Paul's Apostolic Authority
Review and Expositor, 86 (1989)
Paul's Apostolic Authority: The Power of Christ
Sustaining Weakness (2 Corinthians 10-13)
David £ Garland
Frederick Danker begins a recent review of a commentary on 2 Corinthians
with these words:
A modern interpreter has about as much chance to comprehend all the
nuances in 2 Corinthians as an Amish farmer to understand a Doonesbury
comic strip. Reading the letter is tantamount to eavesdropping on a private
conversation in the which the dialoguers make no explicit reference to data
that are essential for decoding the discourse.1
Despite this counsel of despair, we will attempt to comprehend both the
nuances of Paul's arguments in 2 Corinthians 10-13 and the tactics he employs to
salvage his relationship with the church.2 The Corinthians' regard for Paul had
been steadily undermined both by actions on his part that were misconstrued
and by the encroachment of rivals who made inroads by derisively comparing
Paul to themselves. Because they have met with an embarrassing measure of
success, Paul now finds himself having to defend his apostolic calling against
annoying allegations and innuendoes; and he pulls out all the stops, using irony,
sarcasm, mock humility, and contrast to dissuade the Corinthians from being
bullied or beguiled into submitting any further to his opponents.
Paul is compelled to answer criticism that he is weak and cowardly (10:1,10;
11:7; 13:3-4), that he somehow lacks apostolic power (12:12), and that because he
refuses to accept support from the Corinthians and continues to work at a trade,
he in some way denigrates his apostleship and brings shame to them (11:7-9;
12:13-18; see 1 Cor. 9:3-18). He reproves the Corinthians for allowing bogus
apostles to drive a wedge in their relationship and for failing to defend their
defamed apostle (12:11). While reaffirming his love for them (11:11; 12:15), he
expresses distress over their error and issues stern warnings about their
wrongheaded disregard of the truth (10:5-6,11; 13:1-4,10). His hope is that their
obedience will be complete (10:6), that their faith will increase (10:15), that they
will be made perfect (13:9), and that they will hold to the faith (13:5)—the faith
originally preached to them by Paul. His attitude toward therivals,however, is
quite a different story. Paul insinuates that they are guilty of sophistry (10:4-6);
disobedience (10:6); comparing and commending themselves unduly (10:12);
poaching on Paul's mission field (10:14); being ignorant of the true source of
authority, the Lord (10:12b, 17-18); seducing the Corinthians as Satan did Eve
(11:2-3); preaching another Jesus, Spirit, and gospel (11:4); and boasting unduly
371
(10:15; 11:12; see 5:12). He explicitly brands them false apostles, deceitful workers, and emissaries of Satan who have only disguised themselves as apostles of
Christ (11:13,15).
Paul never names or addresses theserivalsdirectly, which has prompted
many hypotheses about their identity.3 Marshall, in his excellent study of Paul's
invective, argues that not naming one's opponents was a rhetorical device4 that
could be employed to good advantage not only because the enemies were well
known to the readers, but nameless "certain ones" made easier targets for
caricature. Blameworthy conduct associated with the antagonists' behavior could
be contrasted with Paul's praiseworthy conduct and bring shame to them more
effectively than a direct attack.5 In addition to this, Marshall notes that when a
person has been subject to public attack, as Paul had, "he could commend
himself as a man of dignity and restraint by not retaliating in kind. By not
naming his detractor, he does not enter into the same game, so to speak."6 But
the censure that he heaps up against these namelessrivalsdoes succeed in
conveying that they are aligned with the forces of evil, are thoroughly evil
themselves, and therefore should be expelled from the community.7
The heart of the quarrel concerns Paul's authority over the Corinthian
church; but, as Paul himself insists, he is not simply engaged in a personal
defense (12:19). Barrett is to the point when he writes: "... it is the nature of the
apostolic Gospel, and the apostolic authority behind it, that are at stake."8 Paul
defends his reputation, but it is as much for the good of the community as it is
for his reputation. After tracing Paul's argument in these chapters, we will return
to the issue of authority and its proper use in the church.
Paul's Weakness and Woridliness (10:1-11)
In thefirstsection, Paul responds to one of the key reproaches of his detractors: when he is present with them, he comes off as weak and unimpressive and
only dares to become bold at a safe distance, when he thenfiresoff hot letters via
assistants (10:1,9-10).9 Paul's lack of oratorical skill is alluded to elsewhere (1
Cor. 2:3-4; and 2 Cor. 11:6), and his physical appearance was probably even less
inspiring.10 Consequently, he does not fill the bill when it comes to apostolic
looks or eloquence. But the real complaint seems to be that he throws his weight
around in his letters but fails to follow through in person. If Paul's confrontation
with wrongdoers had the same results as Peter's confrontation with Ananias and
Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11), there would have been no doubts about his authority.
Instead, Paul had beat a hasty retreat and had seemed to acquiesce. To certain
Corinthians, he seemed to be no more than a paper apostle who could only sling
ink. This inconsistency between his words and actions smacked of the insincerity
of the flatterer.11
The second accusation that Paul "walks according to the flesh" (10:2; see 1:12,
17) should probably be connected to thefirst.It could mean that he is guided by
worldly motives that result in such things as vacillation (1:17), flattery, and
avarice (12:14-18). But it could also mean that he lacks spiritual power (1 Cor. 3:1;
372
Paul's Apostolic Authority
Review and Expositor, 86 (1989)
2 Cor. 13:3); and Barrett may berightwhen he infers from the context of chapters
10-13 that Paul's adversaries considered a worldly man to be someone who does
not "have visions and ecstatic experiences, perhaps not to behave in an authoritarian, self-assertive way that could be ascribed to spiritual authority and superiority."12 The basic point of contention in both reproaches, weakness and woridliness, has to do with Paul's spiritual authority. In 1 Corinthians, Paul appealed to
his weakness (2:3; 4:10; 9:22); the issue now seems to be, how can one so weak
discharge the functions of an apostle properly?
Paul must assuage the doubts that have been raised about his apostolic
resolve, and he begins this first section (10:1-11) with an authoritative "now I"
(see Gal. 5:2; Phlm. 9-10). He then bluntly notifies them that he possesses some
divinely potent weapons in his arsenal to use against the disobedient. But their
power emanates from the truth (see 6:6-7) and can only be wielded in the way
that Christ employed his power—in meekness and kindness (see 13:3-4).13 The
problem is that certain ones have mistaken this gentleness for weakness (10:2).
But the meekness of Christ does not compel him to turn the other cheek when his
apostolic commission is challenged and his mission planting threatened. Like
Christ, who boldly confronted Pharisees and chief priests, Paul says that he is
prepared to carry through on his threats to come to Corinth with guns blazing
(13:2); but he begs the Corinthians not to force such a showdown (10:2). If they
fail to heed his warnings, however, he will resolutely confront them. He draws
on the imagery of an army that is able to overcome every opposing fortification
through siegeworks and then take captives and punish resistance.14 Certainly the
arguments of hisrivals,portrayed as the towers of the proud, are in view; and
therefore this is a warning to those who are undermining his ministry and
preaching another gospel (11:4), as well as to those Corinthians who continue to
engage in immoral conduct (12:21).
Three things should be noted from thisfirstsection of Paul's argument. First,
he claims that the weapons he brandishes are divinely powerful (10:4). From
references elsewhere in the correspondence, this must refer to the truth of the
gospel, epitomized in the word of the cross (1 Cor. 1:18,23-24; 2:5; 2 Cor. 6:7; see
Rom. 1:16), and the knowledge of God (2:14; 4:6).15 Second, Paul, by letter and by
personal visit, wants them to acknowledge the truth of his gospel and his authority so that they will be obedient. He has no interest in fashioning them into
worshipful disciples of Paul but to make them obedient to God (see 2:9; 7:15;
12:21; 13:2). Third, he promises in 10:5 that he will punish those who are disobedient when the obedience of the Corinthians is complete, that is, when they get in
line once again with the gospel. This means that Paul does not wish to exercise
his authority independently of the Corinthians but intends to act only in concert
with them.
Self-Commendation (10:12-18)
Like advertisers today who make competing claims for the superiority of
their product, therivalshad sought to win the Corinthians' allegiance by claim373
ing superiority over Paul, whom they dismissed as unskillful and weak. The crux
of the matter is what kind of commendation is valid. How is one to adjudicate
what is true or false when faced with competing claims? Paul offers two criteria
to evaluate the boisterous claims of hisrivals:boasting within limits and commendation from the Lord.
Throughout these chapters, Paul uses irony and sarcasm to deflate the
boasting of hisrivals.In 10:12, he begins tongue in cheek by saying that he dare
not compare himself with those certain ones who commend themselves and
make themselves the measure of the apostolate. He hardly ranks with such
luminaries. But there is more to this remark than sarcasm; Paul is also denying
that hisrivalsare comparable to him at all.16 No comparison can be made where
no similarity exists; and in Paul's view, therivalsare false apostles. If he is going
to compare himself with them, it will be only as a fool. They claim to be in a
different league than Paul; and Paul would readily agree—they are in league
with Satan.
By insisting that he will not boast "beyond measure but will keep to the
measure of the canon which God apportioned us" (10:13), he insinuates that his
opponents have done just that.17 They have indeed "dared" to boast (10:12;
11:21); and their boasting is out of bounds, that is, excessive. Lucian, the great
satirist, pokes fun at the popular teachers who compare themselves to others to
exalt themselves. In his "A Professor of Public Speaking," a wily veteran instructs the novice on how to achieve popular success: "make marvelous assertions about yourself, be extravagant in your self-praise, and make yourself a
nuisance to him. What was Demosthenes beside me?"18 This kind of excessive
self-praise was considered characteristic of the sham philosopher who was not
infrequently lampooned. By implication, Paul lumps his opponents in with this
crowd of frauds who can be identified by their extravagant self-regard.
The boasting of hisrivalsalso exceeds bounds because their claims are based
on another's work. They have been successful, but they have been successful in
work that was started by Paul. Unlike him, they have no qualms about building
on another's foundation; and they have invaded the jurisdiction19 God assigned
to Paul. As Paul sees it, they have not built on his foundation but have tried to
destroy it (see 10:8; 13:10). And while they have "gone beyond limits," they have
done nothing to enlarge the field of God's work (10:15).
In contrast, Paul's boasting is within the proper limits. First, he has kept to
the field of action God assigned him. That assignment is to preach in new
frontiers, and even now he has his sights set on new territory (10:16, presumably
to the west, see Rom. 15:17-20,24,28). Since he was thefirstto "plant" the gospel
in Corinth when it was still unplowed ground (1 Cor. 3:6), the Corinthians
belong within the limits of his jurisdiction. Second, his boasting is within bounds
because he does not try to assert his superiority over others by comparing
himself to them; he measures himself only by what God does in him (see 1:21;
4:7; 5:11). When Paul first preached the gospel in Corinth, God called a church
into being and gave the growth. For Paul, this is proof enough of his commendation from God; and he need not toot his own horn (see 3:2-3). For the second time
374
Paul's Apostolic Authority
Review and Expositor, 86 (1989)
in his correspondence with the Corinthians he cites Jeremiah 9:24, "Let him who
boasts, boast of the Lord" (10:17; see 1 Cor. 1:31). Self-commendation proves
nothing except a lack of understanding by the one who boasts, for it is only the
commendation from God that deserves any notice (see 1 Cor. 4:5).20
Bearing with Foolishness (11:1-21a)
In spite of the fact that Paul has just repudiated self-commendation as futile,
he asks the Corinthians to bear with a little of his own. He is confronted by a
Catch 22 situation. Boasting is clearly foolishness; but if he fails to defend himself
against hisrivals,the community might be persuaded that the slurs against Paul
were on target. If he stoops to their level by boasting, he is a fool; if he does not
commend himself, he might lose the congregation to even greater fools.21 Consequently, he must opt for a little foolishness and train the spotlight on his own socalled boasts. But he turns this foolish boasting into a subtle and devastating
attack on his opponents. By repeatedly insisting that he is playing the fool by
boasting in the way that his opponents have boasted, he leaves the reader with
the clear impression that the boastful rivals are the fools! The difference between
them is that Paul knows and admits that what he does is foolish; they do not. The
self-boasting of therivalsis further undercut by the irony that Paul does not
boast about his glorious accomplishments as they had but in a string of humiliating experiences, and he boldly contends that he is a better servant of Christ
because of them (11:23).
Self-commendation is a delicate matter, and Plutarch wrote an essay specifically on the topic of how to praise oneself inoffensively.22 Paul is particularly
sensitive about this, not simply because he does not want to be guilty of bad
taste, but he is acutely aware that the Christian's boasts should be consonant
with the gospel. Consequently, Paul defends his resort to this kind of foolishness
by appealing: (1) to his divine zeal for the community (11:2-3); (2) to the community's apparent willingness to bear with other fools as evidenced by the acceptance of the boasting of the opponents (11:4; 19-21); and (3) to the fact that he is
not inferior to his opponents (11:5-6). Each of these excuses for boasting, however, becomes a pretext for condemning the rivals.
The first justification for his self-commendation is his zeal for the church,
which he compares to a father's watchful eye over his betrothed daughter. Paul
considers himself to be the father of this congregation (1 Cor. 4:15); and as father,
he served as a kind of apostolic matchmaker who arranged their betrothal to
Christ. He also assumes responsibility for safeguarding his daughter's virginity
(see Deut. 22:13-21). Paul draws on a traditional view of the serpent's deception
of Eve in the garden to voice his suspicion that the Corinthians have been led
astray from pure devotion to Christ.23 They may be guilty of spiritual adultery
and no longer pure virgins ready for the arrival of their husband, Christ. If they
have not already succumbed, they are clearly in danger of being beguiled by
messengers from Satan who appear as shining angels and seduce them with an
375
ersatz gospel that corrupts their fidelity (11:4,13-15). In this defense, Paul
presents himself as a protective father, and hisrivalscome off as crafty snakes
with unholy designs on the congregation.
The second justification for his own self-commendation is that the Corinthians have put up with the foolish boasting of the interlopers without demur, and
therefore they ought to be able to endure a little from their own apostle (11:1618). "Many have boasted," so Paul sarcastically maintains that he is only joining
the madding crowd. In 11:17, however, he makes clear that this is not the stuff of
apostolic discourse; it is that of a "worldly man" who, in this instance, has been
driven to it (12:11). He writes in the role of fool, and by explicitly saying so, he
undermines the boasting of hisrivalsas also foolish. They are fools who engage
in worldly discourse (self-commendation) that has nothing to do with "speaking
according to the Lord."
His third justification for self-commendation is that he is in no way inferior
to these "super apostles." The term super apostle could be either a straightforward
or an ironic statement. The context is so filled with irony, however, that it
strongly suggests that the term pokes fun at the pretentious claims of his rivals.24
Paul discusses three problem areas in which he apparently has been compared
unfavorably with the superrivals:public speaking (11:6a), knowledge (11:6b),
and financial support (11:7-15).
More than once, Paul has disdained rhetorical ornamentation (see 1 Cor.
1:17; 2:1,4,13; 2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2,7; 10:4-5; 1 Thess. 2:4-5);25 and therefore he readily
concedes his deficiency in eloquence (10:10; 11:6). But one should not jump too
quickly to the conclusion that Paul was a totally incompetent rhetor. The rhetoric
that Paul holds cheap is not the classic Attic style but the more artificial and
flamboyant style known as "Asianism."26 The reason behind his dismissal of this
kind of rhetorical flourish is vital to Paul's argument throughout the Corinthian
correspondence. As Furnish states it, Paul "believes that unadorned speech is
more appropriate for conveying the 'folly7 of the cross, in the very weakness of
which God's power is disclosed."27 Therefore, from Paul's perspective, any
superiority of therivalsin speech would not be a plus as far as the gospel of the
cross is concerned, but a minus.
Rhetorical skill of this kind is also no index of the preacher's measure of
knowledge, and Paul will concede no inferiority in knowledge. Whether Paul is
alluding to an accusation that he lacked spiritual depth in his preaching is
uncertain. But the self-commendation of therivalscalls into question their
knowledge because it marks their speech as foolishness and reflects their ignorance about God (10:12).
The third bone of contention proceeded from the fact that Paul preached the
gospel to the Corinthians gratis. He did enjoy hospitality from them (Rom. 16:23)
but never requested or accepted money and worked with his hands to support
himself (according to Acts 18:3, he worked in his tentmaker's trade; see also 1
Thess. 2:9). Paul insists on preserving his "boast" that he proclaims the gospel
free of charge (11:10; 1 Cor. 9:15). While many churches today might rejoice over
such a boon to the church budget, many in Corinth must have berated Paul for
376
Paul's Apostolic Authority
Review and Expositor, 86 (1989)
this stance. To understand the reasons for this, it must be seen in the light of the
sociological conventions of the first century.
First, in the Corinthians' cultural context, many considered it to be degrading
and unseemly for a philosopher to work.28 To make matters worse, there are
hints that Paid had to work as one who was in need and whose earnings hardly
sufficed (11:9; see Phil. 4:12; 1 Cor. 4:10-12); and to appear so economically
disadvantaged would cause others (governed by a dress for success mentality) to
fail to appreciate the power of his gospel. In 1 Corinthians, Paul acknowledges
hisrightto get his living by the gospel but offers no defense for why he refuses
to exercise hisrightexcept to say that he is constrained to preach and accepting
gifts would deprive him of his boast (1 Cor. 9:4-18). Here, in 11:20-21, he expresses mock surprise that they object to the fact that he has not cashed in on
them in the same way he implies that hisrivalshad (see 12:13).
A second difficulty from his refusal to accept support stemmed from the fact
Paul turned down aid from the relatively well off Corinthians but accepted it
from the Philippians (11:9), a relatively poor church (8:2). This difference must
have struck the Corinthians not only as inconsistent on Paul's part but as demeaning them while robbing others (ll:8-9a). The congregation's status was
involved. They could only conclude that since they were excluded from the
charmed circle of Paul's partners in the gospel (see Phil. 4:15), they had been
judged by him to be less worthy than others and were therefore less favored
(12:13). Marshall shows that Paul's refusal of their gifts was a major factor behind
the hostility against him because, given the social conventions of the time: "The
refusal of gifts and services was a refusal of friendship and dishonoured the
donor."29 Paul's rebuff of their offers of aid meant that he must not love them
(11:11). In contrast, his antagonists not only acceptedfinancialsupport from the
Corinthians, they seemed to have demanded it and somehow communicated to
them that accepting money from the Corinthians was a demonstration of love:
we will show you how much we love you by allowing you to shower us with
financial reward.
A third difficulty would have derived from the inference that since Paul
made no claims for himself he must be an inferior apostle, if an apostle at all. The
interlopers apparently operated on the time-honored principle that the more you
charge, the more important you are and the better what you have to offer is.30 It
is possible that they encouraged the Corinthians to view Paul's self-denial as
further proof of his inferior status—maybe he was not entitled to support as an
apostle.
Paul insists that he will not back down on his policy because of the Corinthians' complaints or suspicions (11:12; 12:14), and he probably had a variety of
reasons for doing so. Some conjecture that he wanted to distinguish himself from
professional sophists and rhetoricians who had their hands out as regularly as a
television evangelist flashes an 800 number on the screen.31 He did not want to be
known as a "peddler of the word of God" (2:17; 4:2). It also is possible that he
adopted his policy to accord with the principle that salvation has been offered
freely to humankind. As Christ became poor that others might becomerich(8:9),
377
Paul, as a slave of Christ (4:5), depicts himself as also "poor, yet enriching many"
(6:10; 12:15).32 Still another factor may have been his desire to remain independent of anyone's patronage—something that would have been particularly important in a congregation as divided as Corinth was. He needed to avoid any
appearance of being a client of one of the factions if he wanted to remain the
apostle of the entire congregation.33 Paul gives none of these reasons himself;
instead, in 12:14-15, he justifies his course of action by appealing to the fact that
as their father in the faith (11:2; 1 Cor. 4:15), he is responsible for them, and not
vice versa. In 11:12, he says that he wants to cut the ground from under his
adversaries who claim they can compare with him. Unless they choose to impoverish themselves and preach for nothing as Paul does, they cannot consider
themselves comparable to him.
If Paul is too "weak" to prey upon the Corinthians (11:20), he assumes that
hisrivalsare too worldly to consider renouncing any claim to support from the
church. They are "false apostles," apparently a word coined by Paul, "deceitful
workers," a term in use for missionaries (Matt. 9:37/Luke 10:2,7; 1 Tim 5:18; 2
Tim. 2:15; Did. 13:2), and servants of Satan who only masquerade as apostles of
Christ (11:13-15). Appearances can be deceptive, and those who assume a
religious guise can be particularly deceptive. The shining stars dazzle and make
the ones slogging away in the trenches look frumpish and unspiritual. But Satan
is more likely to take the guise of a shining star with a glamorous appeal than
that of a foot soldier. What is damning about this invective is that if they are
indeed servants of Satan, then they arerivalsof God, not just of Paul.34
Paul's Foolish Boasts (1 l:21b-12:13)
In ll:21b-12:13, Paul engages his opponents in what appears on the surface
to be a boast-off based on outward credentials. He lists his heritage, his labors
and hardships, an escape from Damascus, and his abundance of revelations. But
all of this is marked off by his declaration that he is speaking as a fool (11:21b;
12:11).
Paul's Catalogue of Hardships (ll:21b-29)
Paul begins with the matter of lineage, matching hisrivalsone for one: "Are
they Hebrews? So am I..." (ll:22-23a).35 Then he cites what distinguishes him as
a better servant of Christ: sufferings and hardships capped by anxiety for his
churches—a clear allusion to the problems created in Corinth by these apostolic
squatters. The catalogue of hardships can be interpreted in two ways. It can be
taken as a rhetorical convention designed to inculcate good will among the
readers and to win their support. If that is the case, then it is possible that the
rivals have already used this device, and Paul counters with an even more
impressive list.36 Or, the list of hardships can be interpreted as a kind of parody
of the boasts of the super apostles.37 Paul is not really trying to match or outmatch his opponent's boasts, but is mocking their exalted claims. Paul boasts, but
378
Paul's Apostolic Authority
Review and Expositor, 86 (1989)
about all the wrong things—imprisonments, beatings by authorities, and fleshly
weaknesses (11:30). Marshall calls it "a parade of shame."38 If this is correct, then
the story of his escape from Damascus could be taken as a humiliating retreat,
and the enigmatic boast about a heavenly vision that was crowned by bestowal
of the thorn in the flesh is a caricature of his opponents' overblown boasts of
visions. Paul's vision yielded no religious knowledge that could be made useful
for public consumption (12:1-4).
It is difficult to decide between these two approaches, but because irony so
pervades these chapters, it seems best to interpret this section as also being
ironic. His concluding statement after the tally of hardships is, "If I must boast, I
will boast of the things that show my weakness" (11:30). After the account of his
vision and thorn, he concludes that he is content to boast about his "weaknesses,
insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities" (12:9-10). This assertion suggests
that his opponents have done just the opposite; they have vaunted their
achievements, not their weaknesses and sufferings. If therivalsboasted of these
things as well, then how is it that Paul boasts of these things as weaknesses? Did
therivalsboast of these things as weaknesses? Hardly so. Therefore, the parallels
in the handbooks on rhetoric do not provide the proper backdrop to understand
what Paul is doing here.39 The picture that emergesfromthe Corinthian correspondence is that Paul has been the butt ofridicule;and he testifies that for
Christ's sake he is willing to accept it because he knows that in spite of his
weakness, the power of Christ dwells with him (12:9-10). While lists of hardships
can be intended to win support, Paul is not engaged in one-upmanship by noting
that he has endured even greater hardships than hisrivals.He is highlighting his
weakness and even accepts for himself the weaknesses of all Christians (11:29).
The incident in Damascus and the vision in Paradise are related to mock the
wonderful boasts of his rivals.
The Damascus Incident (11:30-33)
The incident that took place in Damascus provides one example of "danger
in the city" (11:26). What happened and why is fascinating study,40 but what is
most important to us is how Paul construes the significance of the event for his
argument. It was not, as Strachan characterized it, "a crowning instance of God's
mercy" and "of God's providential care,"41 but further proof of Paul's weakness.42 Paul did not pass mysteriously through the midst of his enemies as Jesus
did at Nazareth (Luke 4:30), nor was he miraculously escorted by an angel of the
Lord as Peter was from Herod's prison (Acts 12:1-11,17). It was not some dramatic, great escape, worthy of TV dramatization, but rather an undignified
stealing away.
Judge pointed out how this could be viewed as a humiliating experience
when seen against the backdrop of one of the highest Roman military honors, the
corona muralis (wall crown), presented for valor to the first soldier to go up over
the wall of an enemy city.43 He believed that the contrast between Paul's frightened descent from the wall of the city in a basket and the daring ascent of the
379
wall by a courageous soldier would not have been lost on the Corinthians. Paul
describes a reversal of military bravery and another token of his humiliation and
weakness.44 Paul was not the first one up; he was the first one down. The one
who claims to be able to lay siege and to destroy strongholds (10:4) once fled a
city for his life, but even in this weakness he prevails over the enemies of God.
Paul's Boast of a Heavenly Vision (12:1-6)
Paul goes on to boast about visions and revelations apparently because his
rivals have trumpeted theirs. "Revelations" were a part of the Corinthian worship (1 Cor. 14:6,26), and boasts about such things would play well in Corinth.
Paul claims that he has had an abundance of revelations (12:7),45 but the one he
reports is so sketchy that it tantalizes the imagination of scholars yet provides
little hard information. Why is his description of this vision is so obscure? Many
believe it is deliberately so to debünk the boasts of hisrivals.Furnish, for example, contends, "... Paul describes his experience in a way that only accentuates how useless it is as a proof for anything
" ** If this is true, then this
account of his vision is comparable to his assertion that he spoke in tongues more
than anyone else, a fact that is then dismissed as inconsequential compared to
speaking five words with the mind (1 Cor. 14:18-19).
Fourteen years ago, Paul says, a man in Christ was snatched up to Paradise,47
but he does not know how, whether in the body or out of the body; and he heard
things there he cannot repeat. Whether these things were inexpressible or had to
do with mysteries that could not be divulged is not clear. The fact that Paul
insists that he entered Paradise and presumably the presence of God is certainly
not inconsequential, because it indicates that he could compete with anything his
rivals might boast about. But, by reporting this vision so vaguely and in the third
person,48 Paul would seem to depreciate its significance. He does not seem to
care, as some might in Corinth, if it was an out of the body experience or not. He
leaves it with God because to him it is unimportant. He does not, as some did,
make much ado about his private religious experiences. To do so can only edify
himself and not the church (see 1 Cor. 14:4). Flaunting such experiences can do
harm, however, when it is used to assert one's superiority over or exploit others
who are less visionary. This must be the explanation for ¡Paul's reticence about
the experience and his ambivalence about its value. Although the vision occurred
long before his founding of the congregation, he has never confided to them
about it because of his conviction that to do so would contribute nothing to the
upbuilding of the community and would add nothing to his credentials as an
apostle. In 12:6, Paul implies that his otherworldly visions do not certify his thisworldly service as an apostle.49 Therefore, the Corinthians must appraise him by
what they see in him and hear in him in the flesh (see 10:7; 11:6), even if what
they see and hear seems weak (10:10,1 Cor. 4:10-13). Paul will boast only of his
weaknesses, like his unsoldierly flight from Damascus or the lesson he learned
380
Paul's Apostolic Authority
Review and Expositor, 86 (1989)
from his thorn in the flesh which came to him after the revelation of heavenly
secrets. The thorn served to puncture any pride that might swell up within him
because of his entry into heaven.
The Thorn in the Flesh (12:7-10)
Paul readily admits that he is a weak earthling (see 4:7-12), and the thorn in
the flesh somehow provides visible testimony to this fact. It has been the subject
of much speculation,50 but once again Paul is elusive. The Corinthians apparently
knew what the thorn was, and it may even have been a target of their derision.
But we must accept the fact that we will never know for certain what it was.
What is important to Paul, however, is the theological word-to-the-wise that it
provides.
Paul did not view the thorn initially as something good. He calls it a messengerfromSatan sent to bedevil him and says he besought God in prayer to
remove it.51 One might expect a miracle for someone so divinely connected, but
none occurred. Instead, he received the answer that he must accept the thorn
because it served to testify how God's power is brought to completion in human
weakness. It is interesting that the heavenly vision provided nothing that could
be uttered; by contrast, the thorn in the flesh communicated the grace and power
of God. It was given to him at first as an obstacle to religious pride, but it became
a vehicle for him to experience God's grace afresh. Now, rather than pray that his
weaknesses and hardships be taken away, Paul boasts of them because one can
see the power of God at work more clearly in weaknesses than in sensational
displays of spirituality.52 In this sense, Paul embodies the folly of the cross of
Christ which reveals the power of God (1 Cor. 1:18-31; 2 Cor. 4:7-12). That is why
he is so willing to boast in his weaknesses.
The Conclusion to the Fool's Speech (12:11-13)
In 12:11-13, Paul concludes his fool's speech with one last excuse for it. He
was forced into this exercise in self-praise because the Corinthians had failed to
defend him against the slanders by hisrivals.He is nothing (12:11, see 3:5; 1 Cor.
3:5-9; 15:9-10); but he is in no way inferior to the super apostles (12:11). He thus
implies that they are nothing as well. Paul performed "the signs of an apostle"
(12:12; see Rom. 15:19), something therivalsand Corinthians viewed as important, and the expression may even have been one of their slogans.53 Again, what
precisely those signs were is left vague. But for Paid, the litmus test for the true
apostle of the crucified Christ is found in a life of spending oneself in behalf of
the congregation (12:15).
Paul's Return to Corinth (12:14-13:10)
In the final section, Paul changes the subject to his upcoming return to
Corinth. He again touches on the sensitive issue of his refusal to accept their
381
financial support and this time hints that he is suspected of some kind of fraud.
Whether or not his honesty has actually been defamed,54 Paul vigorously declares that he and his associates have never resorted to trickery to line their
pockets (see 4:2; 11:3,13) and reaffirms his refusal to burden them. He spared no
expense in ministering to them (see Phil. 2:17) and expects nothing in return
except their obedience to the gopel that he preached to them. He has cared for
them as a parent should care for his children (12:14-15) and favored them in the
same way that he has favored all the other churches (12:13) but suggests that his
love has not been returned. Otherwise, they would not have tolerated such
slander against him.
Surprisingly, Paul then informs them that he has not been defending himself
as if he were the prisoner at the bar (12:19; although he expressed willingness to
do so in 1 Cor. 9:3). He has left the role of the fool and is now "speaking in
Christ" (12:19; see 11:17; 2:17). As their apostle he is more concerned for them
than for his own reputation, although he admits that his greatest fear is that he
will be humiliated once again when he returns to Corinth. The readers are the
ones placed on the defensive because, as he makes it clear, the feared humiliation
will not come at the hands of any individual (see 2:1) but from the shabby state of
affairs in Corinth. The proof that Christ speaks in him, something that they are so
interested in (13:3), derives from the faithfulness of the congregation itself, not
from his revelatory visions or magisterial boldness. If the congregation's life is
still plagued by impurity, immorality, and licentiousness (12:21), he will have
run in vain and will be chastened before God, who tests each one's work by fire
(see 1 Cor. 3:10-15). That is something far more serious than a humiliation
perpetrated by any one of them.
Therefore, Paul formally serves warning that this is the third time that he is
coming to them and couples this with the legal principle, "By the mouth of two
or three witnesses every word shall be substantiated" (Deut. 19:15). The connection between this rule of evidence and a third visit by one and the same witness
can be explained by indications that it was used in Palestine to support the
requirement that persons suspected of wrongdoing should be carefully forewarned of the possibility of punitive action against them.55 Paul quotes this rule
to apprise the Corinthians that he has given the requisite two or three warnings.
In doing this, he returns full circle to his opening declaration in this section, that
what he said by letter he will carry out when present (10:11). He fully intends to
discipline the disobedient.
Shrewdly, Paul has turned the tables on the Corinthians. The question is not
whether Christ speaks in Paul but whether Christ lives in them (13:3-5). Instead
of putting Paul and others to the test, the Corinthians need to put themselves to
the test. He will only have failed the test as an apostle if his church fails to hold
to the faith as preached by him. If they want proof about him, then they will find
it in themselves as they allow the power of the indwelling Christ to work itself
out in obedience. They are his letter of commendation (3:2). That is why he is less
concerned to provide proof that he is a genuine apostle than that the Corinthians
prove to be genuine Christians. Once again, he redefines the nature of true
382
Paul's Apostolic Authority
Review and Expositor, 86 (1989)
apostleship. It has nothing to do with spellbinding oratory, wonder working,
heavenly visions, or the lordly exercise of authority; it has everything to do with
love and spending oneself (12:15), building up the church (12:19; 13:10), pro­
claiming the truth (13:8), and "carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the
life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies" (4:10).
Paul's Use of Authority
Paul has insisted that he has no desire to "lord over" the Corinthians' faith
(1:24), to terrorize them with painful letters (2:3; 10:9), or to be "severe" in his use
of his authority (13:10). He firmly maintains that he has authority (10:8; 13:10),
but more important than any claim to authority is the way it is exercised.56 Rollo
May in his book, Power and Innocence: A Search for the Sources of Violence, lists five
ways that power is used.57 "Exploitative power" employs force or the threat of
violence so that it leaves the other with no choice but to comply. "Manipulative
power" uses the covert methods of the con man (rather than of the gunman).
"Competitive power" employs an I win/you lose strategy and results in shrink­
age of community. "Nutrient power" is likened to a parent's care for a child in
that it is exercised on behalf of another's welfare. It can, however, create depend­
ency and become smothering by seeking to do the other good our way. "Integra­
tive power," however, works with others (instead of on them) to enable them to
grow both mentally and spiritually and to abet their power.
As Paul has portrayed matters in these chapters, the rivals have been ex­
ploitative, manipulative, and competitive in their use of power. He insinuates
that they enslave, devour, seek to gain control, put on airs, and strike the
Corinthians in the face, that is, insult them (11:20). What is worse, some of the
Corinthians readily submitted to their domination. They took it to be the apos­
tolic ideal and interpreted Paul's gentle restraint as weakness (10:1). In contrast,
Paul can be seen to employ integrative power: "we work with you for your joy"
(1:24; see 13:10). Furnish comments: "Paul does not wish to use his authority to
strengthen his hold over the Corinthians, but only to strengthen their grip on the
gospel, their faith." α These chapters illustrate this fact as Paul disarms his
readers by his ready acknowledgment of all his weaknesses and works on their
consciences so that they might come to see the truth about himself and his rivals.
We see him asserting his authority for building up the Christian community, not
himself (12:19; 13:9-10), which is the only way that authority should be employed
in the church.
*F. W. Danker, "Review of 2 Corinthians, by Ralph Martin," Journal of Biblical Litera­
ture, 107 (1988), 550.
2
I would outline the structure of these chapters chiastically:
A 10:1-11 The accusation about his weakness/worldliness [set off by inclusion
by the idea "when present," "when absent," and the verb logizomai (10:2,11)]
383
Β 10:12-18 Self-Commendation and God's Commendation [set off by inclusion
by the verb commend, synistëmi (10:12,18)]
C ll:l-21a Bearing with foolishness [set off by inclusion by the term
bearing, anechomai (11:1,4 19,20)]
C111:21b-12:13 Paul's Foolish Boasts [set off by inclusion by his decla
ration that he is speaking as a fool (11:21; 12:11)]
B112:14-21 Paul's Return to Corinth [set off by inclusion by his reference to
coming again (12:14,21)]
A113:1-10 Paul's Warning
3
The opponents have been identified as: (1) the Judaizers who were attacked in
Galatians (F. C. Baur, Paulus, Der Apostel Jesu Christi [1866, repr. Osnabrück: Zeller, 1968],
1:297,309); (2) envoys from the Jerusalem church inclined to spiritual display (E. Käsemann, "Die Légitimât des Apostels," Zeitschrift für àie Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 41
[1942], 41-48; (3) Judeo-Christian Gnostics (W. Schmithals, Gnosis in Corinth, trans. J. E.
Steely [Nashville: Abingdon, 1971]; Hellenistic Jewish Christian divine men (D. Georgi,
The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986], pp. 229-313); (4)
Hellenistic Jewish Christians from the circle of Stephen (G. Friedrich, "Die Gegner des
Paulus im Π. Korintherbrief," Abraham unser Vater, ed. O. Betz, M. Hengel, and P. Schmidt
[Leiden: Brill, 1963], pp. 179-208).
What we can know about these opponents can only be inferred from the text; but it seems
safe to say that they are proud of their Jewish heritage (11:22), skillful in the rhetorical arts
(11:6, and therefore strongly influenced by the Hellenistic environment), boastful of
various accomplishments, visions, and revelations that they claimed proved that Christ
spoke in them (13:3).
4
C Talbert, Reading Corinthians (New York: Crossroad, 1987), p. 130, reflects the
current opinion that Paul's response is carried out with an eye to rhetorical conventions:
"The argument in 2 Cor 10-13 is cast throughout in the form of a reputable philosopher's
response to disreputable sophists. At virtually every point the positions of the participants
are described by Paul with conventional means." The standard by which to evaluate his
use of rhetoric, however, is debated. See E. A. Judge, "Paul's Boasting in Relation to
Contemporary Professional Practice," Australian Biblical Review, 16 (1968), 37-50; H. D.
Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu einer
"Apologie" 2 Korinther 10-13, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 45 (Tübingen: J. C. B.
Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1972); S. H. Travis, "Paul's Boasting in 2 Cor 10-12," Studia
Evangelica, VI (TU 112,1973), 527-532; V. P. Furnish, 7/ Corinthians, Anchor Bible (New
York: Doubleday, 1984); C. Forbes, "Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul's Boasting
and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric," New Testament Studies, 32 (1986), 1-30; P.
Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul's Relations with the Corinthians,
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/23 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr
[Paul Siebeck], 1987), pp. 339-395; J. P. Sampley, "Paul, His Opponents in 2 Corinthians
10-13, and the Rhetorical Handbooks," The Social World of Formative Christianity and
Judaism, ed. J. Neusner, E. S. Frerichs, P. Borgen, and R. Horsley (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1988), pp. 162-177.
5
Marshall, Enmity, p. 344.
6
Ibid.
7
See B. J. Malina and J. Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names: The Social Value of Labels in
Matthew (Sonoma, Cal.: Polebridge, 1988), pp. 4-5.
8
C. K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Harper's New Testament Commen-
384
Paul's Apostolic Authority
Review and Expositor, 86 (1989)
taries (New York: Harper, 1973), p. 245.
9
If this is a reference to the "severe letter" mentioned in 2:3-4 and 7:8, then it would
mean that it could not be chaps. 10-13. Talbert, Reading Corinthians, p. 112, offers a
plausible explanation for how this charge might have arisen. In 1 Cor. 4:18-21, Paul sternly
warns that he would discipline the arrogant ones when he returned and told them in
chap. 5 to discipline the offender. He apparently failed to follow through on this threat,
and consequently someone charged that Paul was not a spiritually authoritative apostle
but a man of theflesh.He threatens the rod but shows only gentleness. Paul withdrew
after the painful visit and did not respond immediately to this attack, which led others to
give credence to the charge that Paul was weak and only posing. Visiting apostles then
appeared (perhaps by invitation) who embodied the apostolic ideals by boldly exercising
their spiritual authority.
10
See Furnish, 2 Corinthians, p. 468, and the sources cited concerning the importance
of physical winsomeness. One should not take the description of Paul in the Acts of Paul
and Thecla as an indication of his ugliness. A. J. Malherbe, "A Physical Description of
Paul," Christians Among Jews and Gentiles, ed. G. W. E. Nickelsburg and G. W. MacRae
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), pp. 170-175, shows that according to ancient physiognomy
this description was not unflattering.
"Forbes, "Comparison," p. 16; see Marshall, Enmity, pp. 70-90.
12
Barrett, Second Epistle, p. 250.
13
If the "meekness and gentleness" (10:1) refers to characteristics of Jesus' earthly life,
one must assume that the Corinthians knew something of a tradition that depicted Jesus
as meek and gentle! An example of Paul's forbearing gentleness that may have been a
cause of some of his problems with the Corinthians can be found in 2:6-11, where he
requests that the community be kind to the one he had demanded be disciplined.
"For Paul, life in the sphere of the flesh requires a fight with spiritual weapons (Rom.
13:12,13; 1 Cor. 9:7; 2 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 6:11-17; 1 Thess. 5:8; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:3-4).
15
See Furnish, Π Corinthians, p. 462.
16
Forbes, "Paul's Boasting," pp>. 17,18.
17
It is possible, as R. P. MartinJ2 Corinthians, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco:
Word, 1986), pp. 316,321, contends, that it was the opponents who claimed that Paul had
overreached his authority and jurisdiction in his Corinthian mission; therefore, Paul's
mission to Corinth was illegitimate. But this seems to be a case of mirror reading, the
methodological danger inherent in arguing negatively from Paul's responses to construct
the views of his opponents. Marshall, Enmity, pp. 60-61, argues that this may not be done
until one has established the conventions used to frame Paul's response. Therefore, 10:1318 may not reflect any charge against Paul, but it definitely contains Paul's charge against
them!
18
Cited by Forbes, "Paul's Boasting," p. 8.
19
The term kanon probably refers to jurisdiction. See E. A. Judge, New Documents
Illustrating Early Christianity, 1976, #9; 1977, #55; Furnish, II Corinthians, p. 474; and
Marshall, Enmity, p. 368.
Whether Paul's protest related to the violation of the agreement in Gal. 2:6-10, as F. F.
Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians New Century Bible (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1971), p.
34, and Martin, 2 Corinthians, p. 316, contend, is impossible to prove until the identity of
the opponents can be firmly established.
20
Furnish, II Corinthians, p. 482, observes, "Behind this principle lies the familiar
Pauline distinction between one's ownrighteousness,based on personal achievements
and credentials, and therighteousnessfrom God 'which is through faith in Chrisf (Phil.
385
3:9, RSV)."
^Foolishness (11:1), fool (11:16,17,19,21; 12:6,11), and foolish (11:16) are the key words
of this section. The fool is one who cannot appraise himself or those around him correctly,
see Furnish, II Corinthians, p. 485. Barrett, Second Epistle, p. 306, comments on Paul's
response: "It is not expedient to boast, but it might be even more inexpedient not to
boast."
22
A number of rules listed by Plutarch are followed by Paul. For example, Plutarch
allowed that it is excusable to commend oneself if one is forced to defend oneself against
slander (see 11:30; 12:1,11); if it is connected to one's concern about others (see 10:8; 11:2,
10-11,28,29; 12:14-15,19); if it is necessary to turn others from a false course of action (see
11:1-4); and if it is necessary to humble rash enemies (see 11:12,18,20). See Betz, Der
Apostel Paulus, pp. 75-79; Marshall, Enmity, pp. 353-357; and Forbes, "Comparison," p. 20.
23
The sin of Eve is specifically linked to sexual seduction by Satan in Apoc Abr 23; b.
Shab. 146a; Yebam. 103b; Sota 9b; 'Abod. Zar. lib', see also 2 Enoch 31:6; 4 Mace. 18:7-8.
24
Kasemann, "Die Légitimât," pp. 41-48; and Barrett, Second Epistle, pp. 242-244,249253,278, maintain that the super apostles are different from Paul'srivalsin Corinth and
refer to the leading apostles in Jerusalem because: (1) Paul identifies his opponents as false
apostles (11:13) and ministers of Satan (11:14-15) and could hardly wish to claim an equal
status with such as these, but he does claim a somewhat equal status with the original
apostles (compare 1 Cor. 15:9 with 2 Cor. 12:11); (2) the dispute over apostolic jurisdiction
(2 Cor. 10:13-18) makes sense in light of the agreement with the pillar apostles of Jerusalem, James, John, and Cephas (Gal. 2:9); (3) the matter offinancialsupport for apostles is
brought up after reference to the super apostles (11:5,7-12; 12:11,13-15), which parallels
his comparison with the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas who
receive financial support in 1 Cor. 9:5. The intruders may have claimed to have been sent
out or backed by these Jerusalem apostles whom they characterize as superlative apostles.
See also M. E. TTirall, "Super-Apostles, Servants of Christ, and Servants of Satan," Journal
for the Study of the New Testament, 6 (1980), 42-57.
This view fails to convince because: (1) it requires a sudden transition from the
reference to his Corinthianrivalsin 11:4 to the mention of the super apostles in 11:5; (2)
Paul admits his lack of skill in public speaking (11:6), presumably when compared to the
super apostles (11:5); and this would hardly seem to be applicable to the Jerusalem
apostles who would be no better skilled in public rhetoric than Paul (see Acts 4:13); (3) the
mention of the super apostles in 12:11 concludes the fool's speech (11:21-12:10) in which
he has compared himself with his rivals; and (4) it would be unlikely that he would refer
to the Jerusalem apostles as he does in 11:13.
25
Josephus writes, "Jews do not favor those persons who have mastered the speech of
many nations or who adorn their style with smoothness of diction" (Ant. XX. xii. 1).
26
E. Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert ν. Chr. bis in der Zeit der
Renaissance (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1915), p. 507, and cited by Judge, "Paul's Boasting," p. 41,
and Furnish, II Corinthians, p. 490. Paul's self-effacement is similar to Dio Chrysostom's
XXXII, 39: "For they are clever persons, mighty sophists, wonder workers; but I am quite
ordinary and prosaic in my public speaking, though not ordinary in my theme."
27
Furnish, II Corinthians, p. 505.
28
R. F. Hock, in his sociological analysis of Paul's trade. The Social Context of Paul's
Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), pp. 54-59, concluded:
"Among the philosophers and itinerant teachers of Paul's day, continuing to work at a
craft was regarded as the least acceptable way of providing for life's necessities."
29
Marshall, Enmity, p. 397. Marshall, pp. 12-202,242-247, and Furnish, II Corinthians,
386
Paul's Apostolic Authority
Review and Expositor, 86 (1989)
pp. 507-508, show how in the Roman societal structure one's standing and influence was
effected by the number of one's clients and explain the protocol associated with the giving
and receiving of benefactions. To refuse friendship based on benefaction "was an act of
social enmity."
30
Barrett, Second Epistle, pp. 281-282, cites Antiphon's criticism of Socrates: "If you set
any value on your society, you would insist on getting the proper price for that too. It may
be that you are a just man because you do not cheat people through avarice (pleonexia); but
wise you cannot be, since your knowledge is not worth anything" (Xenophon, Memorabilia
I. vi. 12)."
31
See Betz, Der Apostel, pp. 100-117; Georgi, The Opponents, pp. 234-242; Talbert,
Reading Corinthians, p. 126.
32
So Furnish, II Corinthians, p. 509; and Barrett, Second Epistle, p. 282.
33
Some have contended that Paul refused to accept aid from any church while he was
present with them. But Marshall, Enmity, pp. 232-233, contends more plausibly that the
offer of a gift was made by a faction in Corinth who wanted to put Paul under obligation
to them.
34
It is difficult to identify precisely what the false gospel was that was proclaimed by
the opponents. We should not jump too quickly to any conclusion that it was a Judaizing
gospel simply because of the parallel reference to "another gospel" in Gal. 1:6-7.
R. Bultmann, The Second Letter to the Corinthians, ed. E. Dinlder, and trans. R. A.
Harrisville (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), p. 203, claims that it does not require specific,
dogmatic, Christological doctrines. Although false doctrine may be involved, Paul does
not attack their doctrine. "For him, the denial of his apostleship and the arrogance of a
false apostolate (w. 13-15) already spells a falsification of the gospel." It is clear, however,
that their gospel allows for self boasting and arrogance. It also gives them a warrant for
assuming much more spiritual authority than Paul thinks appropriate. They tend to lord
over others and do not assume the role of humble servant. It is also a gospel that apparently places greater emphasis on ecstatic visions.
35
Furnish, II Corinthians, p. 534, citing Betz, Der Apostel, p. 97, notes that the "matter of
one's 'good breeding' (eugenia) was a standard topic of Hellenistic rhetoric."
36
Sampley, "Paul," pp. 168-169; and J. T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An
Examination of the Catalogue of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence, SEL Dissertation
Series 99 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988), pp. 25-26, maintain that the opponents boasted of their
hardships and argue that Paul's list is not a parody because (1) he includes lists of
hardships in non-polemical contexts in other epistles (Rom. 8:35; Phil. 4:11-12); (2) the list
in 1 Cor. 4:9-13 was written before the appearance of the rivals; (3) the items included are
things that he praises his churches and associates for enduring (Phil. 2:19-22; Col. 4:12-13;
Acts 15:25-26).
37
See A. Fridrichsen, "Zum Stil des paulinischen Peristasenkatalogs. 2 Cor ll,23ff.,"
Symbolae osloenses, 7 (1928), 25-29, and "Peristasenkatalog und res gestae: Nachtrag zu 2
Cor. 11,23ff.," Symbolae osloenses, 8 (1929), 78-82; Georgi, Die Gegner, pp. 241-246,288 n. 5,
295; Judge, "Paul's Boasting," pp. 47-50; Travis "Paul's Boasting," pp. 529-530; Betz, Der
Apostel; Furnish, 17 Corinthians, pp. 532-533; Forbes, "Paul's Boasting," pp. 18-22. A.
Lincoln, "Paul the Visionary," New Testament Studies, 25 (1983), 209-210, refers to ironic
twists; Marshall, Enmity, p. 360, claims he isridiculinghimself rather than parodying his
opponent's boasts.
The honors accorded to the emperor Augustus on the Monumentum Ancyranum, 'Twice I
received triumphal ovations. Three times I celebrated curule triumphs. Twenty times and
one did I receive the appellation of imperator," form a striking contrast to Paul's list.
387
38
Marshall, Enmity, p. 353; see Forbes, "Paul's Boasting," p. 19.
Marshall, Enmity, p. 360, notes that no parallel to this kind of sustained self-derision
exists among Greek or Roman authors.
40
On the reconstruction of the details of the Damascus incident, see Furnish, II
Corinthians, pp. 521-522.
41
R. H. Strachan, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Moffatt New Testament
Commentary (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935), p. 28.
42
So Barrett, Second Epistle, p. 303; Bruce, J & II Corinthians, pp. 244-245; Furnish, II
Corinthians, p. 541; and Talbert, Reading Corinthians, p. 123.
43
E. A. Judge, "The Conflict of Educational Aims in New Testament Thought," Journal
of Christian Education, 9 (1966), 44-45. The corona muralis was made of gold and fashioned
to look like the turreted wall of a fortified city.
44
Furnish, II Corinthians, p. 542.
45
A number of Paul's visions are reported in Acts 16:9-10; 18:9-10; 22:17-21; 23:11;
26:19; 27:23-24; see also Gal. 2:2.
46
Furnish, II Corinthians, p. 543.
47
Jewish literature contains a wide array of cosmologies (with one, two, three, five
and seven heavens); and Lincoln, "Paul the Visionary," p. 213, thinks that it is best to
understand the third heaven as a synonym for Paradise, the realm entered upon death
(Luke 23:43). It must have been considered by Paul to be the uppermost heaven because
the vision would have lost its impact if he did not ascend to the highest level. The fact that
he says he "was snatched" indicates that this experience was not something initiated by
Paul.
48
Lincoln, "Paul the Visionary," pp. 208-209, believes that Paul uses the third person
because of the impropriety of praising oneself; it should be done by another. Martin, 2
Corinthians, p. 403, contends that the combination of the use of the third person and the
admission of ignorance about his state during the experience is a polemical device
designed "to play down the opponents' claim to ecstatic experience as a validation of
ministry." Similarly, Furnish, Π Corinthians, p. 544, states that it reflects Paul's unwilling­
ness to claim this private religious experience as an apostolic credential. If this is true, it
must mean that Paul's encounter with therisenJesus on the Damascus road was not
considered by him to be a private vision (1 Cor. 15:8).
49
Furnish, II Corinthians, p. 546.
50
According to Plutarch, On Praising Oneself Inoffensively, 13, self-praise is made more
palatable by a reference to some personal flaw. The term, skolops can mean stake, splinter,
or thorn. The attempts to specify what it was range from some kind of mental anguish or
torment such as depression, to dogged persecution by opponents, to every imaginable
physical malady. Something of the latter seems to be the most plausible because the image
connotes physical discomfort and illnesses were believed to be caused by demons. Paul
makes a reference to an illness that forced him to stay in Galatia (Gal. 4:13-14); but to do
and suffer all that he lists in 11:23-28, it could not have been an incapacitating disease. P.
Marshall, "A Metaphor of Social Shame: THRIAMBEUEIN in 2 Cor. 2:14," Novum Testamentum, 25 (1983), 315-316, is probably correct to identify it as a "socially debilitating
disease or disfigurement which was made the subject ofridiculeand invidious comparison.
51
This may be a reference to Jewish prayers in the morning, afternoon and evening, or
to a threefold petition for assistance common in Hellenistic accounts of divine healing; but
most probably it refers to "earnest and repeated prayer" (Barrett, Second Epistle, p. 316).
52
Furnish, II Corinthians, pp. 282,354-355,531,550-551, contrasts Paul's attitude to his
39
388
Paul's Apostolic Authority
Review and Expositor, 86 (1989)
weaknesses with that of the Cynic and Stoic philosophers of his day. Instead of appealing
to his hardships to demonstrate his courage, to dismiss them as trifling, or to show how
they do not effect his philosophic equilibrium, he recounts them as real weaknesses that
drive home his dependence on God.
53
The signs are miracles, but the passive voice suggests that they were done by God.
See J. Jervell, "The Signs of an Apostle: Paul's Miracles," The Unknown Paul (Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1984), pp. 91-94, who suggests that one of Paul's problems in Corinth stemmed
from the fact that he was an ailing miracle worker.
54
According to Furnish, II Corinthians, p. 508, the fact that Paul refused to allow
anyone in Corinth to be his patron yet arranged a collection for Jerusalem may have
"aroused the suspicion, or allowed his rivals to plant the suspicion" that it was but a ruse
for gaining financial support without becoming obligated as a client (see 12:16). See also
Talbert, Reading Corinthians, p. 128; Martin, 2 Corinthians, p. 445. P. E. Hughes, PauVs
Second Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1962), p. 465, suggested that therivalsmade this
accusation in hopes that this would scuttle the collection and leave that money available
for themselves; but this is highly improbable.
Josephus (Ant. 18:81-84) reported the chicanery of four Jews who persuaded a high
ranking female Roman convert to send gifts to the temple which they converted to cash
and pocketed. The incident led Tiberius to banish all Jews from Rome.
55
See H. Van Vliet, No Single Testimony (Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon, 1958), pp. 53-62;
and Furnish, JI Corinthians, pp. 574-576.
56
E. Best, 2 Corinthians, Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1987), p. 95.
57
R. May, Power and Innocence: A Search for the Sources of Violence (New York: W. W.
Norton, 1972), pp. 105-113.
58
Furnish, II Corinthians, p. 477. Barrett, 2 Corinthians, p. 292, comments: "Human
strength is known by its fruit: the acquisition of dignity and influence by those who
possess and use it. Divine power also is known by its fruit: the conversion of men and
their building up into the new Christian society." Paul will tear down arguments, not
people (10:5).
389
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.