Second Corinthians

 

19.6 Introduction

 

Paul’s second letter to the Jesus-followers in Corinth responds to new problems incited by itinerant Christian missionaries who were hostile to Paul. As a result, its focus is directed less at the numerous congregational divisions and more at the congregation’s erratic relationship with Paul. One of the pressing matters is the recent infiltration of Christian-Jewish missionaries who have added to the disruptions.

​

In comparison to 1 Corinthians, Paul conveys a more personal and confrontational tone because the legitimacy of his apostolic ministry is challenged and perhaps even threatened. The spectrum of his emotional responses reveals a depth of conviction and theological reflection that is found nowhere else. The controversies that Paul addresses also uncover diverse perspectives and their accompanying power struggles that threatened to fragment and potentially eradicate the early Christian movement. The deep emotional swings expressed in this letter are intertwined with theological reflection.

​

To a lesser degree, we find the same kind of theological after-effects in Paul’s other letters. Here, though, extracting Paul’s thinking about God from his joy in one part of the letter and his pain from another part is particularly challenging. The entwining of deep emotion and theology raises questions, such as, “Is Paul’s anger toward the Corinthians representative of God’s anger?” “Is Paul simply thinking out loud in the heat of the moment?” and  “If God has strengthened, anointed, and set his seal upon believers by giving them his Spirit (2 Cor 1:21–22), then how can they so quickly be persuaded by missionaries that Paul calls “servants of Satan” (2 Cor 11:13–15)?”

​

The main problem that continues to impact how scholars interpret the letter, how they situate it in relation to 1 Corinthians, and how they reconstruct its underlying problems and opponents is its unity. The designation “2” Corinthians in today’s New Testament gives the impression that this is a unified and self-contained letter, but this is not at all clear. In fact, the “editorial seams” (which refers to the abrupt literary shifts that indicate the stitching together of prior material) are more obvious here than in 1 Corinthians, which indicates that the letter is a composition of other letters.

 

​

​

19.7 Authorship, Date, and Literary Unity of the Letter

 

Aside from the problem of how the letter may have been stitched together, Paul’s authorship is not disputed. At the beginning, he identifies himself together with “Timothy, our brother” as co-authors (2 Cor 2:1:1). If the letter is not a unified whole, then Paul and Timothy may have written shorter letters at different times that were stitched together at a later date, or they may have written and/or edited the version that we today have in our New Testaments.

​

This uncertainty affects how the letter is dated. If it was written in one piece, then it can be dated as early as 57–58 CE, which would be within two years of the writing of 1 Corinthians. If the letter is a composite, consisting of two to five individual letters, then the dates would range from the early to the late 50s CE.

​

Why is the letter so often considered to be a compilation of pervious letters? This is certainly not a question that is posed to Galatians or Romans, for example. The overarching reason is that the letter contains inconsistencies in tone that are often marked by abrupt transitions.

​

The main case in point is chapters 10–13 in which Paul threatens a third visit so that he could bring direct judgment against the Corinthian Jesus-followers. This section of the letter is marked by frustration, sarcasm and negativity. For example, in 13:5 Paul presses the Corinthians, “Examine yourselves to see whether you are living in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? —unless, indeed, you fail to meet the test!” His frustration leads him to wonder if they are even believers anymore.

​

An entirely different tone is expressed in chapters 1–9 where Paul states that he has cancelled his pending visit because there was no longer a need to inflict further pain on the Corinthians (e.g. 2 Cor 2:1). The initial pain to which Paul refers was the content of the “tearful letter” that Titus delivered (2 Cor 2:2–4; 7:8). When Titus returned back to Paul and reported that the letter affected its desired goal of making amends, Paul no longer saw a need to pay the Corinthians a visit (2 Cor 7:5–9). The tone is warm, encouraging, and overall positive. For example, in 7:4, he writes,

“I often boast about you; I have great pride in you; I am filled with consolation; I am overjoyed in all our affliction.” And in 7:16, he repeats, “I rejoice, because I have complete confidence in you.”

​

Despite appearing after chapters 1–9, many scholars argue that chapters 10–13 (or part of it) is the “tearful letter” that supposedly caused the Corinthians pain (2 Cor 2:2–4). Certainly, the abrupt transition in 10:1 contains the features typically found at the beginning of letters. If this is the case, then chapters 1–9 expresses Paul’s gratefulness that he and the Corinthians are reconciled again. According to this reconstruction, 2 Corinthians is an amalgamation of two letters that were woven together. This conflating practice was not unusual in antiquity. Scholars have long known that smaller pieces of writing that may have consisted of one or several sheets of papyrus were sometimes copied onto a scroll, which would have allowed for easier archiving and distribution.

​

Many scholars maintain that 2 Corinthians does not consist of two previous letters, but possible up to five letters. The reasoning is again based on abrupt transitions, repetitions, and inconsistencies, such as Paul and Timothy’s past visits, present location, and future travel plans. Chapters 1–7 are particularly cumbersome in ascertaining their itineraries.

​

If indeed 2 Corinthians is a pastiche of several letters, then they could have originally been addressed to churches that Paul founded elsewhere. There is no necessity to restrict their original destination to Corinth. Since chapters 10–13 is a consistent section, scholars focus their various “partition theories” on chapters 1–9, which certainly opens itself to these kinds of questions. As a thought-provoking literary exercise, readers of 2 Corinthians are advised to read chapters 1–9 for themselves and answer the following questions:

 

• Does Paul’s fundraising request, which can be viewed rhetorically as a potential shaming of the Corinthians (when compared to the contribution made by the poor Macedonians), constitute a new topic that appears awkwardly in relation to the previous section which focusses on the good news about the Corinthians’ desire to reconcile? Is 2 Cor 8:1 the start of a separate letter?

​

• 2 Cor 9:1 is constructed as if a new topic will ensue. However, from 9:2 onward it continues to address that same issue as chapter 8. Why would Paul repeat himself in such close proximity? Could chapter 9 at one time have been a separate letter? What other reason might explain the transitional language in 9:1?

   

• Does the section consisting of 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 appear out of place? The reason why some scholars think it does is because this section is preceded and followed by the same language. In the verse preceding this section (6:13), Paul urges the Corinthians to open their hearts to him. Likewise, in the verse following this section (7:2), Paul asks the Corinthians to make room in their hearts “for us.” The section separating these two verses is about associations with unbelievers. Some have even argued that this section contains noticeable non-Pauline expressions. For example, in this section we find an uncharacteristic reference to “Beliar” (6:15), where Paul normally uses “Satan,” and instructions to not associate with unbelievers, which appear to be at odds with the permissibility of such associations in 1 Cor 10:27, 32–33. Where did 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 originate? Has this passage come from another Pauline letter? Or did it come from a letter not written by Paul?

 

Scholars who are convinced that these factors are indicative of editorial seams argue for up to five letters that were merged to form our 2 Corinthians. In summary, a common reconstruction that emerges from this five-letter “partition theory” is as follows. Letter A: 1:1–6:13; 7:2–16. Letter B: 6:14–7:1 (perhaps part of a non-Pauline letter?). Letter C: 8:1–24 (a fundraising letter). Letter D: 9:1–15 (a fundraising letter to another church?). And Letter E: 10:1–13:13 (the “tearful” letter or its part).

​

​

Info Box 19.5

Conflation of Writings in Non-Christian Literature

​

Is there an ancient precedent for conflating multiple letters into a single composite letter? The short answer is yes. But some additional questions are important to ask if we are to assess the plausibility of partition theories for 2 Corinthians, such as:

​

How long after the sending and reception of individual letters were their composites constructed?

​

Were individual letters edited or altered in any way when they were later combined?

​

Three examples of letter-collecting in the ancient Mediterranean world are often used as comparisons to establish a precedent for 2 Corinthians. These examples consist of Latin compilations of Roman writers, Coptic compilations by a third-century monk, and compilations found in Greek papyri. Consider each one in more detail.

​

The Latin evidence is among our earliest examples of non-fictional letter-collections outside the New Testament. Select letters of Cicero (106–43 BCE), Seneca (c. 1–65 CE), and Pliny the Younger (c. 61–112 CE) were on occasion collected into a single compilation and circulated. However, the manuscripts that have survived to the present are very late. Therefore, scholars cannot accurately date these collections. Regardless, there are two insights worth noting.

​

First, the collectors or editors did not arrange the letters chronologically. Instead, and unlike modern organizational expectations, the letters were arranged by theme and/or addressee. In fact, when writings were found to be collected and arranged chronologically, they take on the genre of historical or biographical narrations.

​

Second, letter-collections were intended to be circulated during the lifetimes of the writers, and beyond in posterity.

​

The Coptic evidence comes from the monk, Pachomius. Until recently, the letters of Pachomius were only known in their late Latin translations by Jerome (5th century). However, Coptic manuscripts (which was the language of original compositions) have been discovered along with Greek ones that date approximately to the time when Jerome was constructing his translations.

​

The primary insight to note here is that the Greek and Coptic collectors/editors of these letters have arranged them in an inconsistent manner. Due to these differently arranged compilations, individual letters can be easily detected. In some instances, we observe the collector/editor conflating two smaller letters into one larger letter. And conversely, we observe a longer letter being divided into smaller ones, which could be then organized thematically.

​

The evidence from Greek papyri demonstrates the widespread practice of archiving letters by conflating them onto rolls. Although these are not widely discussed documents in New Testament studies, examples such as Letters from Heliodorus (P. Sarapion 87–9) and Letters from Isidora to Asclepiades (BGU 4.1206–7) attest to this phenomenon. In addition, papyri such as P. Lille 1.3 and P. Panopolis Beatty 2 further demonstrate what happens to some letters when they undergo conflation.

​

Since ancient letters contained formulaic openings and closings (as we find in Paul’s letters), these epistolary sections were susceptible to being omitted or altered, probably because there was not enough space on a papyrus sheet.

 

​

​

19.8 Purpose

 

Paul’s attempt to address the crisis in leadership and unity is fundamental to the purpose of both 1 and 2 Corinthians. While the former is focussed on the many problems arising from within the church, the latter also addresses problems that have been imported by rival missionaries.

​

If we treat 2 Corinthians as a unified whole, then Paul’s main reason for writing is to defend the divine source of his apostolic ministry and authority so that the congregation can achieve some semblance of harmony and organization. If we, however, assume that 2 Corinthians is a compilation of smaller letters written over an extended period of time, then it will affect how we reconstruct the congregation’s situation and Paul’s relationship to it.

​

While the overall problems that Paul addresses remain the same, their sequence and interrelationship would be much more nuanced. As a result, one would have to provide a purpose for each reconstructed letter, which is beyond the aim of this introduction.

​

Let us assume that 2 Corinthians is a combination of two previous letters, namely chapters 1–9 and 10–13. Chapters 1–9 contains a powerful re-affirmation of the ministry that Paul began among the Corinthians. For this major section of the letter, 2 Cor 1:12–14 can serve as a thesis statement. On the heels of what appears to be a repaired relationship between Paul and the Corinthians, this section reaffirms that the believers are united members of Christ’s body and will soon come to experience the fulfillment of their new identity when Christ returns. Paul’s reassurance of his good relationship with the Corinthians clearly comes through when he writes, “For we write you nothing other than what you can read and also understand… that on the day of the Lord Jesus we are your boast even as you are our boast” (2 Cor 1:13–14).

​

In Chapters 10–13 we notice an abrupt shift from Paul’s affirmation of his ministry to a defense of his authority. This is precipitated by the arrival of Christian missionaries of Jewish descent who challenged Paul’s teachings and apostolic authority. We do not know their origin or their motives. They probably arrived soon after Paul left Corinth and just as quickly became his rivals, competing for the allegiances of the Corinthian Jesus-followers. Paul refers to them sarcastically as “super-apostles” (2 Cor 11:5) since they present themselves as superior to Paul in abilities, knowledge, ethnic status, and past successes (2 Cor 11:12–23). For example, they slander Paul by calling him “weak” and his speech “contemptible” (2 Cor 10:10). Holding nothing back, Paul responds by calling them deceitful workers, false apostles, and servants of Satan, countering any of their claims to being legitimate apostles of Christ and ministers of righteousness (2 Cor 11:13–15).

​

Paul does not provide a clear explanation of what his rival missionaries were teaching. We can only surmise from his reference to their teaching of “another Jesus,” a “different spirit,” and a “different gospel” (2 Cor 11:4) that it was at odds with Paul’s message. Certainly, the legitimacy of his ministry was being challenged. Otherwise, he would not reiterate that both he and the Corinthians already “belong to Christ” (2 Cor 10:7; 13:3, 5).

​

The acceptance of these rivals among the Corinthians might be explained in part by their persuasive communication skills and in part by their endorsement of the charismatic practices, such as speaking in tongues and prophesying. They may have participated in them or shared their own charismatic expressions. If indeed this was the case, then it would have contravened instructions in 1 Corinthians 12–14, causing a public challenge to Paul’s teachings and authority.

​

Paul’s response is consistent with 1 Corinthians. He insists that the life of the believer is not yet in an elevated and glorified state. While the hope is real, the believer presently lives in a world of pain and suffering which is under the control of cosmic powers currently ruling this age (2 Cor 11:20–31). The suffering, however, is not in vain when related to the suffering of Christ on the cross since it reveals God’s paradoxical character in a way that was not customary among both Jews and Gentiles (1 Cor 21–22). The suffering of Christ, that serves as a touchstone for Paul’s suffering, redefines power and wisdom both in relation to humanity and God. Suffering takes on a new value because it produces redemption in response to conventional notions of power and success. Those who belong to Christ, according to Paul, should embody a radically new value system and perspective on reality that stems from Christ’s suffering and death.

 

 

​

19.9 Chronology of Paul’s Interactions with the Corinthian Jesus-Followers

 

Trying to reconstruct Paul’s interactions with the Corinthians over several years is a complicated task because it relies on limited data and competing partition theories. The removal or rearrangement of one controversial datum will affect the sequence of events. Nevertheless, a basic sketch that includes Paul’s visits and letters is possible and helpful for understanding the long-standing relationship. The following chronological reconstruction is a viable option that can serve as a general starting point in making sense of the interactions. It assumes that 2 Corinthians is an amalgamation of two letters.

​

Paul’s First Visit

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy arrived in Corinth in the early 50s CE. They preached the gospel and won several converts, whom they provided with basic instructions before leaving for other destinations (2 Cor 1:19; Acts 18:1–18).

​

The “Lost” First Letter

Paul claims that he wrote a previous letter (1 Cor 5:9), which did not appear to survive. It seems to have dealt with ethical issues, in much the same way that 1 Corinthians does. Some scholars argue that it did survive, however. The lost letter, or an excerpt from it, is supposedly 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 since it forms an odd interruption in Paul’s train of thought, as mentioned above. Moreover, it deals with the topic which Paul says he addressed in his “previous” letter (1 Cor 5:9).

​

The Corinthian Visitors

Paul receives visitors from the Corinthian church (which he calls “Chloe’s people”) who deliver a report to him about the state of affairs in Corinth (1 Cor 1:11). Some of 1 Corinthians was written in response to the visitors’ report.

​

The Corinthians’ First Letter to Paul

While it is unclear whether this letter was intended to be a response to Paul’s first (“lost”) letter, the Corinthians wrote Paul to inquire about ethical matters. In particular, they inquired whether or not married couples who are now Jesus-followers could have sex with each other (1 Cor 7:1). The letter may have been delivered by Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor 16:17).

​

Paul’s Second Letter, 1 Corinthians

In response to the oral report from Chloe’s people and the letter Paul received, Paul wrote what we today call 1 Corinthians addressing a litany of problems. He announces his plans to travel and visit for the winter (1 Cor 16:5–7). He likely had Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, who were members of the Corinthian congregation, deliver the letter to their fellow believers living in Corinth (1 Cor 16:15–17).

​

Paul’s Second Visit

Paul’s second visit is recalled in 2 Cor 2:1–4, where Paul states that he does not want to make “another painful visit.” The visit to which he refers likely occurred soon after Paul wrote and sent what we know as 1 Corinthians. The visit presumably occurred in the winter as he earlier promised. The unpleasant experience may have resulted from a less than welcoming reception and perhaps even a public humiliation (2 Cor 2:5–11). Paul left Corinth, in pain, and threatened a retaliatory judgment against them (2 Cor 13:2).

​

Paul’s Third Letter (the “Tearful” Letter)

Paul wrote this letter “out of much distress and anguish of heart and with many tears” (2 Cor 2:4) soon after his “painful visit” which caused considerable distress to both parties. This “tearful letter” would have addressed the interpersonal divisions experienced during Paul’s recent visit. As noted above, many scholars today suspect that 2 Corinthians 10–13 is this “tearful letter” or a good portion of it. It seems to fit the sort of letter that would have caused grief (2 Cor 7:8). Apparently, this letter achieved its desired effect. Titus delivered the letter and reported back to Paul that the Corinthians punished a nameless perpetrator that caused stress in the community (2 Cor 2:5–11), repented of the pain they caused Paul, and returned back to being aligned with Paul (2 Cor 7:5–12). Relieved, Paul cancelled his pending plans to visit (2 Cor 1:15–2:2).

​

Paul’s Fourth Letter

The fourth letter, which is sometimes called the “letter of reconciliation,” consists of a substantial portion from 2 Corinthians 1–9 (specifically 1:1–6:13; 7:2–16), though it should be remembered that there is no consensus on the possible editorial seams in this large section. Some scholars propose that chapters 8–9 should also be included in this fourth letter. Others argue that these two chapters constitute a separate letter. Still others claim that chapters 8 and 9 were once independent of each other. If so, then Paul would have written more than the four letters presented here. Nevertheless, if we opt for chapters 1–9 as a more or less unified letter, then it was written after Titus reported on the improving conditions in Corinth, which prompted Paul to write a friendly letter that expressed his gratitude and delight about the Corinthians’ change of heart (2 Cor 2:5–11; 7:5–16), and explains why he did not return for another visit (2 Cor 1:15–2:4).

 

​

​

19.10 Themes

​

The Collection for the Saints in Jerusalem

​

When most people think about Paul, they tend to focus on his theological acumen in contexts of controversy, but they rarely think of him as a fundraiser. In chapters 8–9, we find an extensive discussion by Paul on the importance of fundraising. Nowhere else in the New Testament do we find a more comprehensive treatment.

​

The fundraising effort stems from Paul’s promise to the Jewish Christian leaders in Jerusalem that he would take up a collection among the Gentile churches for the “needs of the saints” (Cor 9:12 cf. Gal 2:10; cf. Acts 11:29–30; 24:17). For the Jewish Jesus-followers in Jerusalem, it is not unreasonable to imagine that donations by their Gentile counterparts would have caused a dilemma in light of ethnic divides.

​

Curiously, Paul introduces the topic in 2 Cor 9:1 as though it is new, even though it is already discussed in the previous chapter. As mentioned above, for some, this represents a literary seam that reveals two separate letters. This is entirely possible since chapter 8 appears to be directed at believers in the city of Corinth, whereas chapter 9 appears to target the believers throughout the province of Achaia.

​

Alternatively, though the introduction in 9:1 might seem redundant, it does not necessarily indicate a different underlying letter. It could be the result of intended repetition for emphasis. Scholars who argue against 9:1 being an editorial seam claim that select expressions in chapter 9 (like “brother” and “boasting”) find their meaning in chapter 8.

​

​

Info Box 19.6

Poverty in the Ancient Mediterranean World

​

Poverty is a slippery term to universally define since it is relative to a specific cultural context. In the ancient Mediterranean world, poverty was viewed somewhat differently compared to our modern conceptions. In its most general sense, however, it concerns a financial lack that results in an inability to participate in the normal activities of society.

​

For the ancients, the causes of poverty were not that different from modern ones. They included poor health, unemployment, drought, debt, taxation, lack of government support, and ethnic and class discriminations. Macro-economic studies of the Roman Empire conclude that it was a strong and vibrant economy. However, the economic strength and stability of the Empire did not trickle down to all of the lower social classes. Social scientific studies reveal a wide economic gap between the elite and the peasantry. The vast majority of the population lived just above or below the subsistence level. In a study on urban centres of 10,000 inhabitants or more, seven socio-economic class groups were observed.

 

1. Imperial elites (e.g. senators), consisting of 0.04% of the population.

2. Regional or provincial elites (e.g. governors, wealthy landowners, priests), consisting of 1% of the population.

3. Municipal elites (e.g. city officials, wealthy landowners, priests), consisting of 1.76% of the population.

4. Those with a moderate surplus (e.g. larger traders, merchants, artisans), consisting of 7% of the population.

5. Those living on a stable or near subsistence level with reasonable hope of remaining above the subsistence/poverty line (e.g. smaller traders, merchants, artisans), consisting of 22% of the population.

6. Those living at the subsistence level and even below (e.g. small farming families, employed artisans, labourers, traders, merchants), consisting of 40% of the population.

7. Those living below the subsistence level (e.g. some farm families, unskilled labourers, disabled, widows, orphans, beggars, prisoners), consisting of 28% of the population.

 

 

To summarize, under 10% of the population lived well beyond a subsistence level. The other 90% constantly experienced economic pressure and two thirds of the total population lived (and died) in extreme poverty.

​

In Judea and Galilee, some studies have shown that the poverty rates were even higher in rural areas. This was due to the hostilities between Jewish militants and Roman authorities which were in part caused by the heavy taxations levied by the Roman Empire, the Temple, and the Herodian rulers. High taxes forced many peasants to borrow from landowners, especially during droughts, creating a debtor-society. This resulted in many losing ownership of ancestral lands, and even the loss of providing for children who would be forced to leave their village/family in search of a livelihood elsewhere.

​

During the years leading up to the Roman-Jewish War in 66–70 CE, many Galileans and Judeans declined from group 6 to 7 (above), and a number likely were forced into slavery.

 

 

 

Paul’s approach to fundraising exhibits his rhetorical skill. In addition to reporting on the generosity of the neighbouring Macedonian churches, he attempts to convince the Corinthians to contribute to the cause by avoiding the standard terminology for money. Instead, he uses euphemisms, namely “gift” (1 Cor 16:3), “privilege” (2 Cor 8:4), “generous undertaking” (2 Cor 8:6–7), “service” (2 Cor 8:4; 9:1, 12–13), “blessing” (2 Cor 9:5), and “fellowship” (2 Cor 8:4; 9:13). His choice of terms was intended to both persuade the Corinthians and to instruct them that generosity and a gracious willingness to share reflects gratitude for God’s reconciling grace through Christ.

​

For Paul, the relief effort was both a charitable act as well as a strategic one. As a charitable act, which resembled an earlier collection by the church at Antioch for the Judean believers (Acts 11:27–30), helping the poor was a fundamental expression of faithfulness to Christ who gave his life for the redemption of the world.

​

As a strategic act, it was to demonstrate to the Jewish Jesus-followers in Jerusalem that Gentile believers should be viewed as supportive, caring, and ultimately unified in the cause of Christ. A unified church consisting of both Jews and Gentiles was fundamental to Paul’s theology, which always integrated faith and action. The implication for Paul’s missionary agenda was potentially huge. Paul may have well thought that if the Jewish Jesus-followers in Jerusalem accepted the donation from the Gentiles, then it would lead to a broader acceptance of the gospel among Jews which would in turn lead to the fulfillment of his eschatological plan of “all Israel” being saved (Rom 11:14). Some of Paul’s thinking may have been influence by his reading of Isa 55:10, which he loosely quotes (“seed to the sower and bread for food”) in 2 Cor 9:10. The quotation, along with the previous one from Ps 112:9 in 2 Cor 9:9, conveys the biblical metaphor that God will provide an abundant harvest when his people sow generously.

​

The point that Paul wants to convey to the Corinthians is that their giving will be used by God to increase the yield of righteousness among the Jews in Judea.

​

​

 

Info Box 19.7

Gift Giving in the Ancient Mediterranean World

 

Ancient Mediterranean society utilized a gift-giving system that is best explained as quid pro quo. Whether poor or wealthy, everyone was expected to give generously; and every gift given was expected to be reciprocated. Failure to reciprocate a gift brought shame on the entire family or community.

​

The modern-Western ideal of a “no-strings-attached” gift was alien. Gift-giving created and sustained relationships—be they business relationships or friendships.

​

A material gift, such as money, could have been reciprocated with a non-material gift (such as honour and loyalty). This was typically the procedure for gifts between the wealthy and the poor. Non-material “gifts” such as gratitude, honour, loyalty, fame and glory were expected in return. For the poor, this system is especially important since on occasion their survival depended on it.

​

People were less inclined to give to those known as stingy since they would be more unlikely to reciprocate the gift.

​

​

What was initially conceived as one-time collection appears to have occupied much more of Paul’s time during his ministry around the Aegean Sea in the 50s. The importance of the relief effort extends beyond 2 Corinthians and is also mentioned in Rom 15:25–27 and 1 Cor 16:1–4, but for unknown reasons does not appear in Luke’s account of the Aegean ministry in Acts 16–20, though an allusion to it is found later in Acts when Paul defends his ministry before the Judean Governor, Felix (Acts 24:17). The collection and distribution of the money must have been a formidable undertaking that required considerable trust and security. Paul delegated Titus and two fellow workers in helping with the coordination of the collection.

 

​

Paul’s Apostolic Authority

​

Paul’s defence of his apostolic authority is given significant attention throughout 2 Corinthians. After the arrival of the “super-apostles” in Corinth, the internal faction-building and its resulting fragmentation that is seen in 1 Corinthians 1 now turns to an intense power struggle between Paul and these rival missionaries. They seek to undermine his apostolic authority in favour of their own with the aim of winning the Corinthians’ allegiance in the same name of Christ. Paul considers them a threat and a fraud, claiming that “such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Cor 11:13).

​

With his authority under attack, Paul adamantly reinforces that his authority is not of human origin, but comes directly from God with responsibilities. He warns the Corinthians that his divine authority entitles him to punish those who are disobedient with “weapons of warfare” that are not merely human (2 Cor 10:2–6). Paul sees the implications of the confrontation extending beyond a human political or relational struggle to one that affects their identity in Christ.

​

While Paul is not ashamed to threaten the Corinthians so they might conform to his authority (2 Cor 13:1–2), he is at the same time cautious so that he does not dismantle the congregation in the process. His main intention is to use his authority to build it up (2 Cor 10:8), which appears to be no simple task given their stubbornness (2 Cor 11:19–20).  

​

Paul is not one who tends to boast in his own accomplishments and status. He considers it unseemly, and on occasion writes, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord” (1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17; Gal 6:14). However, in his response to the “super-apostles” in 2 Corinthians, Paul boasts uncharacteristically to undermine their self-imposed authority and endorses his own. He matches them boast for boast. For example, Paul boasts that he too is an Israelite and descendent of Abraham (2 Cor 11:22), that he is a superior minister of Christ who has made many more sacrifices for the sake of the Gospel (2 Cor 11:23–29), that he has received visions and revelations from the Lord (2 Cor 12:1–7), and that he has worked signs and wonders (2 Cor 12:12).

​

While the boasting is intended to show the inferiority of his rival missionaries, it is also aimed at shaming the Corinthians who failed to defend Paul against attacks (2 Cor 10:10; 11:5–6; 12:11).

​

Paul certainly recognizes that his self-boasting is foolishness (2 Cor11:1, 16–19, 21, 23; 12:11), but he uses it rhetorically to reveal the folly and arrogance of the “super-apostles.” Paul changes the contest of boasting and hence its accomplishments. While his missionary rivals boast in their strengths according to human standards, Paul boasts in his weaknesses in accordance with God’s standards. In Paul’s logic, the weaker party is more likely the one through whom God is working since through grace “power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor 12:9). Paul can remain content with hardships, insults, and persecutions because Christ’s power is revealed through them (2 Cor 12:10).

​

​

Info Box 19.8

Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh

​

In 2 Cor 12:7–10 Paul boasts of his weakness by providing an example of being plagued by a metaphorical “thorn in the flesh,” which he also calls “a messenger of Satan.” Despite three requests to have it removed, Paul claims that “the Lord” answered, “my grace is sufficient for you.” The meaning of Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” has been debated for a long time.

Least convincing are psychological proposals, such as a negative self-image, not being accepted by his fellow Jews, or sexual temptation.

More common are physiological suggestions, such as poor eyesight (Gal 4:15), a speech defect (Gal 4:13; 2 Cor 10:10; 11:16), recurring malaria, or headaches.

​

The best option might be that it refers to his opponents, such as the “super-apostles.” The parallel reference to “a messenger of Satan” implies an external, personal source of affliction. In 2 Cor 11:14–15, he even identifies his adversaries at Corinth as “servants of Satan.” The continuous source of pain for Paul was the fact that none of his churches measured up to his expectations. There seemed to always be someone, in every community he founded, who caused him grief and who disrupted the community by propagating a contrary teaching.

​

​

​

God, Christ, and the Spirit as the Basis of Community

​

One of the most interesting theological ideas that emerges out of Paul’s volatile relationship with the Corinthians is his conception of the divine triadic integration of God, Christ, and the Spirit within the community.

​

For example, in 2 Cor 1:21–22 Paul writes, “But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us, by putting his seal on us and giving us his Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.” And again, in the closing benediction, he writes, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you” (2 Cor 13:13). Paul wants to instruct the Corinthians that it is God who unites the members of the community with each other, with its ministers, and with Christ in an indivisible relationship through the anointing of the Holy Spirit in baptism.

​

God’s triadic empowerment is the foundation to the congregation’s new identity, purpose and values. Although the doctrine of the Trinity (one God consists of three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is not developed until the fourth century, Paul’s reference to God, Christ and the Spirit as the collective influence in the shaping of faith and the foundation of the community can be viewed as one of its early building blocks. God is presented as the primary actor. Christ is presented as the central figure who gives identity to a new humanity, since he died for all. And the Spirit is presented as a divine gift that unifies, edifies and empowers the community.

​

While it is difficult to know how thoroughly Paul’s reflections on this triadic process were developed, they were clearly foundational for his own identity as an apostle and his conception of a unified church. Of the three, Christ is central both as a person and as an event. As a person, his obedience to God, which exemplified authentic human existence resulted in suffering and death in the past and in a specific location, but its significance extended beyond the temporal and spatial realms. As an event, Christ’s death and resurrection transcends time and space. The victory over death and sin inaugurated a new era, and with it a new reality and a new creation, that allows others who follow Christ to share in the redemption affected by his death and resurrection. As a template for human identity, Christ as an event is the foundation for the Corinthians’ union with God in this life and the next. By being “in Christ,” the Corinthians are Spirit-empowered participants and agents in the reordering of the world that reconfigures access to God (2 Cor 5:16–21).

​

Motivated by the need to establish his apostolic authority in the face of opposing missionaries who view their commendation on the basis of letters of recommendation, Paul refers to the Corinthian Jesus-followers as his credentials that God has worked through him. In 2 Cor 3:1–18, Paul metaphorically calls his congregation a “letter of Christ” that was written not with ink on a papyrus or chiseled into a stone tablet, but by the Holy Spirit on the human heart. In short, Paul authenticates his ministry by appealing to the public work of God, Christ, and Spirit within the Corinthian church that he founded. The presence of the divine within the church makes them a living “letter of Christ” (2 Cor 3:3) that is accessible for all to “read.”

​

This triadic foundation of the community, which is identified with a new covenant (era of “Spirit”), is contrasted with the foundation of Israel established through Moses, which is identified with the old covenant of the law (era of “letter”). Paul explains that God, through Christ, no longer relates to his people in the written Torah, but through the Spirit (2 Cor 3:7). Christ is the hinge of history that ends one era and begins another.

​

The Jewish scriptures as a whole remain authoritative, but they are interpreted in relation to the new covenant. For Paul, the law that Moses delivered to Israel, despite its glory, was temporary and flawed in contrast to the permanent and “greater glory” of Christ (2 Cor 3:10).

​

Paul, however, preserves some consistency from one era to another by claiming that the “greater glory” also resided in Moses’ law, but it was “set aside” through the covering of his face by a veil because of Israel’s hardening in the wilderness. The point is that its true meaning and glory, which can only be achieved when it is viewed as a witness to Christ, was and is obscured to the Israelites. The same “setting aside” of the “greater glory” is applied to Paul’s Jewish contemporaries who now “set aside” Christ (2 Cor 3:12–18) because his true meaning as the basis of redemption is obscure to them.

​

​