Nor was being 'without food' (more literally, 'in fastings') a species of self-imposed denial. The apostle must have been aware that our Lord condemned the hypocrisy of publicizing the practice (Matt. 6:16-18; cf. 6:5), which suggests that Paul refers here to those many times when he was too busy to socialize at the table. His itinerary must have been so crowded that it was not always possible to maintain a routine. This does not mean that the apostle despised good cuis?ine: it was he who declared to a crowd of idolaters that God is 'filling our hearts with food and gladness' (Acts 14:17). Nevertheless, first things had to come first.

'In cold and nakedness' (the latter is also mentioned in Romans 8:35) brings this tale of destitution to something of a climax. 'Nakedness' would suggest his being ill-clad rather than exposure; a man who is unable to warm and cover himself is truly miserable. No Roman consul would have been treated thus by Caesar, yet the one who is rich beyond all splendour deems it appropriate that among the thousands who rally to his banner the apostle to the Gentiles, whose dignity and ambassadorial office are unique, Paul, the ambassador: 5:20. Cf. Eph. 6:20. should be thus deprived. But it has to be, and in any case Paul does no more than share the afflictions of Christ, who had nowhere to lay his head. Matt. 8:20; cf. Rom. 8:35; 1 Cor. 4:11-12; Phil. 4:12. Years later he will request Timothy to bring with him the cloak that he left at the home of Carpus, implying that in jail it has not been easy to come by warm clothing (2 Tim. 4:13). But he never objects.

The interpretation of the opening part of this verse is not as simple as it might appear. 'Apart from' translates the Greek parektos, which elsewhere means 'except' (as in Matt. 5:32). Cf. Matt. 19:9. The probable reference is to Paul's tribulations which he has not chosen to list: they are omitted, his selective catalogue being introduced for purposes of illustration only. Here the apostle hints that there is much more that he could incorporate in his foolish recital, but sufficient ma?terial is being introduced to make his point: 'Apart from what have been left out: a pressure for me which is day by day ? the care of all the churches.' The apostle does not contrast outward adversities and inward tensions, his purpose being to group together all but one of his varied difficulties in an illustrative set different in kind from, and of far less intensity than, this single issue, his day-to-day concern for the churches. Notwithstanding the effect that the former have had upon Paul, they were occasional and not to be compared with his pastoral burdens.

'Pressure' also requires examination. The background Greek epistasis implies stress, and occurs also in Acts 24:12, where Paul denies that he had ever been 'making incitement of the crowd' in Jerusalem, rousing them to harass the authorities. In 11:28 ejpivstasi~ (= 'standing on') means an incessant, unrelenting force which never ceased to make its presence felt. Cf. 2 Macc. 6:3: 'But sore and utterly grievous was the visitation [ejpivstasi~] of this evil [the pollution of the Jerusalem sanctuary].' Day by day an anxious concern for the churches established through his labours bears down upon him; their weaknesses and the known capacity of the Evil One to create havoc are never absent from his thoughts and prayers. The apostle will later tell the Ephesian elders that after his departure some of their own people 'will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves' (Acts 20:30).

One problem with the pseudo-apostles is that they have claimed jurisdiction but do not care. With regard both to the effect of 11:28 upon the Corinth?ians and to the demolition of his antagonists' status, Paul's psychology is astute, and his style, superb.

The weakness to which Paul refers probably involved spiritual naïvety leading to ill-behaviour. Although the issue is dealt with in detail in 1 Corinthians, E.g., 1 Cor. 8:7-12; 9:22; cf. Rom. 14:1,2,21. at this point the apostle is adding a sort of postscript to the earlier letter, showing that his concerns extend to the attitude problems racking the Corinthian fellowship. This does not mean that Paul is eager to act as a mediator in quarrels within the church (having informed his readers that they must look to themselves to settle their disagreements, 1 Cor. 6:5): neither does he wish to be involved, nor do they need his services at this level. There is no joy in taking a dog by the ears (Prov. 26:17). The apostle, accustomed to the foibles of human nature, always judges carefully when to remain aloof.

So what is he saying here? In effect, his well-chosen words are a foil to the slander being offered to the Corinthians by the intruders, who have stated that Paul is a weak man (10:10), that his gospel is inadequate and that they are there to shed light in darkness. Worse, this sad state of affairs must have been aggravated by the superficiality of some within the church. Whereas not a few of the Gentile converts had developed a discerning attitude towards the Greek pantheon, others remained less than sure that the gods were unreal. Given their background, and given that the Judaizers cheerfully cast star dust in their eyes, confusion was threatening to supervene. This is why Paul defends both his gospel and the church against false gods and false apostles. This exposition differs from most, although Barnett comes near (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.550). Surely, it is reasonable to accept that the tensions which generated 1 Cor. 8-10 (and Rom. 14:1 - 15:2, soon to be written when Paul arrived in Corinth) were uppermost in his mind when he penned 11:29. Barrett does not disagree, but suggests that the weakness to which Paul refers might have been lack of strength in any respect (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.301). This cannot be ruled out. Whereas he seems weak in that his life has been a tale of suffering (11:30), he is not morally and spiritually disabled (12:10). Nevertheless, the apostle is kind to the immature, and indignant with any who would harm them.

Here he takes the side of the Gentile convert who is as yet unable to appreciate that the ancestral deities of Greece are nonentities, who is deeply disturbed when he sees an apparently more enlightened, stronger brother eating food previously utilized in heathen rites, and who, oscillating wildly, suspects that the Jewish visitors might have something he needs. We can visualize Paul rebuking confident yet uncaring Christians. He has written already that 'When you thus sin against the brothers and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my [weak] brother stumble' (1 Cor. 8:12-13).

Who at Corinth or elsewhere is 'weak', only to find that a strong Paul refuses to concern himself with his infirmity? No one. The apostle will always protect the fledgling in the nest. Who has been 'caused to stumble', concluding wrongly that the gospel might be removed from ancestral paganism by no more than a step, without a knowledgeable Paul placing his arm around the man's shoulder in sympathy? Again, no one. The apostle becomes incandescent when he learns that immature believers have been bullied by stronger yet graceless Christians and intimidated by self-appointed 'apostles'. Incensed, he rushes to defend those for whom Christ died but who do not yet know the Lord in sufficient depth. If he, their father-in-God, does not intervene, they might spend years in a miasma of doctrinal and moral confusion.

Let the Corinthians, then, search their hearts after they hear Paul's letter read out. Have the Judaizers manifested this concern? Do they burn on behalf of the weak, the vulnerable, the insignificant and the unlearned? No. They are too grand.

Application

Paul was aware that many boasted because of what they considered their superior status. For his part, although his credentials were second to none, the apostle refused to parade them to impress others. He boasted, it is true, but 'not according to the flesh' (11:18). It is right that we should be the best that we can be, and it is not wrong to strive for creature comforts and a place among our fellows. Nevertheless, sufficiency and position must not be ends in themselves; nor should we be covert materialists: everything is to be considered disposable and placed upon the altar of Christian service. Our Lord taught that we are to seek 'first the kingdom of God and his righteousness' and that, if we do this, 'all these things' ? the essentials of life ? will be 'added' (Matt. 6:33). Priorities ought to come first.

Among the Lord's people sins such as adultery and dis?honesty are rightly anathematized, but sometimes bad temper is not deemed to be quite so evil. In a way it is not. In another way it is equally wrong (Gal. 5:20). We must control ourselves, especially at church meetings. Never come to such a gathering without trying to spend time in prayer beforehand.

And what about the quest for status within the church? The Corinthians were bedazzled by the intruders, refusing to consider the doctrinal content of their preaching and where it might take them. Because we ought to be associating with those who want to know more about the Lord, relationships should come under careful scrutiny.

Paul was ever loyal to the churches in his care, but they were also burdens which nearly crushed the life out of him (11:28). As far as we are concerned, church membership, rather like matrimony, ought not to be entered upon lightly or unadvisedly, but thoughtfully and reverently. Too many Christians are allowed to become church members without adequate preparation. Tending to walk away when problems arise or when the novelty wears off, they grieve others and harm themselves.

Ostracism: the ultimate degradation
(2 Corinthians 11:30-33)

The apostle asks again if it is necessary for him to boast. If so, it will be solely in the domain of personal 'weakness' (11:30). Thus far, Paul's catalogue of deprivations has been restricted to external pressures which, but for God's help, must have destroyed him. Now, before proceeding to the climax of his fool's speech, when the attention of the Corinthians will be drawn to his personal 'thorn for the flesh' (12:7-10), the apostle outlines his flight from Damascus, an event that occurred a number of years pre?viously. The reminiscence is subtle in that it highlights the truth that social ostracism has also been his lot. Paul implies in the most gentle manner that the false apostles are disabled by their security. Never having been constrained to rely upon God for salvation, sanctification, survival and service, they have nothing good to offer.

No one would covet Paul's lifestyle as recounted in the preceding verses. How unlike the intruders, who desire painless glory! This being so, the apostle proposes in due course to outshine them, revealing an experience calculated to turn his adversaries green with envy.

None the less, Paul takes no pleasure in anything other than the grace of God. Again, we see a flash of irony because the false apostles delight to publicize their standing as socially advantaged Jews. If, then, bragging is necessary ? and, sadly, this obnoxious folly has its own urgency ? Paul 'will boast' about his particular brand of infirmity. The apostle has confided that he identifies with the weak brethren at Corinth, but this does not imply that he is strong, able at all times to resolve every need, counter every attack and face up to every contingency. He experiences bouts of weakness so severe that he has to cry to God for succour.

The subtlety of this verse, which hones the theme of a little folly (11:1) to razor sharpness, is that any advertisement of Paul's weakness is the obverse of glorying in the power of God to sustain someone who is no more than an earthen vessel (4:7). To the extent that the bogus apostles entertain no sense of need, they have nothing to say about the grace of God. Paul brings his anathema of these servants of Satan to its devastating climax. Hughes observes that this verse fits the tenor of the letter, which majors on the lowliness of the human instrument and the powerful grace of God; cf. 1:8-10; 2:12-16; 3:5; 4:7-10,16-17; 5:1-2; 6:4-5; 7:5-6; 10:17-18; 12:1-2,9; 13:4 (Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.418). This is consistent with the original integrity of 2 Corinthians.

The reference to 'the things that concern my weakness' declare that infirmity is a virus which has infiltrated the apostle's system. It has become obvious that here is a man who, were he denied God's mercies, would be totally destitute. On the other hand, wanting little or nothing, Paul's adversaries lack everything. The apostle's dagger is barbed.

The future tense, 'I will boast', gives notice that Paul is about to sketch an event which, beyond all other experiences, has shown him to be a man who is not strong. 'Weakness' refers neither to moral flaws nor to trials which have or have not been mentioned, and of which there must have been many, but to one incident which, par excellence, has served to show that between him and the pseudo-apostles there is an impassable gulf.

What Paul proposes to disclose is so amazing, so liable to be discounted as gross untruth, that he prefaces his narrative with an oath of immense proportions: Some, such as Hodge, think that Paul refers to what he has written already (1 & 2 Corinthians, p.654). This approach overlooks the necessity for protection as the apostle launches into an astounding disclosure. In this letter other oaths and affirmations are found in 1:18,23; 2:10; 11:11. the one with whom the apostle rests his case and to whom he appeals is the ever-blessed 'God and Father of the Lord Jesus', that is to say, the one who is simultaneously Redeemer and Judge. The nominative cast of the statement shows that 'who is blessed for ever' refers to 'God the Father', also nominative, rather than to 'the Lord Jesus', which appears as a genitive. Adjectival phrases agree in number, gender and case with their principals. Intensely Hebrew in form, Cf. 1: 3; Mark 14:61; Luke 1:68; Rom. 1:25; 9:5. this solemn af?fi?davit exhibits the eternal relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity, as also the bond which the incarnate Jesus sustains with his heavenly Father, doctrines which the false apostles would almost certainly not have accepted. Paul appeals to God in order to attack the intruders and to create an impact on the doubting souls who wait upon these sham emissaries. The apostle shows that he is a Jew, even as they are, and asserts that his ministry is truly apostolic, even as theirs is not. To reinforce his plea he introduces a clever word-play in that, whereas his antagonists are pseudo-apostles (11:13), he does not indulge in untruth, the Greek behind 'I do not lie' being pseudomai.

Paul is conscious that he is being slandered by some as a 'yes-no' sort of person whose word should not be trusted (1:18). In order to cut short needless discussion about his reliability he appeals to the highest authority, who casts his eyes upon what he writes. No Judaizer bent on subverting the church can fail to be impressed. Paul, the erstwhile malicious Pharisee, exposes himself to the wrath of the triune Yahweh in the event of a deceit, and his adversaries must know that he would never imperil himself in this fashion. Developing the assertion of truth?fulness in 11:10, what we see here is a pre-emptive strike which denies the opposition room for manoeuvre. A similar ploy occurs in Galatians 1:20, where he says, 'Now concerning the things which I write to you, before God, I do not lie.'

But before bringing his exposition of strength-through-weakness to its dramatic conclusion, the apostle points his readers to a definitive event: his ignominious flight from Damascus.

Upon first glance these verses appear to be something of an afterthought, cramming in a little more data concerning Paul's numerous difficulties. It seems that he recalls the time when he fled from Damascus, being lowered in a basket from an aperture in the city wall, and feels that this is an anecdote which, if tacked on to his fool's speech, will give the Corinthians more reason to gasp. But, if this is why Paul brings in 11:32-33 we are left with the conclusion that the mini-narrative would have been better situated elsewhere in the chapter, incorporated perhaps in 11:23. In this case we could restructure in the following fashion: 'Are they ministers of Christ? ? I speak irrationally ? I more. In Damascus the governor, under Aretas the king ?' Some might not discern any peculiarity in such a format. The two verses have sometimes been considered out of place. Martin writes, 'It is safer to assume that the 10. do serve a purpose', then adding a proviso: 'if such a purpose can be discovered' (2 Corinthians, p.384). These notes suggest why 11:32-33 were born into a good home.

Nevertheless, upon examination it can be seen that Paul's recollection is inserted in the right place, worded in the right way and set down for an excellent reason. Thus far the apostle has outlined his sufferings at the hands of Jews and Gentiles, from enemies within the churches and by virtue of being a travelling man. Here he concentrates his readers' attention upon a further distinctive characteristic of his ministry: the fact of his being an outcast. Unlike his prestigious adversaries, Paul has never enjoyed esteem and honour in the world in which he moves. That he has hazarded his life by land and sea casts no reflection upon his integrity, nor that he has been pursued so often by his own unruly race (cf. Acts 18:2). But in that he was compelled long ago to flee from a noble and ancient city, Damascus, because the civic authorities planned to imprison him, or worse, his mind is branded with the stigma that he has become 'the filth of the world, the scum of all things until now' (1 Cor. 4:13).

This conviction weighed upon Paul as time passed, and it would be wrong to underestimate its gravity. Like his Lord, Paul has already 'suffered outside the gate' (Heb. 13:12), and will do so again. Philippi and Thessalonica turned him out, and the apostle deemed it expedient to depart from Ephesus. He will end his days by enduring martyrdom at Rome. Acts 16:39; 17:8-9; 20:1; 2 Tim. 4:6. In short, the present verses introduce an extra dimension to Paul's catalogue of miseries. No man wants to be alone, and the apostle is no exception even though his ministry and message are destined to isolate him from the mainstream of society. A prologue to his life's work, the episode of the fish basket has summed it all up: The Greek behind 'basket' is sargavnh, properly a net to catch fish or perhaps a mat basket. Acts 9:25 employs spuvri~, meaning a hamper (cf. Josh. 2:15; 1 Sam. 19:12). Barnett justifies the insertion of the Damascus incident here by suggesting that 'being ?lowered down? in these verses symmetrically counterpoises his description of the man who was ?caught up? into the ?third heaven/paradise? (12:2,4)' (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.553). This is possible, although Barnett has little to say about the overriding theme of Paul's ostracism. the proud Pharisee entered Damascus with a force of Levite police and fled in peril of his life. 'Escaped by flight' - ejxevfugon. Although rejected, he nevertheless exults in Christ.

The ingenuity of the flight narrative is brought out by the parenthetic 'if it is necessary to boast' in 11:30 and 'It is necessary to boast, though not profitable' in 12:1. 'If it is necessary to boast', 11:30 - eij kaucavsqai dei`; 'it is necessary, though not profitable' (12:1) - kaucavsqai dei`, ouj sumfevron mevn. The United Bible Societies' reading is adopted here, although there are variations. Paul asserts that at the inception of his ministry he was given to understand that, marked down as a social leper, he would gain no worldly honours and that no community would thank him for proclaiming the Saviour. This explains why he mentions Aretas, a man who was not a Jew and whose administration, egged on by Jewish fanaticism, compelled Paul to flee. It is also possible that during his stay in Arabia (Acts 9:23; Gal.1:17) the apostle vexed Aretas by his evangelistic endeavours, and that upon his returning to Damascus the ruler determined to seize him: the city gates were guarded from within to prevent Paul from leaving. Cf. Josephus: 'He [Varus, an administrator of Agrippa] was guarding all the exits [of Gamala], so that none should escape' (The Life, 53).

The situation of Aretas' deputy in the city (Greek, ethnarch, 11:32) is unclear. Suggestions abound. Hughes has an important note on Aretas and Paul's chronology which could hardly be bettered (Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, pp.424-8). He may have been a viceroy if Aretas was the ruler of Damascus at the time, or he may have been the king's representative looking after the interests of his Nabatean subjects in the city. So F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (London: Tyndale Press, 1970 [first published 1951]), p.205. Be this as it may, Luke's account in Acts 9:23-25 complements 11:32-33, and by placing them in tandem we discern the pathos of Paul's words.

Were the false apostles ever cast out by their own kind? Have the cities to and from which they travel been known to deport them as undesirables? Although they do not know what it is to bear the cross of Christ, Paul does. And God understands (11:31). Therefore the Corinthians should take note. The apostle continues to provoke: the one who brings fortresses of sinful unbelief crashing to the ground (10:4-5) began his ministry by being lowered down a fortified city wall! The paradox remains as one of the principal hallmarks of Paul's ministry.

These verses are also of some importance because they help to illuminate his early days in the Lord's service. At this point it might be helpful to sketch a picture of Aretas because the abrupt introduction of his name suggests that he was not unknown to the Corinthians.

In one interesting respect Aretas, described by Paul as 'the king', was remarkable. His domain was the border kingdom of Nabatea, an Arabian state that stretched from the Euphrates in the north-east to the Red Sea in the south. He held his throne from about 9 B.C. until A.D. 40, a span of nearly fifty years. This means that Aretas spent most of his life at the turn of the ages and only a few kilometres from the land of Israel. He was in situ when Joseph and Mary were betrothed, when our Lord was born, when Christ suffered, rose and ascended, and when the Spirit was given at Pentecost. Aretas must have known something about the life and times of Jesus and about the growth of the early church. He remained in power when Paul was met by Christ on the road to Damascus, and, so the apostle informs us here, one of his officials was guarding that city in order to lay hands upon him.

That is not all. Aretas was father-in-law to Herod Antipas, called by Jesus 'that fox' (Luke 13:31-32), and the ablest son of his father Herod the Great. In A.D. 23 Antipas became infatuated with Herodias, wife of his half-brother Herod Philip, and to marry her he divorced his own wife, the daughter of Aretas, the incestuous union leading to the death of John the Baptist. The death of John the Baptist: Matt. 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29. Angered by his daughter's humiliation, Aretas went to war against Antipas and inflicted a severe defeat on him in A.D. 32. Herod then appealed to Caesar Tiberius, who commanded Vitellius, Governor of Syria, to march against Aretas and bring him to Rome dead or alive. Tiberius died before this could be accomplished (A.D. 37), and the campaign was called off. Josephus, Antiquities, 8.109-25.

With respect to dates, 11:32-33 suggest that Paul's escape would not have been later than A.D. 40, and to judge by the reference in Galatians 1:17-18 to his three years' sojourn in Arabia, The three years might indicate any length of time from one full year with a part of a year on either side, to three full years. Cf. the notes on 11:25. the apostle would have been converted during the mid-thirties of the first century.

Application

In this letter, as elsewhere, Paul, a man of vast accomplishments, always implies that his work is as nothing in contrast to the kindness of God to him. We should never flaunt ourselves because, first, the Lord dislikes pompous Christians and, second, the world needs to hear about the Saviour rather than about us. Let others know how gracious the Lord is.

Unfortunately, some men will never learn. Aretas the Arabian was close to personalities and events of infinite importance to Christians, but there is no evidence that he came to faith. The sole reference to him in the Bible, 11:32, presents him as someone who tried to seize Paul. He remains as a warning for those who know about the Lord yet never seek to know him.

10. Paradise, the 'thorn' and the imminent third visit
(2 Corinthians 12:1 - 13:10)

Visions, revelations and the 'thorn'
(2 Corinthians 12:1-10)

Compelled to continue reacting to the prating of the pseudo-apostles, Paul brings us to the climax of his fool's speech, disclosing two events which in tandem have refined his ministry: the occasion years before when he was taken to paradise, and the bestowal of the so-called 'thorn for the flesh'. Declining to provide details in either case, the apostle simply makes the point that he has refused to consider the former as an evidence of spiritual superiority but remains grateful for an affliction which is beneficial in that it compels him to lean upon the Lord for help. And help has never been lacking: not only has Paul survived, he continues to radiate that God-given strength which makes him an effective minister of the gospel. False apostles, no doubt, would have seen matters in another light. Rejoicing in their ancestry, in social one-upmanship and in alleged spiritual blessings, they would have lamented personal frailties, had they experienced such things. But not Paul. Sensitive to his potential for conceit, he admits that he needs this burden and rejoices that it purges him of proud self-reliance.

Thus Paul distances himself from the swaggering pseudo-apostles. Preening themselves, by their com?fort?able manner of life they give the impression to the undiscerning that they are purveyors of genuine Christianity. The apostle tells out the truth that God manifests himself to and through his servants when they are most conscious of their inabilities, and that as far as the Corinthians are concerned, he, Paul, is an embodiment of the principle. From this it follows that the intruders are to be avoided: they match Paul neither in the magnitude of the revelations granted to him nor in the way the Lord has upheld him in adversity.

Some commentators translate with 'It is necessary to go on boasting. Though not profitable, I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.' The sense does not differ much in either case. So Kistemaker, II Corinthians, p.405. dei`, 'it is necessary', is supported by a variety of important manuscripts. Highly embarrassed because he feels it essential to divulge a sacred spiritual experience, the apostle safeguards himself by asserting that the procedure will give him no personal satisfaction: '? though not profitable'. The admission distances him further from his antag?on?ists, who have not been known for their modesty.

It is probable that the pseudo-apostles boasted about visions and other supernatural revelations from God, and that they let it be known that they were Paul's superiors with respect to personal spirituality. The inference is safe because had no such claims been made the apostle would never have disclosed his rapture to paradise. What would be the point? Further, Paul does not waste words in debating whether or not his opponents' vaunted spiritual experiences were genuine. It may be concluded that he assumes them to be spurious on the ground that the Lord does not grant visions and revelations to the servants of Satan (11:15). The apostle also assumes, no doubt, that his silence on this point will be noticed.

Further, Paul was writing at a time when the churches possessed an unfinished Bible, and he must have been aware of this. For discussions of this view, see Budgen, The Charismatics and the Word of God, pp.73-86; Naylor, 1 Corinthians, pp.251-83; Wilson, 2 Corinthians, p.154, n. 1. We have in our hands more than the apostle had in his, and yet although the Scriptures are the final revelation of the plan of redemption, they do not tell all. For instance, they never show how this plan is applied to each believer in terms of, say, who it was that introduced him to the faith. Nor do they unfold the details of his pilgrimage in this world, nor give us the date when the Lord will return. Indeed, the sole objective revelation for which we wait is that of the Saviour at his second advent (1 Cor. 1:7). Cf. Rom. 2:5; 8:19; 2 Thess. 1:7; 1 Peter 1:7,13; 4:13.

This understanding is not prejudiced by the fact that the churches of the New Testament received inspired communiqués which have not been preserved. The daughters of Philip were prophetesses, but we have not a word of their Spirit-given sayings (Acts 21:9). It is so with what Paul is about to share in 12:2-4. Neither authentic yet unrecorded proph?ecies nor the apostle's rapture to paradise were reckoned to contribute to a definitive statement of the mystery of Christ. It is this delimitation that indicates the seriousness of the challenge posed by the bogus apostles.

Not only were they leading the Corinthians towards a species of Judaism; the intruders must have asserted that further authoritative disclosures concerning the programme of salvation were being channelled through them. If this was the case ? and, to repeat, the narrative of the rapture to paradise would not make sense were it not so ? the collision between these men and Paul was not only about spirituality but also about authority. Both sides admitted that God speaks through men, but there they parted company: Paul and the false emissaries were clashing head-on over who should be credited as media of revelation.

This is why the apostle deems it necessary to prolong his little folly even though it gives him no joy and because the ploy does not bear, even remotely, upon the question of the validity of his office. Further??more, why should he share with others, friend and foe alike, those secret sessions spent privately with his Lord, and risk being considered vain? The answer is that Paul is in a cleft stick: because the needs of the moment are so compelling he declares himself, yet in a highly selective fashion. Assuming that the intruders have made out that they are authoritative exponents of the divine economy, he counters by confiding that he has been granted an experience which, notwithstanding its grandeur, has contributed nothing to any other man's understanding of Christ. The rivals cannot match him in this respect, either. What, then, if the apostle should unfold further details of the mystery of God, as he does elsewhere? Cf. Rom. 11:25; 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:1,7; 4:1; 15:51; Eph. 1:9; 3:3,4,9; 5:32; 6:19; Col. 1:26-27; 2:2; 4:3. Paul shames his opponents.

'Visions and revelations of the Lord' might have either or both of two meanings, 'visions and revel?ations of [= about] the Lord' (Acts 7:55; Gal. 1:12,16), or, which may be less likely, 'visions and revelations from the Lord'. kurivou being either a subjective or an objective genitive, (or both?). One difference between vision and revelation could be that the former was something seen, whether actually or in the mind's eye, whereas the latter, even if transmitted in the form of a vision, focused upon the scheme of redemption. Paul lays claim to visual experiences and to being both a receptor and a secondary transmitter of part of this plan.

There is more. The imminent disclosure of the rapture to paradise is an essential precursor to what Paul will say about the 'thorn for the flesh'. It was within the framework of 'the abundance of reve?lations' (12:7) that he had been cut down, and had it not been so he might have been smitten with arrogance. As it is, the false apostles share neither Paul's spiritual experiences nor the chastening of the Lord. They remain in culpable darkness.

Paul's extreme modesty appears in the manner by which he tells his readers that there was an oc?casion, years before, when he found himself in the 'third heaven'.

First, he refers to himself indirectly as 'a man in Christ'. That the latter is none other than the apostle is certain because the passage loses meaning if Paul exults in someone else's experiences when defending himself against the intruders. Why bring in a third party possibly unknown to the Corinthians? This is confirmed by 12:7, in which the apostle refers to the abundance of the revelations granted to him. The issue lies between him and his opponents rather than among him, them and an anonymous believer.

Although Paul had already received his call to apostleship when he was taken up to heaven, he does imply that he was granted this signal blessing to strengthen his ministry. He is aware that at that time he was regarded by heaven as no more than an ordinary believer and someone who by definition received all that he had from the Lord. As an apostle ? which he then was ? he neither deserved nor contrived the journey, although (as events proved) he needed it. 'Such a one', an ordinary, run-of-the-mill Christian, travelled to, and then entered, the celestial abode of God. The Lord was preparing him for the future.

Further, Paul acknowledges that when this happened he did not know if he was being admitted to 'the third heaven' physically or spiritually. Either might have been the case, and neither was impos?sible. God knew then and, many years later, God alone knows. Enoch and Elijah were taken up to heaven physically (Gen. 5:24; Heb. 11:5; 2 Kings 2:11), as was our Lord (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9-11). Those saints who will be alive when Christ returns are to ascend in bodily form to meet and greet him (1 Thess. 4:17). That the blessed dead are present with the Lord spiritually in the inter-adventual period is certain (e.g. Luke 23:43; Phil. 1:23; Rev. 6:9-11), and the apostle has taught this explicitly in our letter (5:1). Here, the doctrine is assumed. Had they been granted admission to the glory, the pseudo-apostles would have long since embellished their story with marvellous details. Paul displays a tactical nonchalance.

The apostle asserts that he was 'carried away' to the third heaven. 'Carried away' translates a Greek verb, harpazo, which can mean variously 'to snatch', 'to take away' or 'to grasp eagerly'. Saints who are alive in this world when the Lord returns will be snatched up to meet him (1 Thess. 4:17), and the ascension of our Lord is pictured in terms of the man-child, the son of the persecuted woman, being caught up to God and to his throne (Rev. 12:5). Here, Paul means that what happened to him was an act of grace in that the Lord, desiring to have the apostle with him for a time, removed him from this world.

This is why he was transported 'as far as' 'the third heaven', suggesting the remoteness and inaccessibility of the abode of God. e{w~ followed by the genitive denotes 'as far as'. Although much has been written on this subject, it is at least certain that the apostle refers to the non-material habitat that transcends the created universe. 'The number three is used as a perfect number to indicate what is highest and most complete,' remarks Calvin. Calvin, 2 Corinthians, p.156. The parallelism between 'the third heaven' here and 'paradise' in 12:4 establishes the identification. The expression 'the third heaven' is unique to 12:2, and the question is properly raised as to whether the apostle devised it personally or derived it from elsewhere. It is known that the Jews sometimes considered the abode of God as the third tier of heaven, as in chapters 2-3 of the apocryphal Testament of Levi. Some considered that God dwells in the seventh heaven, or even beyond (e.g. 1 Enoch; 2 Enoch; 3 Baruch). In the Old Testament Moses declares that 'Heaven and the highest heavens belong to Yahweh your God' (Deut. 10:14), where 'heaven' is a Hebrew dual (= 'the two heavens'), a wooden translation being something like: 'the two heavens and the heavens of the two heavens'. That is, God is Lord both of the created universe and of his abode, which is as distinct from the heavens as they, in turn, are from the earth's surface (cf. 1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chr. 2:6; 6:18; Neh. 9:6; Ps. 68:33; 148:4). There is no need to agree with Barrett, who holds that Paul believed that the heavens were a number of overlapping shells (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.310). The best view is that the apostle derives the figure from the Old Testament. Hodge provides an excellent criticism of the liberal approach (1 & 2 Corinthians, p.658). In any case, why should Paul, who had been to heaven, borrow ideas from extra-canonical traditions?
One might suspect that the apostle compresses the Old Testament 'heaven of heavens' into 'the third heaven'. If so, the meanings are identical.

Although the event had happened fourteen years previously, some years before the establishment of the church at Corinth, this is the only time that Paul alludes to the matter, and he only does so here because he is under pressure. The apostle's extreme reluctance is a deliberate attack upon the intruders, any one of whom would have embroidered his narrative with the first person singular, 'I', in order to bolster his authority: 'I must be an apostle because (unlike Paul) I have actually been to heaven and in the presence of God.' And would they have held back for fourteen years before informing all and sundry?

In other words, Paul's almost incidental narration serves an interest. Blithely aware that his opponents are being left far behind, he has come to see in retrospect that the rapture was intended to prepare him for the severities of his calling; lowered down the wall of Damascus in considerable disarray, he was, as a counterpoise, caught up rapidly to the glory of heaven. All this implies that the antagonists' efforts to impress others with their alleged spiritual encounters must collapse; even if they were blessed with visions and revelations (which is improbable, to say the least), these would in no sense justify their high-handed attitude towards the Corinthians and Paul.

We know that the event occurred fourteen years before the time of writing of 2 Corinthians, that is, about A.D. 43, possibly when Paul was in Cilicia following his departure from Jerusalem (Acts 9:30). It was definitely not the Damascus-road vision, which occurred some years earlier and about which Paul is never reluctant to speak. Nor could it have been his state of ecstasy in Jerusalem about three years after that, nor the revelation which induced him to travel there. Paul's conversion: Acts 9:3; 22:6; 26:12-13;
the ecstatic vision in Jerusalem: Acts 22:17-18;
a revelation leading to a journey to Jerusalem: Gal. 2:2; Acts 11:29-30. In that the content of each of these visions is revealed in Acts and elsewhere, none of them identifies with 12:2-4. Because Paul intends us to know when and not where the rapture occurred, it would be wise to refrain from conjecture. Like the Corinth?????ians, we are limited to the present data.

Paul's devastation of the pseudo-apostles continues. As has been said earlier, this commentary takes the view that 'paradise' was the third heaven. If 12:2 and 12:3-4 refer to different excursions, albeit granted to the same man, more problems of interpretation are created than might be solved. Why mention two distinct events which in their essentials were so similar? And what would be the difference between 'the third heaven' and 'paradise' if these terms do not point to the same locale? On the other hand, parallelism makes excellent sense. In 12:2 Paul explains the destination to which he was conveyed, 'up to' or 'as far as' the dwelling of God and the court of heaven, and in 12:3-4 he hints about what occurred within its precincts: snatched away 'into' paradise, he became both a spectator and a listener.

The following table shows that 12:2 is expanded by 12:3-4: With acknowledgements to Kistemaker, II Corinthians, p.407.

Table

12:2	12:3-4
I know a man in Christ: fourteen years ago	And I know such a man
(whether in the body, I do not know; or out of the body, I do not know ? God knows)	(whether in the body or beyond the body, I do not know ? God knows),
such a one was carried away as far as the third heaven	that he was carried away into paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to tell.

'Paradise', we are told, was originally a Persian word. It is found in the Hebrew Old Testament, where it means a park, orchard or garden enclosure. Neh. 2:8; Eccles. 2:5; S. of S. 4:13. Transliterated into Greek it appears in the Septuagint frequently but is particularly prominent in Genesis 2 and 3, where it translates the usual Hebrew word for 'garden'. 'Paradise' - paravdeiso~ - sDer]P¾. In the New Testament it occurs here in 12:4, in Luke 23:43 ('Today you will be with me in paradise'), and in Revelation 2:7 ('the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God'). Each reference concerns the blessedness of the people of God when they pass from this world to a better one. Whether or not the afterlife will exhibit the attributes of a garden is beyond our knowledge, although, of course, Paul knew because he went there ? but he refuses to tell. What is definite is that the term denotes the dwelling-place of God, of the angelic hosts and of those saints who are currently 'present with the Lord' (5:8). The latter are beyond the reaches of sin and its effects. They rest, as in a garden.

The apostle implies that in paradise he saw much. Further ? and this is his major point ? sight was accompanied by sound. Paul, either disembodied like the saints in glory or bodily as a material presence in a spiritual environment, overheard certain declar?ations. rJhvmata, not lovgoi. Bent on tantalizing his readers, at this point he maintains strict secrecy. Who said what, and to whom, and what was heard by him are not revealed. He does say that the declarations were 'inexpress?ible words', a[rrhta rJhvmata - 'inexpressible [or, unutterable] words [or, utterances]'. the disclosure of which would be unlawful. ejxo;n, always in the New Testament with the meaning 'lawful' (e.g. Matt. 12:4; Acts 2:29). Paul may mean that the heavenly words were beyond translation but that, had they been capable of interpretation, he would have been forbidden to share them with others. In the literature the adjective a[rrhto~ was used in connection with matters that had to be kept secret. Plutarch (c. A.D. 45-120) refers to secret, unspeakable things kept from the eyes and ears of the multitude by mystic rites and ceremonies (Isis and Osiris, 360F). At an earlier time Herodotus (c. 484-430 B.C.) writes that the people of Epidaurus in Greece had 'certain secret [a[rrhtoi] rites' as well as the Athenians (5.83).

The obvious question arises as to why this happened. As has already been remarked, although it was not to induct Paul to the office of apostle, a position which he had held for a number of years, there must have been a connection. The first mission?ary journey to Cyprus and Asia Minor did not occur until about A.D. 47-48, several years after the rapture to paradise, this expedition being preceded by ministry in Antioch (Acts 11:26; 13:1-3) and followed as time passed by two more journeys and then the voyage to Rome, with further travels after that. We are allowed to infer that the apostle, then on the threshold of his life's work among the Gentiles, was taken into the garden of God in order to consolidate his sense of vocation, the hazards outlined in 11:23-27 demanding a vast resource to carry Paul through the years of suffering predicted at the time of his conversion (Acts 9:16). It may be supposed that, apart from Christ, no man has been afflicted to the same degree as the apostle to the Gentiles, and it can be imagined that, again with the exception of our Lord, who never forgot the glory which he shared with the Father before the beginning of the world (John 17:5), no man has received the spiritual blessings vouchsafed to the apostle. They were an immense and, as events proved, a necessary benefit.

Paul's words are a coded indictment of the false apostles. Neither have they been summoned to the apostolic office, with all its dangers, nor has their 'vocation' been reinforced by something as spectacularly wonderful as the rapture to paradise.

'On behalf of such as he I will boast.' Although he never deserved, imagined, or requested it, Paul received a blessing of incomparable splendour ? a stay in heaven. Because, as Hodge remarks, 'It was a gratuitous favour' and 'implied no superiority on the part of the subject [that is, Paul] of this act of divine goodness', it 'might be gloried in without assuming any special merit to himself'. Hodge, 1 & 2 Corinthians, p.659. The apostle rejoiced privately because he was removed to heaven fourteen years before writing 2 Corinthians, and he entertains no scruples about continuing to exult; whatever else it was, the experience was not a recompense for services rendered to the Lord. Nevertheless, he has no desire to flaunt a blessing that has made his heart leap, which is why, as Tasker notes, 'He again speaks about the recipient of the vision as though he were someone other than himself.' Tasker, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, p.172. Although he cannot benefit personally from exhibitionism, nor does he want to, Paul applies necessary therapy to an immature church (11:17; 12:1).

But, it may be asked, why should he not narrate what he has achieved for Christ? The question must have flashed through the apostle's mind on many occasions. What of those long years of self-sacrifice for his Master, with more to follow? Why should he not share these experiences with his many friends? In the event, Paul allows Christ, and not himself, to be the final arbiter (1 Cor. 4:4), he maintaining his silence. Nothing that he suspects might turn out to his credit as a faithful servant will ever be mentioned: '? but I will not boast on my own behalf'. Unlike the intruders, Paul refuses to flaunt himself. His foolish narrative of personal affliction is not, of course, an essay in pomposity.

And it is this painful aspect of Paul's life which can properly be expounded. The most deplorable of his sufferings to be noted thus far is the stigma of social rejection (11:23-33). But thus far is not far enough, and more must be added. With his qualifier '? except in weaknesses' (12:5) Paul is signalling that a fresh disclosure is upon the near horizon.

But before he proceeds to divulge this to the Corinthians, in 12:6 the apostle backtracks slightly to elaborate what he has written; he challenges the church. Suppose that he desires to place his numerous spiritual experiences before the people in order to reduce them to wondering admiration. In this event, far from being 'foolish', he would do no more than 'tell the truth'; such grounds for adulation do exist. The problem with such a tactic is that it must be counter-productive. Although the Corinthians are foolish in that they have entertained the Judaizers, they will discern pretentiousness if he tries to impress. Paul struggles to hold their respect, an affection which has been damaged but not destroyed. He maintains a discreet silence lest any individual might impute to him a grandeur that would eclipse the glory of the gospel.

After all, on the surface this apostle was at best an impoverished traveller who often found himself in trouble with the authorities. In his many public declarations he courted ridicule because he avoided rhetorical flamboyance when proclaiming a message repugnant to Jews and Greeks alike (1 Cor. 1:23). Let it remain like this. If his hearers were to be so impressed by his self-advertisement that they inclined to follow the man rather than attend to the message, Christ must be downgraded. This must not be. Paul will not be praised by his own lips. He will 'refrain, lest anybody should impute to me more than he sees me to be or hears from me'. Understandable curiosity on the part of the Corinthians remains unsatisfied; let the church regard the apostle in himself as no more than a brother in Christ.

The sentence commencing at 12:6 extends: '? even in the abundance of revelations'. Following Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.567, n. 5, the opening kai; is interpreted as explicative: 'even', 'specifically' or 'that is'. The apostle is aware that the saints might not be alone in elevating him to a level above his accustomed and proper station; the lingering memory of the rapture to paradise might give him airs and graces unbefitting his office, thus rendering him obnoxious and hence useless both to the Lord and to the church. As a merciful prophylactic for a potential hazard there has arrived the 'thorn for the flesh'. Paul does not tell us much about this 'thorn', but we do know something.

The Greek word behind 'thorn', skolops, means a stake or pole with a sharp, pointed end, and by derivation a splinter or thorn. In the Septuagint the same word is used to translate the following expressions: 'thorns in your sides' (Num. 33:55); 'I will hedge up your way with thorns' (Hosea 2:6 [2:8 in LXX]); 'And there shall no longer be a pricking briar or a painful thorn for the house of Israel' (Ezek. 28:24). Cf. 'the hoar frost ? as points of thorns' (Sirach 43:19). Whatever the affliction may be, it is implied that its disabling power is comparable to that of a sharp object stabbed into Paul's body and incapable of extraction. Alternatively, the apostle may consider himself metaphorically impaled on a stake in such a way that he has no freedom of movement. Either way, it is devastating. We are intended to indulge our imaginations.

Further, Paul's Greek can be translated as 'thorn for the flesh' rather than by the usual 'thorn in the flesh'. skovloy th/`/// sarki, where the dative forms part of the predicate (cf. 'trouble for the flesh',1 Cor. 7:28). Why omit ejn if 'in the flesh' was intended? Had the apostle written 'in the flesh', it might be concluded that the affliction was physical, whereas the most we can infer is that it could have been. It should also be taken into account that, notwithstanding Paul's occasional illnesses (cf. Gal. 4:13, where he writes, 'Because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first'), if his constitution had not been singularly robust he would not have been able to endure the hardships outlined in 11:23-33. Nor, of course, could he have been a semi-invalid. At 12:7 ignorance is bliss because, as with the undefined afflictions of many psalm-writers, Christians who suffer can identify with the apostle in his over-arching personal weakness. Many have been the suggestions about what the 'thorn' was. Barnett suggests interestingly that the 'thorn' might have been the Judaizing, anti-Paul movement (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.570).

But the suffering has not only been intense; as the metaphor implies, it remains incessant. 'To buffet me' incorporates a present continuous verb (kolaphize), which means that Paul is being beaten all the time, twenty-four hours each and every day. Cf. Matt. 26:67, which tells us that our Lord, too, was struck. Nor is there reason to believe that God has ever supplied an analgesic.

Further, it appears that the affliction was 'given' to Paul, the Greek aorist (edothe) implying a point in time, almost certainly not long after the journey into paradise. His point is that spiritual blessing has been attended closely and continuously by a regime of suffering, the former providing the rationale for the latter: the apostle was taken as far as heaven, but, lest he allowed himself to be 'over-exalted' Cf. the exaltation of the man of sin (2 Thess. 2:4). (in which, he implies, lies the besetting sin of the superb Judaizing 'apostles'), the 'thorn' humbled him, obliging him to conclude that he was not nearly as grand or as great as he might otherwise have imagined.

We are told, too, that the instrument of abasement was 'an angel of Satan', 'angel' meaning 'messenger' (Greek, aggelos). This does not necessarily mean that Paul has been pursued by a demon enticing him to perverse behaviour. Rather, the apostle finds himself in something of the situation of Job (Job 2:6-7). In both cases the devil was enlisted by a higher power as a servant of good.

Paul's exposition of the 'revelations' granted to him can bear two interpretations. Either the rapture to paradise was one among various disclosures given to him over a period of time, or he indicates that when in the third heaven he was granted a series of revelations. Although an open verdict might not alter the thrust of the passage, the context of 12:7 suggests that the second approach is better. Other revelations pertained to Paul's office, unlike these which were strictly for his private edification, implying that they were confined to the rapture to glory. 'Abundance' is qualitative, intimating that the heavenly disclosures vouchsafed to the apostle were in each case extraordinary. 'Abundance' - uJperbolhv. Cf. 4:7: 'that the surpassing greatness [= 'abundance'] of the power may be of God and not out of us'; Gal. 1:13: 'I persecuted the church of God beyond measure [again, = 'abundance'].' In paradise the truth of God was opened up in a manner beyond anything known by other Christian prophets, with which the early churches were replete. E.g., Eph. 2:20; 3:5.

In sum, God's chosen tactic has been to permit the apostle to be constantly struck down by the satanic messenger. The Evil One must have responded eagerly to this unexpected long-term opportunity, and for his part the innocent victim realizes that, notwithstanding the honour accorded to him by God, his affliction has abased him and possibly makes him look ridiculous. Obviously, as the patent object of divine chastisement, Paul cannot lord it over his fellows. Pinned to the ground, so to speak, he is in no position to lift himself up.

Initially, Paul was ignorant of why the diabolical thorn should have materialized. But in asking that 'it might depart', 'it' (or, perhaps, 'he') probably being the affliction considered as a personified angel of Satan, uJpe;r tou`tou refers to the personified angel of Satan rather than to the thorn for the flesh as such, as shown by the verb ajfivsthmi. In the language this verb occurs with reference to persons rather than things. See the following note. the apostle then perceived that for some undisclosed reason the Lord had allowed the Evil One to touch him. This acceptance of divine sovereignty was wise, and with equal wisdom the apostle set himself to prayer. The verb is parakalo (whence, of course, 'Paraclete'), never used elsewhere in the New Testament with respect to intercession. This suggests that at the time the apostle took it upon himself to encourage, or provoke, the Lord to do what he, Paul, wished, implying that the servant thought he had a better grasp of the situation than his Master. This does not imply that his triple petitions were irreverent or selfish. Because he possessed no information as to why the Lord had decreed this misery, it seemed the right policy to seek relief. Nor, unlike Asa, did Paul apply first to the therapists and only then to the Lord, as a sort of afterthought (2 Chr. 16:12). Because he went first of all to the ultimate authority there was no sin.

Notice Paul's phraseology: he asked concerning this satanic angel that it might leave him. At no place in the New Testament do we read about sickness and disease departing from the afflicted, The verb is ajfivsthmi, 'to walk away' (whence 'apostate'), as in 'The devil departed from him' (Luke 4:13). and this, too, might suggest that the apostle suffered at the hands of Satan in a fashion not experienced by others.

In conscious or unconscious imitation of our Lord, who prayed three times that the cup of suffering might pass from him, the three petitions were repetitive. Matt. 26:39-44; Mark 14:35-41; cf. Ps. 55:16-17; Dan. 6:10,13; John 21:17; Acts 10:16. It may be supposed that there was no immediate response, the Lord choosing to keep his servant in suspense for a while, perhaps to test his prayerfulness, or that the first two prayers were given negative answers ? with which Paul was disconsolate. Hence he continued to encourage the Lord. Eventually the apostle capitulated to what was a revelatory word.

This verse divides into three parts, which we shall call 9a, 9b and 9c. In 9a Paul reveals the answer given to him by 'the Lord' (12:8) ? that is, Jesus ?after he had prayed three times for the removal of the thorn for the flesh. Then, in 9b, the apostle discloses the explanation given to him as to why his request was denied. Finally, in 9c, Paul shares with the Cor?inthians his considered response to our Lord's decision regarding the thorn.

1. The answer to Paul's triple prayer (12:9a)

'And he said to me, ?My grace is sufficient for you ??' The apostle declines to state that he was criticized because he sought relief. Nor does he indicate that his request was unheard. If it is assumed that he recounts exactly what was said to him, we have an example of divine eloquence in brevity, of the emphasis of studied understatement. All that Paul will ever need flows from the unmerited favour of the Lord Jesus Christ, a gentle, loving graciousness that will most certainly be conveyed to him.

A number of points present themselves. 'Said' is couched in the perfect tense (Greek, eireken), meaning that the word of Christ has permanent appli?cation. Having made a declaration to Paul, the Lord will never repeat himself: he has placed himself on record once and for all; his promise will abide. Second, the assertion that grace will suffice for Paul means that there is no need for the thorn for the flesh to be withdrawn; it can stay in place. Contrary to what the apostle supposed when he began to pray, he can and will serve the Lord while he suffers; the one does not prejudice nor contradict the other. 'But by the grace of God I am what I am' (1 Cor. 15:10).

Further, 'is sufficient' occurs in the present tense (Greek, arkei), meaning 'continues to be enough', the guidelines upon which Paul's ministry runs having been established once and for all. Notice that the ascended and glorified Jesus claims deity: 'My grace is sufficient for you.' Compare with Romans 5:15, where we read, 'For if by one man's offence many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.' There are many such references, the syllogism being that if God alone affords grace, and if Jesus Christ gives grace, then the Saviour is divine.

2. The stated reason for not withdrawing the thorn for the flesh (12:9b)

'? for power is being made perfect in weakness.' The better manuscript evidence omits 'my' in 'my power' (NKJV). The Lord's eventual answer to Paul's appeal included an explanation. This was more than God granted Job, who may never have found out why he suffered. Unlike Paul, though, Job was not the apostle of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles.

The statement that 'Power is being made perfect in weakness' reflects a principle governing the relations between God and men: the Almighty will brook no rival, and if and when he deigns to employ men as his instruments it is because they accept that they are weak, possessing all the durability and strength of a fading flower. This truth, as the apostle comprehended, is absolute, and stretches far back to the beginning of the Old Testament. Negatively, this is why the tower of Babel had to be destroyed (Gen. 11:1-9) and, positively, why Abraham was required to wait many years before Sarah bore him a son (Gen. 21:2). There are many examples, pre-eminent being that of the Lord himself, of whom it was said when he was dying that 'He saved others; himself he cannot save' (Mark 15:31).

As for Paul's labours, he and his colleagues may have planted and watered, but God alone gave life (1 Cor. 3:7). Such is the depravity of man and such the necessity for the Holy Spirit to apply God's Word, that if the Lord does not bless, no good thing can result. And the Lord will not honour the man who exults in his spirituality. Tribulations and even ostracism were never sufficient to cauterize the pride that would otherwise have lurked in Paul's heart: he had to be touched, to be humiliated in his person. Then, when it became obvious to the sufferer and to all who beheld him that by himself he could do nothing because he was nothing, God began to bless. This explains why, when the apostle returned from his first missionary journey, he reported at Antioch 'all that God had done with them [Barnabas, John Mark and himself], and that he [God] had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles' (Acts 14:27).

When the Lord acts he never does anything by half. Therefore the channel for his power must be unimpeded. It is all or nothing, all of God or nothing from God. Paul's manifest weakness cleared away those obstructions which otherwise would have been fatal to his ministry. The Lord Jesus reminded his suffering servant about this when he explained the strategy. Note the present tense, 'power is being perfected' (Greek, teleitai); although there is nothing inadequate about Paul's ministry, the thorn has had to remain just in case.

3. Paul's ongoing commitment (12:9c)

'Most gladly, therefore, will I rather boast in my weaknesses so that the power of Christ may dwell over me.' The apostle is treading the peak of Everest. Surveying the world beneath, his heart soars. We are exposed to the reaction of a man who has done much more than simply acquiesce in the will of his Master. It continues to thrill him!

Paul's 'most gladly' reflects his response to the word of Christ when he was praying for relief, and also his attitude now, after fourteen tiresome years' experience of the thorn. 'Most gladly' - h{dista. Cf. 'I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls' (12:15); also, 'King Agrippa to dearest Josephus, greeting. I have perused the book with the greatest pleasure' (Josephus, Life, 365). There have been no regrets. The conscious preference, indicated by 'rather', has never been discarded, and the apostle proposes to continue to glory in his numerous weaknesses, whether inherent, as the thorn, or external, in the form of persecutions and perils: 'will I boast'. What manner of man was this who triumphed because the Lord cast him down again and again in order to curb his egotism? Clearly, the apostle has become aware that disinterested love for, and dependence upon, God are not blooms of sufficient hardiness that they can easily survive in his soul, particularly if he has been favoured with a visit to paradise. Graciously, because the Lord understood this at an early stage, he provided a mechanism to impel Paul to lean heavily upon his God. Nor has the servant been disappointed: '? that the power [dynamis] of Christ may dwell over me' is a retrospective comment: he looks back. Has the world ever seen his like? We thank God for Paul and the fact that his letter is included in the Bible.

'Dwell over' is particularly striking, translating a word (episkenose) that occurs only here in the New Testament and is absent from the Septuagint, meaning to take up one's abode in, or upon, a particular place. Perhaps the apostle reminisces from the Old Testament, desiring the power of the Messiah to dwell with him even as the Lord was pleased to dwell with Israel: 'Then the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the glory of Yahweh filled the tabernacle' (Exod. 40:34). 'Dwell over' / 'rest upon' - ejpiskhnovw. Some commentators suggest that Paul alludes to the Shekinah glory in that there is a parallel between the root skhn- and the Hebrew hnykiv]. This is not unlikely. The (at least) bilingual apostle would have been well aware of the parallel. But dogmatism would be unwise. Although the allusion is uncertain, what is sure is that the apostle rejoices in an affliction which conditions him so that he can be a channel for the Master: 'that the power of Christ may dwell over me'.

Strength in weakness

The apostle sums up by expanding 12:9 c. With acknowledgements to Kistemaker, II Corinthians, p.421.

Table

12:9c	12:10
Most gladly, therefore,	Wherefore
Will I rather boast in my weaknesses,	I take pleasure in weaknesses ?
so that the power of Christ	on behalf of Christ
may dwell over me.	for when I am weak, then I am powerful.

Because the glory of God can be served only by men stripped of pride and self-sufficiency, an unself?ish Paul will 'take pleasure' in his numerous 'weaknesses', 'injuries', 'extremities', 'persecutions' and 'constraints'; all are 'on behalf of Christ'. 'Injuries' may possibly have been occasions when, as an Israelite, he was maltreated by his fellow Jews and, as a Roman, was not accorded the respect due to a citizen of the empire. So Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.576. Turning from the excursion to paradise and the balancing thorn for the flesh, he gazes at the wider tableau. For emphasis, 'then I am powerful' concludes 12:10. Notice that there is a oneness, a team unity, in the way that Christ and his servant co-operate in the ministry. 'The power of Christ' (12:9c) empowers Paul, and the two, Saviour and saved, Lord and servant, are fellow workers (6:1; 1 Cor. 3:9). Paul can do all things through Christ who strengthens him (Phil. 4:13).

This verse epitomizes 4:7-10 and 6:4-10, giving further evidence, if evidence is needed, of the essential unity of the letter. The fool's speech is ended.

Application

In time of necessity we pray. And the Lord applies comfort, although it is doubtful in the extreme that the Almighty grants us a personal word apart from something recorded in the Bible, a volume granted to us 'that we might have hope' (Rom. 15:4). We need to be careful before saying, as some do, that 'God said to me?' or that 'God told me?' Paul's office and ministry were unique, as were the private revelations granted to him and as were his tribulations. In order to cope with the 'thorn', a mysterious burden of unprecedented and crushing severity, he needed and received a specific disclosure (12:9). For our part, let us be content with the good Word of God and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit.

Notice that Christian weakness is not by itself a precursor to God-given strength. In his affliction Paul called to the Lord, and it was the cry of the helpless apostle which brought near the strong arm of God. An elderly preacher nearer to heaven than he was when a young man confided that he had never received anything for which he did not ask. Was he, perchance, called 'Paul'? Although I have read somewhere the first-hand testimony of the elderly preacher, I am unable to provide a reference.

When we distrust ourselves we ought to trust the Lord, and if we trust him he entrusts himself to us, and may even trust us to do his bidding. The Judaizers did not know this, and nor do those who distort the plain teaching of the New Testament. So, where do we stand?

Credible tradition has it that the apostle Paul suffered execution at Rome during the time of Nero Caesar. But the Lord is marching on and, as somebody once observed, the era has dawned in which men call their dogs 'Nero' and their sons 'Paul'. T. R. Glover, as cited by Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, opening dedication. The light shines. It has not been extinguished, nor will it be.

The third visit
(2 Corinthians 12:11-18)

Paul reproaches the Corinthians because they have not backed him up and because their gullibility has compelled him to disclose his 'thorn' and the rapture to paradise. Nevertheless, even if the pseudo-apostles are foolish, he is not. Although as an individual he may be 'nothing', he insists that he is an apostle and that the validity of his office has been authenticated by many miracles. It follows that, robed with authority, he is, ex officio, in no way inferior to those men who have impugned his integrity, his theology and his calling. With tongue in cheek, he admits almost playfully to one fault, which is that the church has not been permitted an opportunity to remunerate him (12:11-13); they were virtually coerced into accepting his services freely.

This leads into a discussion about financial support. Although money has arrived voluntarily from elsewhere, the apostle insists that he will pursue his policy of not seeking material support from the Corinthians, the reason being that he does not expect them to maintain their spiritual parent, even though they might sense an obligation. On the contrary, they are his charge (12:14). Nor has Paul received Cor?inth?ian money indirectly via his colleagues. In order to clear both them and himself, the apostle challenges his readers: are they able to deny that Titus and an unnamed brother have been scrupulously honest? (12:17-18). Of course not.

Paul winds up his attack upon the fraudulent emissaries, who by now have been outflanked. In 3:2 the Corinthians were reminded by the apostle that 'You are our letter, having been engraved in our hearts, being recognized and being read by all men.' The meaning is that by the grace of God the church came into being through the apostle's ministry and that it, ipso facto, is his validation. Whatever the sanctified energies of other Christian workers, and whatever the claims to fame given out by the intruders at Corinth, Paul, and no other, pioneered the cause of Christ in the city. This being so, the people should have stood with him when he came under fire. He rebukes them: 'I was owed [ or, 'was obliged'] commendation by you.' In the New Testament there does not appear to be another example of ojfeivlw ('to be in debt', 'to owe') followed by uJpo; and a genitive. Nor does Arndt & Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, seem to provide any light. This is an interesting construction, probably manifesting Paul's tact. To illustrate, imagine a military officer instructing a subordinate: 'I shall be obliged if you will hand me that map.' The request is, in fact, no less than an order, and the adjutant takes it as such. Sadly, at Corinth there has been disobedience which Paul expresses mildly in terms of a breakdown of courtesy; after all, he had a right to be commended because the people were obligated to him. Although they should have urged the Judaizers to pack their bags and be gone, they did not do it. On the contrary, they stretched out their hands to those whom Paul terms again 'the superlative apostles', alias 'the pseudo-apostles' (11:5,13), and are still to some extent charmed by bad doctrine. Hodge contests the identification of 'pseudo-apostles' and 'superlative apostles' (1 & 2 Corinthians, p.666), as does also Martin (2 Corinthians, p.433). In reply, the contrast is between Paul and his adversaries, not between him and his colleagues. Paul implies that the 'superlative apostles' have been in Corinth rather than Jerusalem.

Who, then, at Corinth is prepared to stand for the truth? Apparently, nobody. Who is ready to denounce the bogus leaders for what they are? No one has come forward. Only Paul remains motivated to respond to a threat so dire that the collection for Jerusalem and, for that matter, the integrity of the Gentile mission are at risk. The abject refusal of the Corinth?ians to defend both the gospel and the first man to deliver it to them has constrained him to enter the fray. As we know, the apostle's tactic is to parade before their notice, albeit with the greatest possible reluctance, the rapture to paradise and the multiplicity of his tribulations: 'I have become foolish: you compelled me.'

Extreme understatement is employed when Paul insists that with respect to his office he has not 'come short' (the Greek aorist, hysteresa) 'of the superlative' (Greek, hyperlian) 'apostles'. Notice the play on words: although they fondly suppose that they are hyper (= 'more') and that he hyster (= 'less'), With acknowledgements to Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.578. there is nothing in their racial, social or educational background which he does not more than match. But unlike them, he has been called to be an apostle. Again, unlike them, Paul acknowledges ? with some irony, because they probably were saying this about him ? that he, personally, remains 'nothing'. Whereas his mission is from the Lord, which is all that matters, theirs ? if 'mission' it can be called ? is the product of their own imagination and serves their own interests. In order to exhibit the unbridgeable gulf between the two sides, Paul has indulged in what is for him a grotesque folly, for which the Corinthians are solely responsible. 'You' in 'you compelled me' is emphatic.

Thus far in his letter Paul has defended the authenticity of his ministry with vigour, and there have been two principal strands to his argument. First, the Corinthian church itself remains a divine seal of approval upon the apostle's work and call (1 Cor. 9:2). Second, Paul's manner of life has recommended his Saviour and, for that matter, himself, to his hearers. Cf. 1:12; 2:17; 4:2,10; 5:11; 6:3; 7:2; 10:13; 11:23; 13:8. The false apostles are accredited in neither way.

Paul introduces a third essential qualification, 'the signs of an apostle'. Those among whom Jesus and his followers moved were invariably sign-seekers, looking for outward verifications of the truth of the gospel. The scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees required a sign that Jesus was the Christ, and on one occasion he was asked to reveal the authority which empowered his activities. The Jewish council asked Peter and John to disclose to them the power by which they healed a lame man. Matt. 12:38; 16:1; 21:23; John 2:18; Acts 4:7. If the Greeks seek for wisdom, the Jews, states Paul, 'are asking for signs' (1 Cor. 1:22). And signs there have been in abundance, given to validate the apostle's ministry. They 'were worked out among you' by God.

It would appear that the credentials for apostleship did not include miracle-working. Originally, the qualifications were twofold: an apostle had to be someone who travelled with Jesus during his earthly ministry and who saw the risen Christ. Although we read about miracles performed by the apostles generally, and by Peter and John in particular, Acts 1:21-22; 2:43; 3:1-10; 5:12; 9:40-41. apart from 12:12 there is no other place in the New Testament where it is stated that apostolic ministry would be validated by miraculous powers. Possibly apart from Mark 16:15-20. A commentary such as this is no place in which to discuss Mark 16:9-20, so the text is mentioned as it stands (cf. Luke 10:19). On the contrary, men who were not apostles, like Stephen and Philip, some in Corinth and others elsewhere, performed wonders; their ministries were, so to speak, 'apostolic' although they were not apostles. Acts 6:8; 8:6; 1 Cor. 12:9-10; Heb. 2:4.

None the less, Paul seems to imply that the variety, vivacity and multiplicity of his miracles has set him apart from othe