Original Meaning

IN 1:3–7:1, PAUL defended his apostolic ministry in order to strengthen the faith of those who had recently repented. In doing so, he drew out the implications of his gospel (cf. 6:14–7:1), while at the same time establishing a foundation for his final appeal to those who were still rebelling against him (cf. 5:16–6:2). In 7:2–9:15, Paul then applied his gospel to the repentant by calling them to complete the collection. Giving to the saints in Jerusalem would be the test of their own experience of God’s grace to them (cf. 9:6–11).

Against this backdrop, Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians in 10:1 begins the last of the three main sections of his letter: The Application of Paul’s Apologetic to the Rebellious in Corinth. Just as chapters 8–9 apply Paul’s apologetic and gospel to the repentant, chapters 10–13 apply this same apologetic to those who persist in their rejection of his ministry.

The dual audience of 2 Corinthians thus contributes to its complexity, since Paul must encourage the faithful majority, while at the same time try to win back the recalcitrant minority. Though one emphasis may predominate over another in any given passage, neither group is ever far from view. At the same time, James Scott has insightfully pointed out that there is a chronological progression to 2 Corinthians: Chapters 1–7 reflect on past events, chapters 8–9 prepare for the completion of the collection in the present, and chapters 10–13 look forward to Paul’s third visit in the future.¹ Hence, though each of the three main sections prepares for his third visit in some way, chapters 10–13 confront head-on the persistent problem posed by his opponents. The ambassador of reconciliation (cf. 5:18–6:2) now becomes the warrior against rebellion (cf. 10:1–6).

In response to the accusations leveled against Paul, the argument of 10:1–18 is presented in three parts (see the headings, below). Clearly, this development is an extension of his earlier apologetic concerning the nature and foundation of his apostolic ministry. As such, both the structure and content of the argument are derived from Paul’s thesis-like statement in 2:14–3:3. It follows, therefore, that 10:1–18 does not represent a general intellectual confrontation between Paul and his opponents. Rather, he is responding once again to their criticism of his self-humiliation as a result of his suffering (cf. 2:14–16).

At one level, Paul’s opponents were, of course, right. Both his suffering and the criticism of others had been exacerbated by his decision to support himself in Corinth (2:17; cf. 1 Cor. 9:1–18).² Nor was Paul’s “reputation” helped in the eyes of many by his withdrawal when attacked during his previous visit, by his change of plans, by his writing of the “tearful letter” (1:15–2:4), or by his refusal to employ the professional rhetoric of his day (cf. 1 Cor. 2:1–5; 2 Cor. 10:10).

Here, as in 2 Corinthians 2:14–3:3, the issue in 10:7–11 is once again whether Paul’s suffering as an apostle corresponds to the spiritual nature of the new covenant (cf. 3:1–3). The summary statement in 2:14–3:3 thus becomes the framework for reading 10:1–18, as confirmed by the structural parallel between the two passages. Paul’s discussion of his “weakness” in 10:1–11 leads to the theme of self-commendation in 10:12–18, just as his earlier reference to suffering in 2:14–17 led to this same theme in 3:1–3. In 10:1–18, however, Paul extends the points of 2:14–3:3 by drawing out their direct implications for those who continue to call his ministry into question.

Paul’s Warfare on Behalf of his Authority (10:1–6)

PAUL BEGINS THE last section of his letter by again “appealing” (10:1) and “begging” (10:2) the Corinthians to respond to his apologetic on behalf of his gospel. Now, however, with his eye directly on his opponents, his earlier appeal (5:20) and urging (6:1) to be reconciled to God become an explicit admonition to reaffirm their loyalty to Paul himself (Paul uses the same verbs of “appealing” and “begging” in 10:1–2 as in 5:20; 6:1). Paul’s self-identification with his gospel, implicit in his earlier chapters, is now made explicit.

At the same time, it is striking that in introducing this section Paul uses the verb “I appeal” (parakaleo), since he only does so when his authority is viewed as unproblematic.³ Hence, even though he is now directly addressing the rebellious minority, Paul still writes knowing that the Corinthians as a whole are basically on his side. This is confirmed by his use of the emphatic expression “I, Paul,” which is itself an assertion of authority (cf. 12:13; Rom. 9:3; 15:14; Gal. 5:2).

Moreover, this stress on his authority is not an attempt to compensate for the criticism being leveled against him. Instead, Paul begins this final section of his letter by boldly asserting his authority because he is about to announce his third and final visit, which will bring God’s judgment on those who at that time have not yet repented (cf. 10:6; 12:14, 20–21; 13:1–2, 10). Paul is being bold now so that he will not have to be “bold” when he arrives (10:2), since verse 6 makes it clear that the boldness in view is the punishment of the disobedient.

The stress on Paul’s authority and the severe warning vented from the beginning of this section have often caused readers to wonder how these polemical chapters can be an expression of his appealing to the Corinthians “by the meekness and gentleness of Christ” (10:1).⁴ This is all the more problematic when we realize that 10:1 is an oath formula intended to support the validity of his following admonitions (for the use of this same formula, see Rom. 12:1; 15:30; 1 Cor. 1:10; Philem. 9).

As 10:1b itself indicates, the question of how Paul’s actions are said to be carried out “by the meekness and gentleness of Christ” is nothing new. Already in his own day his opponents had accused him of duplicity or cowardice because of the discrepancy between the powerful threats in his previous writing(s) and his apparent powerlessness or “timidity” when it came to carrying them out in person. In their view, Paul’s change in demeanor, like his change of plans as outlined in 1:15–2:4, was evidence that he was living “by the standards of this world” (v. 2). The NIV rendering here makes good sense of the original, which formally translated reads, “walking according to the flesh” (cf. Paul’s defense of his apparently “fleshly actions” in 1:12–22). In other words, Paul’s opponents took his vacillating and the apparent contradiction between his words when absent and his actions when present to be evidence that he lacked the Spirit (i.e., “walked according to the flesh”). From their perspective, 2 Corinthians itself could be viewed as another example of this duplicity and lack of courage.

From Paul’s perspective, of course, the accusation reported in 10:1b is ironic (hence the NIV’s correct decision to put “timid” and “bold” in quotation marks). Paul’s use of “timid” here (lit., “humble”) carries the negative connotation of being servile, humiliated, despised, or demeaned, though normally humility is a positive virtue.⁵ According to his detractors, his being “bold” when absent was a coward’s threat, while for the apostle his boldness was an expression of his confidence from Christ (cf. its use in 5:6, 8; 7:16). So his goal was to show them that his boldness when absent was just as much an expression of the “meekness and gentleness of Christ” as his humility when present.

It is true that Paul had been “timid” when he was attacked during his second visit, but “bold” when he subsequently wrote his “severe” or “tearful letter” (cf. 1:13; 2:3–4, 9; 7:8, 12). His opponents criticized him for this apparent contradiction because they did not understand the role of warnings, mixed with mercy, in the life of faith. In 10:1–2, Paul therefore restates this apostolic strategy, since his current letter also contains a strong apologetic and ends with a forceful warning to those who persist in their rejection of him and his message. For, ironically, in confronting one last time those who are still in rebellion against him, Paul is actually attempting to avoid the very kind of consistency that his opponents apparently desire (i.e., being “bold” both in letter and in person, cf. 10:11)!

This means that Paul’s strong appeals and warnings flow from “the meekness and gentleness of Christ” not in the sense of a specific tone of voice or failure to confront. Rather, the meekness and gentleness of Christ can be seen in his patient restraint from pronouncing judgment, as he did before in 1 Corinthians 5:1–5. Like Christ, Paul is giving the Corinthians one last chance to repent (cf. 1 Cor. 4:21; 2 Peter 3:8–10). The messianic backdrop to his actions is reflected in the fact that the word translated “meekness” (praütes) in 2 Corinthians 10:1 is also used in the LXX of Psalm 132:1 of David, and in Psalm 45:4 and Zechariah 9:9 to describe the messianic king (cf. Matt. 11:29; 21:5). As the Davidic Messiah, no one should confuse Christ’s meekness in his first coming with a lack of resolve to judge when he returns. Far from timidity, his “meekness” is his slowness to anger; far from lacking conviction, his “gentleness” is his forbearance, in contrast to being vindictive (cf. Acts 24:4; Phil. 4:5; 1 Tim. 3:3; Titus 3:2; James 3:17; 1 Peter 2:18).

In the same way, when Paul found himself under attack during his earlier visit to Corinth, he felt it better to leave rather than bring God’s judgment on the church (cf. 2:5; 7:12). In doing so, he expressed Christ’s “meekness and gentleness.” Far from being an act of cowardice, Paul’s “timidity” in the past was an act of mercy (cf. 1:23; 2:1). His “weakness” was an expression of the “weakness” of Christ. Moreover, the Corinthians were aware that in their immaturity in the past, Paul had treated them tenderly and with patience as their loving, spiritual father (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1–2; 4:18–21).

But just as Christ’s meekness must not be misinterpreted to mean that he winks at sin, so too Paul’s restraint must not be seen as cowardice. As the messianic king, Jesus will vindicate his name by judging those who presume upon his mercy by not repenting (cf. 5:10–11). In the same way, whereas Paul’s opponents viewed his “tearful letter” as a cowardly attempt to assert his authority at a distance, in reality it was a prophetic act of warning aimed at bringing about the repentance of the Corinthians (cf. 2:5–11; 7:5–7, 13–16). For as an apostle of Christ, Paul too will come to judge those who have presumed on God’s grace and scoffed at his warnings (cf. 10:6; 13:10). Thus, in 10:1 Paul “cites [the opponents’] estimate while retaining in a double entendre his own self-estimate based on the model of the incarnate Lord.”⁶

Despite their vigor and confrontational character, Paul’s self-defense and threats in chapters 10–13 are therefore themselves also an expression of the “meekness and gentleness of Christ.” Just as Christ’s primary purpose in his first coming was to establish and extend mercy to God’s people, so too Paul’s purpose in not being “bold” in person is to extend mercy to the Corinthians. Viewed in the light of Christ’s meekness and gentleness, Paul was being truly humble by not judging them in the past or even at the writing of 2 Corinthians, but instead warning them for a final time. Like Christ, Paul desires that they will all respond so that he will not have to be “bold” by judging them when he returns for his third visit. But inasmuch as he considers such judgment to be a real possibility against “some people” (10:2; i.e., his opponents), the specific content of his appeal is that he “begs” the Corinthians for reconciliation now so that none of them will have to suffer God’s wrath then.

Once again, therefore, one’s relationship to Paul himself becomes the criterion by which judgment will be meted out. To impugn his weakness and suffering, some of which has been caused by the Corinthians themselves, is to impugn the weakness of Christ himself, whose character the apostle has embodied in Corinth. Far from living by the standards of the world (10:2), he has been acting “in Christ” and by the power of the Spirit (cf. 1:5; 2:14, 17; 5:14).

In 10:3–6, Paul plays off the accusation from verse 2 that he conducts himself “by the standards of this world” by developing a military metaphor to support his strategy of writing boldly from afar in anticipation of not having to act boldly when he arrives. Specifically, Paul is using a prophetic, Christ-like strategy of warning for the purpose of repentance, rather than pronouncing judgment immediately. In doing so, he is not “waging war as the world does” (lit., “according to the flesh”), even though he is still “living in the world” (lit., “in the flesh”; 10:3; cf. 1:12; 4:7–5:15; 6:4–10; 11:23–33; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 1:24).

Though Paul concedes that he “lives in the world,” his battle plan is not worldly (10:3) because his “weapons” (10:4) are not worldly; by implication, they are expressions of the power of the Spirit (the NIV omits the “for” [gar] at the beginning of 10:4a).⁷ Instead of reacting with immediate wrath when offended, as the world would do, Paul’s weapons have “divine power” (i.e., the power of the Spirit⁸) for bringing about the genuine repentance and endurance in faith that escapes the wrath of God (10:4b; cf. 3:2–3; 6:14–7:1; 7:8–12).

In particular, Paul’s weapons are the manifold proclamation of the truth of the gospel in the power of the Spirit, embodied in and mediated through his own life of suffering as an apostle (cf. 2:14–17; 6:6–7; 1 Cor. 1:18, 23; Rom. 1:16; 1 Thess. 5:8; Eph. 6:14–17). Their purpose is to “demolish strongholds,” an allusion to the bulwarks erected by citizens to protect their city from invaders (10:4b; cf. Lam. 2:2; 1 Macc. 5:65; 8:10; Luke 19:43–44). The truth of the gospel will overcome anything or anyone standing in its way.

Paul’s metaphorical reference in 10:4 to demolishing “strongholds” (ochyroma) likely looks back to Proverbs 21:22, where the wise man is said to destroy the strongholds (ochyroma) in which the ungodly trust. Like the wise man of the Proverbs, Paul’s purpose is to destroy the defenses of self-confidence and self-exaltation that have been erected by the self-commendations of those who oppose the progress of the gospel (cf. 10:12, 17–18; 11:4). Many commentators suggest that these “strongholds” were embodied in the powerful rhetoric of Paul’s opponents, who, like the Sophists of their day, were more concerned with impressing the Corinthians with their style of presentation than with the truth of its content (cf. 10:10). Though their concern for style over substance was certainly part of the problem, the issue was not merely their methods. Paul is on the offensive primarily because he knows that his opponents preach a “different gospel” altogether (cf. 11:4).

What renders their personal appearance so dangerous is that it makes their false “gospel” so appealing. Hence, as a true apostle of Christ, Paul’s goal, like an invading army laying siege against its enemy in order to destroy the bulwarks of their city, is to destroy both their manner and their message. Having been conquered by Christ himself (2:14), Paul now wages war on Christ’s behalf (10:3–4). Having been made a minister of the new covenant of the Spirit (3:4–6), Paul’s apostolate is a conquering army that can overcome any and every foe.

Verse 5 details the two ways in which Paul wages his war on behalf of the gospel. (1) He demolishes the “arguments” and “pretensions” (lit., the “heights” from which the defenders opposed the besieging army) that his opponents have raised against “the knowledge of God” being revealed through his own preaching and suffering (cf. 2:14–17; 4:4–6; 8:7; 11:6; 13:8). The arguments in view here are the objections being raised against his apostolic authority and message (the “arguments” [logismous] of 10:4 recall the “thinking” [logizomenous] of “some people” in 10:2). Paul overcomes them by a clear presentation of the gospel and its implications, surrounded by an unabashed appeal to his own life as its verification.

(2) Once he has destroyed the enemy defenses, Paul takes every thought of the enemy “captive” by evaluating it in view of his own ministry of the cross and resurrection of Christ. Specifically, Paul argues for his conviction, and supports it evidentially, that as a true apostle of the crucified and risen Christ, he reveals the power of God (cf. 2:17; 3:2–3; 4:1–6; 5:11–12; 11:2; 12:19; 13:3–4) in and through his weakness (cf. 1:3–11; 2:14–16; 4:7–12; 6:4–10; 11:23–12:10). As a result, his presentation and embodiment of the truth also reveal the satanic nature of those who oppose his “treasure” because it comes in a “jar of clay” (4:7; cf. 2:11; 3:14; 4:4; 11:3). This is Paul’s twofold strategy throughout 1 and 2 Corinthians.

After demolishing the defenses of his enemies and taking captive their counterattacks, Paul will punish those who remain in rebellion. But he will only do so once the repentant, by their obedience, have shown themselves to be on his side (10:6). Note the emphasis in 10:6 on the Corinthians’ obedience being “complete” as the qualification for meting out punishment. Paul wants to give them every opportunity to surrender to the gospel before he executes God’s judgment, and he will not do so until all who will repent have done so. This is why he has delayed returning in the past and why he has now written his present letter (cf. 10:2). He is confident that when they receive 2 Corinthians, those genuine believers who are still unrepentant will be brought back to Christ, showing their remorse by joining the majority in withdrawing from the rebellious (6:14–7:1) and by participating willingly in the collection (chs. 8–9).

Paul’s choice of this warfare metaphor in 10:3–6 is itself an indication of the seriousness of the present situation: He is at war for the eternal destiny of the Corinthians.⁹ To win the battle, Paul intends to destroy the defenses of the enemy by demolishing the arguments they raise against the knowledge of God (vv. 4b–5a). Specifically, his goal in these last four chapters is to show how his enemies contradict the person and message of Christ (10:5b). Nevertheless, though the issue may have been the nature of the gospel, the explicit point of contention in Corinth was the legitimacy of Paul as an apostle (cf. 10:1–2, 7–11). For this reason, Paul switches from speaking about himself in 10:1–3 to speaking about God and Christ in 10:5, in order to underscore once again the identification of his own person and message with the knowledge of God and Christ being revealed through them (cf. 2:14–16a; 4:7–12; 5:18–6:2; etc.).

The Purpose of Apostolic Authority (10:7–11)

IN THIS NEXT section Paul unpacks his exhortation from 10:1–2 in view of the war that he is presently waging against the enemies of the gospel. In doing so, he draws out three implications of his battle against those who are opposing his ministry: (1) the implication for the Corinthians (v. 7), which supports (2) the implication for how one should view Paul (v. 8), which in turn supports (3) the implication of Paul’s argument for his opponents (vv. 9–11). Concretely, this section issues a command to the Corinthians (v. 7a), which leads to a command concerning Paul (v. 7b), which in turn supports a command, albeit indirectly, to Paul’s opponents (cf. v. 11).

This reading of the passage is based on taking the verb “look” in verse 7 to be an imperative (“Look!” as in the RSV, NRSV, and NIV footnote), rather than an indicative statement (“You are looking,” as in the NIV and NASB), or an interrogative (“Do you look?” as in the KJV). Though all three meanings are possible and the decision is a difficult one, elsewhere Paul always uses this form of the verb “to look” (blepete) as a command (cf. 1 Cor. 1:26; 8:9; 10:18; 16:10; Gal. 5:15; Eph. 5:15; Phil. 3:2; Col. 2:8; cf. the singular in Col. 4:17). Moreover, within this context, an indicative or interrogative would expect a contrast in 2 Corinthians 10:7b, not a supporting statement.¹⁰ Finally, as the extension of his “begging” them from 10:2, in verse 7 Paul is most likely not simply describing or questioning what the Corinthians are doing, but stating what he wishes they would do. Having begged them to avoid judgment in 10:1–6, he now calls them to do so by evaluating things as they readily appear to the Corinthians themselves, rather than listening to Paul’s opponents.

When Paul’s life is compared to others in Corinth who claim to be Christ’s (10:7b), the transparent nature of his belonging to Christ becomes his support for the command of 10:7a: “Look at the obvious facts.”¹¹ In making this comparison, Paul still has his apostleship in view. To speak of being a Christian is, for him, to speak of being an apostle, since his calling to Christ and his calling to be an apostle were one. Nevertheless, interpreting verse 7b as a reference merely to his role as an apostle in comparison with other apostles is too narrow. When the office alone is in view, Paul uses the explicit designations “apostle of Christ” or “servant of Christ” (cf. 11:13–15, 23 and the comparisons in 11:5; 12:11).

The use of “anyone” in 10:7b is a generic designation that most likely refers either to Paul’s opponents or to all in Corinth who question his integrity as a Christian, rather than to people in general (cf. this same use in 1 Cor. 3:12, 18; 8:2–3; 14:37). The purpose of this reference is to indicate that those who question his apostleship are in reality also calling into question his very status as a believer. But Paul’s mediation of the Spirit, through his lifestyle of suffering, is ample proof of the legitimacy of his ministry and hence of his belonging to the Lord (cf. 1:1; 3:2–3; 4:7; 6:4). If the Corinthians are children of God, then Paul too must be, since he is their father in the faith, the Corinthians’ having received the Spirit through his preaching and ministry. If they deny Paul, they are denying their own standing in Christ (cf. 10:7 with 3:1–3).

Moreover, the legitimacy of Paul’s ministry is confirmed by his own confidence in his authority as a servant of the new covenant. This confidence is derived from the new covenant expectation of Jeremiah himself (cf. 3:6), to which Paul alludes in 10:8 (cf. 13:10). In fulfillment of Jeremiah’s promise, the Lord (i.e., Christ) gave Paul authority to be a minister of the new covenant “for building you up rather than pulling you down,” whereas under the old covenant the emphasis of Jeremiah’s ministry was just the opposite (Jer. 1:10; cf. 24:6; 42[LXX 49]:10; 45[LXX 51]:4). This is why Paul’s role as a minister of the new covenant is to mediate the Spirit, since as an apostle his primary purpose is the salvation of God’s people, not their judgment (cf. 2 Cor. 1:11, 23–24; 2:3; 3:6–11, 17–18; 4:6, 13–15; 5:13–15; 6:2).

Though Jeremiah and Paul were each called both to save and to judge, their primary purposes within redemptive history have been reversed. As the introduction to the promise of the new covenant puts it (Jer. 31:27–28):

“The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will plant the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the offspring of men and of animals. Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,” declares the LORD.

For this reason, the theme of “building up” becomes a common Pauline description of the call to build churches and strengthen the faith of believers (cf. Rom. 14:19; 15:2, 20; 1 Cor. 3:9–10, 12, 14; 8:1; 14:3, 5, 12, 26; 1 Thess. 5:11).

Therefore,¹² since the Corinthians themselves are evidence of Paul’s rightful standing in Christ (v. 7), he will not be ashamed before the judgment of God if he boasts exceedingly concerning his apostolic authority (v. 8a; cf. 2:17; 12:19).¹³ Paul’s boasting in chapters 10–13 is not the exercise of an uncontrolled ego, but the expression of his love and calling as a “minister of the new covenant” (3:2–6). Since the Lord is the One who gave him this authority, he will not be ashamed in invoking it, for in doing so he is simply using part of the means God has ordained to bring about the conversion and renewal of God’s people (cf. Rom. 1:14–16). Hence, as a minister of the new covenant in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s promise, Paul declares that “everything we do [including his self-defense] … is for your strengthening [building up]” (2 Cor. 12:19).

In verses 9–11, Paul expresses the purpose for his boasting and warnings that are to come in the chapters ahead. He is aware that his opponents have accused him of trying in his previous letter(s) to frighten the Corinthians with empty threats from a safe distance (v. 9). Indeed, Paul had threatened destruction to the destroyer of God’s people (1 Cor. 3:16–17) and exclusion from the kingdom to those whose lives show no evidence of God’s grace (6:9–11), not to mention calling for judgment within God’s people (5:1–5; 2 Cor. 2:4–11; 7:8). Thus, we can only guess at the strength of his previous “tearful letter,” but it must have been considerable (cf. 2 Cor. 8:8).

Moreover, the fact that Paul is once again being “bold” by letter could play into the hand of his opponents. He knows that the apparent contradiction between his “weighty and forceful” letters and his personal weakness and suffering has been used against him as proof that he lacks the power of the Spirit (v. 10). Nevertheless, he has made it clear throughout 2 Corinthians that his decision to support himself in Corinth, his ministry in the midst of his weakness and suffering, his change in travel plans, his “weighty letters,” and his simple, “unimpressive” manner of presenting the gospel (remember that part of Moses’ insufficiency was his speech defect, Ex. 4:10; cf. 2 Cor. 2:16; 3:4–5) are all expressions of his apostolic commitment to the Corinthians.

As part of this commitment, according to 10:10, Paul’s speech could be considered to “amount to nothing” (cf. Gal. 4:14, where the same verb describes Paul himself because of his suffering). This reflects the truth that God chooses the things that “amount to nothing” (1 Cor. 1:28, where the same verb occurs) in order that all people might rely on God’s power and gifts (2:5) rather than boast in their own distinctives (1:28–31).

Thus, Paul’s opponents should be put on notice that he is more than prepared to carry out his threats of judgment when he arrives (10:11). Since he is an apostle of the new covenant, his primary goal, unlike Jeremiah’s, is to be an instrument of the Corinthians’ repentance. But inasmuch as there is also judgment under God’s covenant for those who do not repent, Paul will carry out this “secondary” responsibility as well. The contrast that began in 10:1–2 between Paul’s presence and absence is therefore brought to a conclusion in 10:10–11. The consistency his opponents purport to desire will become a reality when the apparent inconsistency of God’s mercy, expressed in Paul’s patience, gives way to his final judgment in Corinth.

The main point of verses 10:1–11 is verse 9. Paul is begging those Corinthians who are still rebelling to be reconciled to him (10:1–2) because he is fighting a Spirit-empowered war on behalf of the gospel (10:3–6). He consequently calls them to examine his claims to authority in view of what is clearly evident to them (10:7–8), in order that his letter might not merely frighten them from afar (10:9). For in spite of the fact that his opponents accuse him of duplicity and cowardice (10:10), Paul will execute the threatened judgment of God when he arrives (10:11).

The Basis of Apostolic Authority (10:12–18)

THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE at stake in Corinth was the gospel itself, as it had been preached and embodied by Paul. Nobody could dispute what Paul had accomplished: He had founded the Corinthian church and performed signs and wonders in their midst. What made the issue of his apostolic ministry so acute was that despite his role in founding the church, his opponents were claiming that they themselves, not Paul, were the ones who now had the right to exercise apostolic authority in Corinth. In their view, Paul’s suffering had disqualified him as an apostle. They were the ones who should now lead the Corinthians in their faith.

In 11:1–12:13 Paul will address the more fundamental question of whether his opponents should be considered apostles at all. But first, having argued for the legitimacy of his apostolic ministry in general, he must reestablish his claim to apostolic authority over the Corinthians in particular (10:8). Otherwise, his call to repentance in view of his coming judgment will be considered irrelevant (10:9). So Paul’s burden in 10:12–18 is twofold: (1) to define the proper criterion for determining what is, in fact, a proper boast or claim to apostolic authority in Corinth, and (2) to demonstrate that his boast, not that of his opponents, actually meets this criterion.

Paul accomplishes these purposes by introducing a negative comparison between his opponents’ practice of commendation (10:12) and his own (10:13–18).¹⁴ Just as Paul’s discussion of his suffering in 1:3–2:13 had led him to compare himself positively to Moses in 2:14–3:18, so too the issue of his suffering in 10:1–11 leads him to compare himself negatively to his opponents in 10:12–18. Paul is like Moses, but with a different ministry; he is unlike his opponents, though they claim to have the same ministry. His statement in 10:12 that he lacks the courage to compare himself with his opponents is therefore most likely ironic: In spite of the “boldness” attributed to him by his opponents, he does not “dare” to put himself in their class or to join them in their kind of self-commendation.

To engage in comparisons was a common rhetorical practice in Paul’s day. So his hesitancy does not come from the practice itself; he himself does so without qualification (cf. 1 Cor. 15:10). Here, however, he refuses to participate with those who commend themselves because their means of comparison is faulty from the start: They measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, thereby revealing that they are without understanding (10:12).

We must be careful here. The problem with Paul’s opponents is not that they are boasting, as many suggest, since for Paul the act of boasting is not negative in and of itself. Whether boasting is legitimate wholly depends on the object and validity of the boast itself. Nor is the problem that they boast too much, as others sometime argue. There does not seem to be a limit on boasting in what is appropriate. Paul himself boasts “freely” about his authority (10:8). Nor is Paul’s refusal to join them due to their commending themselves, since Paul too commends himself (cf. 2:17; 4:2; 6:4–10; 11:1–12:10 as implied in 12:11; see below, Bridging Contexts).

What Paul does object to is the criterion they use in attempting to substantiate their claim to apostolic authority in Corinth, namely, themselves. From Paul’s perspective, to support a claim to apostolic authority in Corinth by pointing to one’s own abilities, spiritual power and experiences, and/or rhetorical prowess is to be without understanding; such factors are simply irrelevant to the question at hand. Regardless of whatever personal qualifications and experiences his adversaries may have had (for the moment Paul grants the validity of such claims), his opponents lack the commendation needed to establish their authority over the Corinthians. This particular commendation does not come by comparing oneself to others; it comes from the Lord.

Thus, in the words of 10:13, translated formally, Paul will not join them in boasting “beyond proper limits,” but will boast “according to the measure of the canon concerning which God apportioned to us a measure, namely, to reach even as far as you.” The key to this passage is to determine what Paul means by the “measure” (metron) God has granted to him in accordance with the divinely established “canon” (kanon). This statement is notoriously difficult because of the uncertainty that exists over the precise meaning in this context of kanon and metron, and over whether they are being used as synonyms or refer, in fact, to two distinct entities.

These two words can signify either the means or standard by which something is measured (e.g., the “canon” or “measure” used to determine which books belong in the Scriptures), or the thing itself that has been measured (e.g., the “canon” or “entity” of the New Testament). Often the two words are simply taken to be synonyms. Read in this way, Paul is referring either to the single means of measuring his ministry¹⁵ or to the one thing measured.¹⁶

Although these readings are possible, Paul’s repetition of the word metron, together with his modification of it with the second word kanon, seems to suggest that in this context he is differentiating between the two concepts. If kanon were merely a restatement of what Paul means by metron, then the repetition of metron in the following relative pronoun clause would simply be a tautology (i.e., “according to the measure of the measure concerning which God apportioned to us a measure”). It seems therefore best to take metron in its common meaning as a reference to “what is measured as the result of measuring,”¹⁷while retaining the typical meaning “standard” or “norm” for kanon. Taken in this way, 10:13 reads as follows: Paul will only boast “according to what is measured by the standard by which God apportioned to us that measure, namely, to reach even to you.”

In contrast to his opponents, who measure themselves by themselves (10:12), Paul asserts in 10:13–15 that he will not boast beyond “proper limits,” that is, beyond what God has apportioned for him. Instead, he will boast in accordance with the “measure” he has been granted by the “norm” established by God himself: that he was the one who reached Corinth with the gospel (10:13c, 14c; cf. 1 Cor. 4:15). The “standard of judgment” (kanon) that determined Paul’s apostolic authority in Corinth—and hence the validity of his boast in this regard—is the simple fact that he founded the Corinthian church. That Paul was the one through whom the Corinthians received the Spirit (cf. 3:1–3) indicates clearly that he, not his opponents, is the one to whom God has delegated apostolic authority in Corinth. As 10:13bc makes explicit, God himself determined who would bring the gospel to Corinth. Since Paul was that selected one, he alone can boast in this divine “measure” or “limit.” He is therefore not “going too far” in asserting his apostolic authority over them (10:14; the NIV leaves the gar [“for”] untranslated here).

Hence, the unexpressed premise of Paul’s argument is that this founding function is the only appropriate and divinely instituted “canon” for determining apostolic authority in a particular church. Paul’s boast is therefore based on his own divinely established “work” (10:15a). Thus, the three negative contrasts in verses 13–15a all carry a double meaning. In establishing these affirmations about himself, the apostle is at the same time affirming that his opponents are “boasting beyond proper limits” and “going too far” (10:13a, 14a) in their attempt to assert apostolic authority in Corinth. They have no relevant evidence to back up such a claim. Unlike Paul, they are “boasting of work done by others” (10:15a).

In stark contrast, Paul has no need to boast in the work of others. Instead, his hope is that, as the church in Corinth grows in faith, his legitimacy and authority in Corinth “will be magnified greatly among them” (NIV, his “activity among them will greatly expand”) in accordance with his own “canon” (NIV, “our area”)¹⁸—that is, in accordance with God’s having granted Paul missionary success in Corinth (10:15b). Here he is once again alluding to his opponents’ desire for letters of recommendation from the Corinthians (cf. 3:1). By contrast, the Corinthians themselves are Paul’s recommendation (3:2–3). His opponents wanted letters verifying their own spiritual power; Paul’s spiritual power could be seen in the growing faith of the believers in Corinth (cf. 1:24; 8:7; 13:5).

Note the emphasis on “growth” in 10:15. It is not enough that the Corinthians have manifested faith in the past. They must persevere in the midst of the challenges now facing the church. Paul hopes that their growth in faith, manifested in their rejection of his opponents (6:14–7:1) and participation in the collection (chs. 8–9), will send him on approved and recommended. He desires that the solidifying of his work in Corinth will lead to an expansion of his apostolic ministry beyond Achaia (10:16, most likely a reference to Rome and Spain; cf. Rom. 15:24–29).¹⁹

It is not clear whether Paul means by this that as their faith grows, he will be able to use Corinth as a base of operations for his mission to Rome and Spain, or whether he has no right to expand his ministry elsewhere until his labor among the Corinthians is completed. The latter is more probable. Paul cannot move on toward the West until his work in the East has been solidified, which includes the fortification of his congregations and their unification with Jerusalem through the collection.²⁰

In 10:13 Paul asserted that, in contrast to his opponents, his own boast is not beyond the measures God has established. In 10:14–16 he supported this assertion by reminding the Corinthians of what constitutes the canon of apostolic authority. In 10:17–18 he undergirds this canon by declaring the corresponding object of legitimate boasting: Since the Lord is the one who determines the measure of one’s ministry, the only true object and ground of boasting is the approval that comes from the Lord’s commendation. And the Lord commends his people as his people by working in their lives. His commendation of Paul’s apostleship in Corinth was the fact that he had brought the great missionary to Corinth as the church’s founding father in the faith. In the end, therefore, the ultimate foundation of Paul’s apologetic is that the only genuine boast and basis of authority is “boasting in the Lord” (10:17, quoting Jer. 9:22–23 LXX). For what matters is not the Corinthians’ approval (cf. 2 Cor. 2:17; 12:19), but God’s commendation (10:18).

Accordingly, in order to understand Paul’s argument we must map out what it means to “boast in the Lord.” Paul’s quotation of Jeremiah 9:22–23 in 2 Corinthians 10:17 is the positive counterpart to the negative point made in 10:14–16: False boasting is boasting either in one’s own self-proclaimed and irrelevant accomplishments (assuming for the moment their genuineness) or in the labors of others. Legitimate boasting, by contrast, is boasting “in the Lord.” To boast in the Lord is to exalt in what the grace of God has accomplished in one’s life. This divine action on one’s behalf is God’s commendation.

In this context, this meant pointing to God’s having established Paul’s mission territory (10:13–16). In general, however, boasting in the Lord refers to boasting in the fact that God has granted his people wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption in Christ (cf. Paul’s other use of Jer. 9:22–23 in 1 Cor. 1:31; cf. Rom. 2:29). The Christian’s calling (2 Cor. 10:7) is based solely on this divine mercy, so that no one may boast that one’s spiritual status, strength, or gifts are a result of one’s own wisdom or might (cf. 1 Cor. 1:26–29; Eph. 2:4–10).

This is the point of Jeremiah 9:23–24 (cf. 1 Sam. 2:10). There Jeremiah calls the wise, the strong, and the rich not to boast in their own distinctives but in the God who is known by the mercy, judgment, and righteousness he exercises on earth, since these are the things in which he delights. The prophet’s criticism of the wise, the strong, and the rich is not that they are wise, strong, and rich per se, but that they act as if their wisdom, strength, and wealth came from them. Moreover, they esteem these things of more value than God’s mercy, justice, and righteousness. Jeremiah’s point is that God is the sole origin of humanity’s distinctives and that his actions alone are of ultimate value.

Following Jeremiah’s admonition, in 1 Corinthians 1:31 Paul boasts in the saving activity of Christ as the expression of God’s mercy, justice, and righteousness. The issue is not whether one boasts or not (we all do!), but whether the object of our boast is God. The call to boast from Jeremiah 9:23–24 is a summons to acknowledge God for his gracious acts and provisions.²¹ It is consequently striking, but thoroughly consistent with the original meaning of the text, that in 2 Corinthians 10:17 Paul modifies Jeremiah 9:23–24 by substituting “in the Lord” for Jeremiah’s list of what the Lord provides. Paul introduces this shorthand because he is following the biblical conviction that God is known by what he does and gives. As a result, God’s actions in Jeremiah 9:24 can be equated with the Lord himself.

In view of this Old Testament injunction, to “boast in the Lord” is not to cease from boasting but to boast only in what God himself has actually accomplished in one’s life. It is this sort of boasting that marks one out as legitimate before God and others. In 10:18, Paul is applying the same standard of approval to himself that he has applied to others and to the Corinthians (cf. 2:9; 8:2, 8, 22; 9:13; esp. 13:3–7). To “boast in the Lord” (10:17) is the human counterpart to being commended by the Lord and hence “approved” by him (10:18).

Accordingly, when Paul points to his bringing the gospel to Corinth, he is, in reality, boasting in the Lord, since God is the one who enabled and determined Paul’s ministry in this regard (cf. 10:13b).

Paul’s opponents may be able to point to great displays of spiritual power and rhetorical expertise when they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves (10:12), but all such personal qualities remain irrelevant to the question at hand: whom has the Lord commended for apostolic authority in Corinth? Regardless of their value for demonstrating the validity of one’s apostolic ministry per se (presupposing their genuine nature), the opponents’ boasts therefore simply become empty … the kanōn (“canon”) being used by his opponents to measure their claim (and his!) to apostolic authority is simply illegitimate.²²

In commending themselves, Paul’s opponents are “not wise” (10:12). They fail to understand the nature of divine approval. The opponents’ claim to authority in Corinth is merely an exercise in self-commendation, since it lacks the divine accreditation appropriate to that claim: having brought the gospel to Corinth. For this reason, if the Corinthians continue to fall prey to the illegitimate boasting of Paul’s opponents, they will become the real “fools” (cf. 11:1, 16–19, 21; 12:6, 11). Paul is striving to spare them this, for he knows that they too, like he himself, stand before the judgment of God (cf. Jer. 9:25–26; 2 Cor. 5:10).

Bridging Contexts

THERE ARE AT least four tenets from this text that can help us apply Paul’s concern to “wage war” against his opponents to our own battlefields: the issue at stake, the purpose of Paul’s response, the manner of Paul’s response, and the criteria for response.

The issue at stake in the “war.” From Paul’s perspective, the issue at stake between him and the Corinthians is the gospel, since to reject his claims is tantamount to rejecting Christ. But as the Corinthians see it, the problem is Paul himself. Scholars of the social world of Paul’s day have pointed out that what is at stake culturally in 2 Corinthians 10 was Paul’s honor, one of the central virtues of the period. As Bruce Malina has observed, one’s honor is called into question when the support for his or her claim does not correspond to what the social peer group considers to be reputable.²³ Or, as Arthur Dewey has put it, a person’s honor is called into question when “the individual has not balanced his verbal claims with socially understood reality.”²⁴ Hence, since Paul’s opponents maintain that his weakness and suffering are not reputable grounds for his claim to be an apostle, Paul’s honor is being called into question.

Since the dispute is a matter of personal honor, calling Paul’s apostleship into question also meant questioning his very identity and social status in the Christian community. According to his opponents’ understanding of the Spirit, Paul was living “by the standards of this world” (i.e., “according to the flesh,” 10:2). “There were ‘objective criteria’ for determining the validity of such claims to authority: letters of recommendation, ecstasy, wonder-working, rhetorical and interpretive competence”—which Paul “evidently did not meet.”²⁵ Rather than boasting about his authority over the Corinthians, Paul should be shamed by his behavior.

The dynamics of honor and shame in Paul’s day remind us that we too determine what is “reputable” according to the standards that derive from our own social context. In most of our circles, the honor of a Christian is no longer determined by an absence of suffering in and of itself, since the social reality of most believers today does not revolve around displays of the miraculous. Most churches do not expect that their pastors must be able to accredit their message and the legitimacy of their ministry with a miracle, nor do the members of the congregation measure the depth of their own spirituality by the presence of miracles in their lives.

True, in some churches the miraculous is a measure of the Spirit’s presence and power. For them, being sick or in financial difficulty is, in the end, due to a lack of faith. But what most churches today expect is a correspondence between what the pastor preaches and the way in which he lives. A significant conflict between the two would be a serious issue, since our understanding of the social reality of the Spirit, both for our leaders and for ourselves, includes moral integrity and consistency.

Again, there are some churches where this is not the case, and ironically they are often the same churches that stress the miraculous as the sign of the Spirit. In their view, if one can perform miracles, then that person is obviously “anointed by the Spirit,” regardless of the disconfirming evidence of his or her character. Among evangelicals, a similar argument is sometimes mounted in terms of salvation itself: If someone has said a “sinner’s prayer” and “accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior,” then he or she is a Christian, regardless of the disconfirming evidence of one’s character. When it comes to leadership, the argument is often the same: If God has “used” a pastor in the past (which usually means that his church has grown numerically), then the ministry of that person is surely legitimate, regardless of the disconfirming evidence of character.

So in making application of this passage, we must map out carefully what constitutes an honorable claim to be “spiritual.” This is especially arduous, since all Christians are still in the process of sanctification, so that perfection of character cannot be the criterion. It therefore requires wisdom to determine what constitutes a match between our standards in Christ and how we live. Paul’s discussion forces us to reflect deeply on the criteria by which we consider a claim to Christian leadership, not to mention Christian identity itself, to be honorable. This chapter is driven by the fact that Paul, like his opponents, believed that such evaluations could and must be made. As such, it provides a case study for evaluating competing claims to God’s approval.

The purpose of the battle. Paul’s model in this passage presents a call to “test the spirits,” as well as a caution that in doing so our criteria and goals be biblical. In this regard we have noted that although Paul is “waging war” against his opponents, he nowhere addresses his adversaries directly. Paul’s primary interest is not the defeat of his enemies but the renewal of the Corinthians (10:8). He knows that only if they come to a clear understanding of the issues at stake for themselves will they be able to maintain their faith (10:15). More than merely defeating his opponents, Paul wants to fortify the Corinthians for the future by teaching them the spiritual discernment they need in order to remain faithful to the gospel (see again the broad terms in which he defends his ministry in 10:3–6). As Barnett has observed, “Typical of his pastoral method, Paul has kept this issue and the critics in question separate within the letter (vv. 1–2) in order that he may reflect theologically upon it for the sake of his readers.”²⁶

Paul is a great model here as we confront conflicts and theological challenges today. Like the apostle, we too must examine our motives and strategy in order to maintain the proper focus for our apologetics: Are they aimed at strengthening the church for her mission or merely at scoring points off our opponents for the sake of boosting our own reputations? Paul is concerned for his honor not for his own sake, but for the sake of the Corinthians.

The manner of Paul’s warfare. Many scholars suggest that in this passage Paul is parodying the practice of self-praise that was common among the teachers and Sophists of his day. In pointing to the stark change in tone between chapters 1–9 and 10–13, they suggest that it corresponds to common rhetorical conventions of the period, in which a strong emotional appeal was needed near the end of a speech in order to win one’s audience.²⁷ As an example, in Demosthenes’s De Corona 278 we read that vehemence is required when adversaries beset one’s people. “It was likewise rhetorically obligatory for Paul to resort to pathos, irony, invective, sarcasm, parody, and the like if he really believed that his converts were endangered by adversaries.”²⁸ And Paul does so at the end of his letter since this is the “propitious moment” in which to influence the Corinthians by leaving a strong and lasting emotional appeal.²⁹ Witherington even goes so far as to declare that “the key to grasping the real character of the argument is recognizing Paul’s anti-Sophistic approach to self-praise.”³⁰

Certainly, both Paul’s approach and content have nothing in common with such Sophistic self-praise. It is also probable that part of the reason the Corinthians have fallen so easily for the theology and practice of Paul’s opponents is that their message feeds into the health and wealth, entertainment mentality of Greco-Roman culture.³¹ It is by no means clear, however, that Paul’s opponents have self-consciously availed themselves of the Sophistic criteria of evaluating his presence and oratory. Nor can it be demonstrated that he is offering a philosophical critique of the Sophist mentality by intentionally employing the rhetorical practices of his day. His change in tone in chapters 10–13 may simply be the result of theological “common sense,” since Paul realizes the gravity of the situation. His deep emotion reflects his awareness that time is running out for the rebellious and that this is his last opportunity to reach them for Christ.

In writing chapters 10–13, Paul is not calmly employing rhetorical strategies as a literary artifice, but reacting in the only way that would be natural, given his prophetic desire to win back his readers. The pathos of his argument is not the result of consciously following the rules of rhetoric, his knowledge of which is itself questionable.³² It comes from the passion of his heart.

In fact, Weima rightly emphasizes that “even if Paul did know or had been trained in ancient rhetoric, there is evidence that he deliberately chose not to engage in such oratory practices.”³³ Indeed, as 10:10 makes clear, the unprofessional manner of Paul’s public presentation, compared to the popular philosophers and entertainers of his day, has not been lost on his opponents (cf. 11:6 for Paul’s acknowledgment that he is untrained in professional rhetoric). Finally, since there is no evidence that the rules of public rhetoric were ever intended to be applied to literary works in the first place,³⁴ it is unlikely that what Paul disavows in person he then uses in his letters. What makes Paul’s letters “weighty and forceful” is not their rhetorical character but their content.

Because Paul assumes that everyone boasts in something, the real debate between him and his opponents is not one of style but of substance. Paul is passionate in this passage not simply because he is concerned about how his opponents carry themselves, but because he realizes that the gospel is at stake. The issue is not simply a philosophical debate over which way of life and ministry best corresponds to the gospel—that is, Paul’s weakness and lack of oratorical performance or his opponents’ image of strength and captivating public presentations. The fight is over the gospel itself.

The fundamental question, in other words, is whether the Spirit is being manifested in Paul’s apostolic ministry. His opponents insist that Paul’s physical weakness and lack of flashy rhetorical techniques are signs that he lacks the presence of the Spirit. Paul’s “weighty” letters of warning are an attempt to compensate for his lack of personal strength (10:2, 10). For them, the power of the Spirit should be seen in the power of the person. For Paul, his weakness and refusal to employ contemporary methods of entertainment are the very means by which God makes known the power of the Spirit through the gospel.

How then does Paul “demolish arguments and every pretension” and “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ”? By proclaiming the gospel of the crucified and risen Christ and by embodying it in his own life of voluntary suffering on behalf of God’s people. One does not “demolish arguments” and “take thoughts captive” by majoring in philosophy per se, though this may be helpful as a way to delineate carefully where the battle lines are currently being drawn. Rather, one does so by getting a clear vision of who Christ is and what he has done on the cross in order that one’s own life may reflect Christ’s character in word and deed (cf. 5:14–15). It is Paul’s suffering in the Spirit and his proclamation of Jesus as Lord that forms his counterattack against his opponents, recognizing that God himself must win the battle (cf. 2:14–17; 4:1–6; 6:7; 7:2–3). The battle in 10:1–5 is not intellectual, but spiritual, and the power of the Spirit is seen in the transformed lives of God’s people (3:18; 5:17; 6:14–7:1; 7:8–13; chs. 8–9).

The weapons of Paul’s attack. At the time of 2 Corinthians, however, it is still simply Paul’s word against theirs. Hence, the foundation to Paul’s apologetic is his understanding of what constitutes a divine commendation (10:12–18; cf. 3:1–3), not the style in which he writes. The ultimate weapon of his warfare is not to compare personalities or passions, expertise or experiences, but to challenge the Corinthians to examine the work of God in history, both in regard to Christ as the Messiah, who inaugurates the new covenant, and to Paul as his minister.

Thus, the theme of “self-commendation” versus “commendation of oneself” because of “God’s commendation” is in many ways the heart of Paul’s apologetic throughout 2 Corinthians (cf. 3:1; 4:2; 5:12; 6:4; 12:11). For God commends his servants by working in and through their lives in accordance with the claims being made. God commends the claim to be Christian by moving believers to life-changing repentance; God commends those who claim to be apostles in a given place by moving them to establish the church. For this reason, the theme of “commendation” both initiates and concludes Paul’s defense of his apostolic ministry in 2:14–6:13 (cf. 3:1; 6:4), as well as appears at the two strategic transitions within this section (cf. 4:2; 5:11–12). In the same way, the theme of self-commendation frames chapters 10–13, where it both introduces and concludes the “fool’s speech” of 11:1–12:10 (10:12–18 and 12:11).

We have also seen an apparent inconsistency in Paul’s development of this theme. In 3:1–3 and 5:12 Paul denies that he is engaging in self-commendation, only to commend himself in 4:2 and 6:4–10. This same apparent conflict exists between Paul’s criticism of his opponents’ self-commendation in 10:12–18 and his own commendation of himself in 11:1–12:10. Indeed, this letter as a whole functions in part as Paul’s commendation of himself. How then can we reconcile the apparent contradiction in Paul’s apologetic between what he asserts and what he denies?

Given the two distinct ways in which Paul himself uses the theme of self-commendation, the conflict between him and his opponents cannot simply have surrounded who in fact has commended themselves. It is not as if the mere practice of commending oneself is wrong in and of itself, always being an expression of pride or boasting in the negative sense. If it were, then Paul becomes his own worst enemy. Nor can the difference between Paul’s self-commendation and that of his opponents be their distinctive content (e.g., the opponents’ power versus Paul’s weakness). In addition to boasting in his weakness, Paul has also pointed to the purity of his motives and actions (1:12; 4:2; 6:12; 7:2), his authority and power (10:7–11), his preaching free of charge (2:17; 11:10), and his signs and wonders (12:11–12). Rather, the distinction between Paul’s commendation of himself and his opponents’ self-commendation is expressed in 10:18: Only the one whom the Lord commends is approved in his claims. Paul’s boast concerning his authority is merely the counterpart to the Lord’s commendation on which it rests.

Thus, the crucial question in 10:12–18 is what constitutes a divine commendation. The problem with Paul’s opponents has been their attempt to commend themselves without the divinely granted “canon” or attestation to support it. They have claimed authority over the Corinthians without God’s “stamp of approval” for such a boast. Instead, they have introduced irrelevant achievements and abilities to support their claims. In contrast, when Paul points to his bringing the gospel to Corinth, he is following the Old Testament admonition to boast in the Lord, since God is the one who enabled and determined that he would have this success (10:13). To “boast in the Lord” or to engage in a proper “commendation of oneself” is not to cease from boasting, as is commonly argued, but to boast only in what God himself has actually accomplished in one’s own life as it relates to what is being claimed.³⁵

Based on the principle of 10:18, Paul’s seemingly contradictory statements concerning commendation can now be brought together. In 3:1, Paul denies that he is presenting a self-commendation or that he needs the corroboratory evidence of letters of recommendation, since he can point to his suffering (2:14–17) and to his mediation of the Spirit (3:2–3) as the Lord’s commendation of his ministry (3:4–6). In 5:12, Paul denies that by seeking the Corinthians’ approval he is engaging in a self-commendation, since his own work in the Lord testifies to the fact that he has been called by God and is pleasing to him (cf. 5:9, 11).

Yet in 4:2 and 6:4–10 Paul does commend himself by pointing to the kinds of behavior and results that are evidence of God’s attestation of his apostolic ministry (6:4) and message (4:2) in general. In the same way, in 10:12–18 he points to the evidence that confirms his specific claim to apostolic authority in Corinth. Moreover, we have seen that Paul marks this distinction between a legitimate and illegitimate “commendation” linguistically. Whenever the commendation in view is negative, he front-loads the reflexive pronoun (cf. heauton synistanein in 3:1; 5:12; 10:12, 18); whenever it is positive, he places it behind the verb (cf. synistanein heauton in 4:2; 6:4; 7:11; see too 12:11). In our own discussion, we have followed this convention by distinguishing between a negative “self-commendation” and the positive “commendation of oneself.”

The culmination of the theme of commendation in 10:1–18 provides a strong impetus to rethink the cleavage often posited between justification by faith and Paul’s insistence that judgment is by works. What holds true for Paul as an apostle holds true for all Christians. Paul consistently argues from the external evidence of the Spirit in the life of the believer to the genuineness of one’s standing before God, just as he argues here from the external evidence of his apostolic work in Corinth to the legitimacy of his authority over that church (cf., e.g., Rom. 1:5; 8:3f.; 15:18; Gal. 5:16–26; 1 Thess. 1:3–6; Phil. 1:6, 11; 2:12–13; see comments on 2 Cor. 13:5).

In Paul’s thinking, we will be judged according to our deeds, since they are the expression of our faith and the fruit of the Spirit in our lives (5:10; cf. Rom. 2:6–13, 25–29; 1 Cor. 4:3–5; Gal. 6:4–5). From our perspective, faith in God’s promises unfolds in obedience to God’s commands; from God’s perspective, the pouring out of his Spirit gives birth to a new way of life. For this all-important reason, inasmuch as our boasting in our works is, at every point, a boast in the Lord, such an emphasis never degenerates into a boasting in oneself. There is no “easy believism” for Paul, just as there is no works-righteousness. In order to be valid, sure signs of God’s transforming work in our lives must match our boasting in the Lord. At the same time, our commendation from the Lord must never become a self-commendation.

Contemporary Significance

PAUL’S FIGHT TO “take captive every thought … to Christ” (10:5), which epitomizes this chapter, is often misapplied in our contemporary context. The issue in view is not Paul’s private struggle with his own “thought life,” as important as it is to make sure that we are thinking in ways that honor Christ. Paul is not striving to control his worry or lust or arrogance or tempting thoughts. Nor is it a criticism of philosophy or of intellectual pursuits as such, though it does contain an implied warning that all truth-claims must be subjected to the constraints of the gospel and its worldview.

Rather, Paul’s concern in 10:1–18 is with a public dispute over the content of the gospel and the true nature of God’s commendation of those who preach it. His self-defense is not the expression of a hurt ego, but the necessary response against those who deny the gospel by their lifestyles and teaching. To take captive every thought to Christ is to evaluate every teaching concerning who Jesus is and what it means to follow him in order to ensure that whatever is said and thought conforms to the character and purposes of Christ himself.

The need for apologetics and church discipline. As a continuation of Paul’s own “warfare,” this passage calls us to engage in apologetics and church discipline whenever the gospel is being denied or diluted. Paul’s affirmation that his future ministry was linked to the spiritual growth of those who under his authority had already confessed Christ (10:6, 15) is a sober reminder that quality, not quantity, reigns supreme in the ministry of the gospel.

In a recent Barna Research Group opinion poll, 82 percent of Americans say they consider themselves to be Christians, while 50 percent of those who say they are Christians describe themselves as “absolutely committed to the Christian faith.”³⁶ One wonders what the noun “Christian” means in contemporary American English. Paul’s apologetic in his passage reminds us that genuine salvation is marked by perseverance in the truth. He makes it clear that those who confessed Christ in the past but now persist in rejecting Paul’s gospel in word or deed stand under the judgment of God. Today we must fight again for the recognition that a growing faith, not a past decision, is the sign of the presence and power of the Spirit.

Paul’s argument also makes clear that the way to combat the denial of the gospel (10:5) and to strengthen the faith of believers (10:15) is to present the basis of apostolic authority (10:7–11) and its divinely granted commendation (10:12–18). In confronting those who opposed him, Paul’s urgent appeal (10:1–6) was therefore based on the obvious fact of his apostolic authority (10:7–11) and the undeniable evidence of God’s approval (10:12–18). As a result, Paul’s “manner” and “weapons of warfare” present us with our own need to strengthen the foundation of scriptural authority (10:8, 13–15) and to seek divine approval, not in self-authenticating claims to be spiritual, but in lives of integrity that attest to God’s power (10:17–18). Both are imperative for the life of God’s people.

The need for spiritual substance over style. In defending himself, Paul does not argue from style, one way or the other, to substance. His argument is not, “I am weak and unimpressive in speech, therefore I am legitimate.” Paul’s concern is not to pit one way of acting publicly against another, as if the goal were simply to counter the image of the Sophists, who emphasized personal persona, self-praise, and eloquence. Paul is not engaged here in the common dispute of his day over the public appearance of the wise, though he certainly believed that the pouring out of the Spirit through his ministry was inextricably tied to his calling to suffer as an apostle (cf. 2:14; 4:7–12; 6:3–10).

Rather, Paul argues from substance to style: “God has called me (10:8) and commended me in Corinth (10:13–14); therefore, my weakness and contemptible speech are legitimate expressions of my apostleship, of the validity of my message, and of my authority in Corinth.” In the end, his argument for legitimacy is not rhetorical, philosophical, or cultural, but evidential. To reduce his argument to a debate over the proper public manner of a minister misses the force of his reference to his own call as a Christian and to the evidence of the Corinthians themselves. Paul’s point is that his legitimacy is based on God’s work in Christ and through his own ministry.

If we miss this all-important emphasis on God as the one who commends his people, we will end up evaluating ministries and ministers based on what we think is an effective style and appropriate manner. For most, this will mean choosing leaders who have a forceful public personality and an “uplifting message,” since they will no doubt often have a more popular ministry. After all, the assumption is that if God’s Spirit is powerfully at work among his people, the church will “grow” numerically. Hence, we assume that those churches that draw a big crowd must, by definition, have a God-ordained ministry. The bigger the church, the bigger the blessing. If a church is growing numerically, the pastor must be doing something right. It is difficult for us to keep in view that Paul’s opponents, with their compromised gospel, were very appealing because of their personal strength and powerful public speaking.

For others, however, applying Paul’s “warfare” metaphor will mean creating a ministry style that almost purposely drives people away. Here the assumption is that, given the power and pervasiveness of sin, all genuine ministries will grow slowly. Those in this camp are convinced that the remnant of those who truly believe is always small. Big churches, by definition, are therefore superficial, not spiritual. Only a compromised gospel can draw a crowd. After all, for a church to be large it must have capitulated to the prevailing culture. Thus, if a church is growing numerically in dramatic ways, it must be doing something wrong. Yet this passage reveals not only God’s work in commending his people, but also Paul’s passion for reaching the lost, his expectation for the spiritual growth of the church, and his plan for the expansion of his apostolic ministry. Precisely because God is at work, Paul never assumes that “enough” people have been saved or that they have already grown “enough” in their faith.

In contrast to both of these approaches, Paul’s emphasis is that, although he is doing the fighting (10:1–6), God is the one who calls his people and causes their growth (10:17). Our responsibility is not to decide what we can do to “grow the church,” but to be faithful to God (10:5), to be passionate for the effective proclamation of the gospel (10:8, 15), and to be utterly dependent on God’s commendation of our work through his Spirit (10:18). In short, our job is to “boast in the Lord” (10:17). God’s sovereign will, not our techniques, determines the number of God’s people in a given place, large or small.

Though many of the Corinthians had come to faith when Paul founded the church in Corinth, so that he was ready to move on, God commanded him to keep on speaking and promised him the protection needed to do so because God had “many [more] people in this city” (Acts 18:9–10). As a result, Paul stayed for a year and a half. In contrast, the Bereans were more receptive than the Thessalonians (17:11–12), in Athens only a few believed Paul’s message (17:34), and in Ephesus, when the Ephesians asked Paul to remain longer, Paul declined, saying, “I will come back if it is God’s will” (18:21). These examples illustrate that the mark of God’s blessing is the genuine conversion (2 Cor. 10:13–14) and sustained spiritual growth (10:15) of God’s people, not the size or length of one’s ministry. Whatever the Corinthians may have thought about “ministry styles” from their culture, Paul’s point is that God has commended him through their own conversion. His boast is in God as the source of all things. Any “gospel” that contradicts this boast must be called into question.

Rather than arguing back from the “popularity” or “purity” of our style to the credibility of our ministry, we must be careful to adduce the only evidence that counts: Does the authentic work of the Spirit in the conversion (10:13–14) and growing faithfulness (10:15) of God’s people attend our gospel and way of life? This will demand discernment as we sort out the distinction between differing, but equally God-honoring styles of ministry on the one hand, and different gospels on the other. This will not always be easy, but it is necessary nonetheless. Today, as in Paul’s day, the stakes are high. The issue in Corinth was not merely a disagreement over legitimate cultural preferences. The Corinthians were being seduced, not realizing that the opponents’ difference in style also revealed a “different gospel” (cf. 11:4, 6).

The need for the proclamation of the gospel. Regaining Paul’s confidence that God is the Lord of his church is crucial for evaluating ministries in our day and age. It is equally important that we regain Paul’s conviction that God does his sovereign work through his people. As in Paul’s day, what is needed today are those who preach the gospel out of lives shaped by its truth and commended by God’s power (cf. 10:4–5). On the one hand, this will mean fighting against the temptation to become what Hauerwas and Willimon call “an accommodationist church.” Such a church, “so intent on running errands for the world,” actually gives the world

less and less in which to disbelieve. Atheism slips into the church where God really does not matter, as we go about building bigger and better congregations (church administration), confirming people’s self-esteem (worship), enabling people to adjust to their anxieties brought on by their materialism (pastoral care), and making Christ a worthy subject for poetic reflection (preaching). At every turn the church must ask itself, Does it really make any difference, in our life together, in what we do, that in Jesus Christ God is reconciling the world to himself? As anybody knows, such a question is hard to keep before us. Atheism is the air we breathe.³⁷

Paul’s insistence that God does not approve those who commend themselves by their own achievements, but only those whom he himself commends through the active display of his own power, condemns such atheism.

The need for a truth-saturated, life-embodied proclamation of the gospel will also mean not falling into the trap of becoming a “ghetto church.” Rather than giving the world little to disbelieve, such a church, though priding itself on being filled with faith, takes away the opportunity for others to believe at all. Instead of “running errands” for the world, this church withdraws from it. Instead of becoming atheistic, the ghetto church seeks to contain God within its own walls, like the territorial gods of the ancient world. Instead of trusting God to work through their message and manner of life as the instruments of his grace, citizens of the ghetto act as if God’s election of his people means that he will “zap” their hearts while they sit and watch behind the barriers of their isolated subculture. They pat themselves on the back for their faithfulness, all the while being dangerously content with their lack of evangelism, since they live with the allusion that God acts sovereignly in the world apart from his people.

Those in the ghetto rightly fear slipping into the practical and triumphant atheism of the accommodationist, who manufactures “belief” by programs. But if the accommodationist fears the world too little, the ghetto-dweller fears the world too much. Within the ghetto, the courage to break out ebbs away. Instead, their fear leads to a self-justifying quietism that acts as if God’s sovereign grace negates the call to share the gospel with the world in ways it can understand, not to mention the need to wage war on behalf of those who already confess Christ. The ghetto mentality cannot accept the fact that in 10:15–16 Paul is anticipating the growth and purification of a church still partly in rebellion against him, and that it will come about precisely through his own teaching. Nor does it feel Paul’s passion to establish the church further through his preaching of the gospel to complete strangers.

On the one extreme, the accommodationist church is characterized by a free-will theology gone to seed in its attempt to win others by meeting their “felt needs.” On the other extreme, the ghetto church is characterized by a passive “hyper-Calvinism” (even though they may not be Calvinistic at all) that has lost sight of the desperate need for spiritual warfare (10:3–6) and for preaching the gospel throughout the world (10:15–16). If the accommodationist church tries to offer what it does not have by taking the place of God, the ghetto church refuses to offer what it possesses by not taking its place as God’s people. Following Paul, our challenge (and it is not an easy one) is to remain true to the gospel as the power of God, while at the same time passionately waging war as his soldiers on behalf of the gospel in order to protect the church and reach the world.

Appendix

Some commentators see the demarcation of ministries in Galatians 2:7–10 to be behind Paul’s argument in 2 Corinthians 10:13–16. They argue that the “canon” in view is the “field” of Gentiles over against Jews, so that the problem in Corinth is that Paul’s Jewish opponents have trespassed into his Gentile region. But there is no mention of the “canon” of being a “founding father” in Galatians 2 or of the accord between Paul and the pillar apostles in 2 Corinthians 10. The demarcation in Galatians 2:7–10 is not geographical, but ethnic, while the “field” in 2 Corinthians 10:13–16 is determined by who plants the church, not by the location or ethnic distribution in the church. It is not as if Paul had to count noses to see who could minister in a given congregation.

Furthermore, even in predominantly Gentile regions, Paul first goes to synagogues and to the Jews, while his churches typically consist of both Jews and Gentiles (see Acts 18:1–8, 18 for this practice and for the mixed nature of Corinthian church).

Thus, the two passages are not dealing with the same issue: Galatians 2:7–10 concerns respective spheres of ministry, whereas 2 Corinthians 10:13–16 concerns apostolic authority in a particular local church. In line with this latter “measure” of authority, Paul does not attempt to establish his own church base in Rome, even though it is the capital of the Gentile world (Rom. 15:20–21). Moreover, the problem in 2 Corinthians 10–13 is not just the arrival of Paul’s opponents, but their arrival with a false gospel (11:4), so that Paul would not want them ministering among the Jews either. The issue is their building on Paul’s foundation with a different gospel, that is, their claiming apostolic authority to establish a distinct message. In contrast, Paul did not object to Peter and Apollos working in Corinth, only to the way in which the Corinthians used their work to create divisions within the church (cf. 1 Cor. 1:12–13; 3:4–9).

More recently, James Scott has argued extensively that 2 Corinthians 10:13–16 reflects Paul’s Jewish mindset concerning the Corinthian region as part of the “nations” outlined in the “Table of Nations” from Genesis 10 (cf. 1 Chron. 1:1–2:2; Ezek. 27; 38–39; Dan. 11; Isa. 66:18–20). Based on this view of the world, Paul defends his apostolic right to a territorial jurisdiction over the Corinthians, since, as an apostle to the Gentiles, Paul had been called to these nations, a calling confirmed at the apostolic council.³⁸

In Scott’s view, Galatians 2:7–9 thus reflects the council’s decision that the apostles were to observe the territorial jurisdictions that are mapped out according to the three sons of Noah in Genesis 10. It was this “Table of Nations” that provided Israel’s understanding of her place as central among the nations, both now and in the eschaton. Hence, in Scott’s reading, all the churches of Paul’s jurisdiction, whether founded by him or not, stand under his authority, which is declared in Romans 1:5–6. Specifically, according to this “Table of Nations” tradition, “the Corinthian church falls within the swath of (Japhethite) territory from Cilicia to Spain that has been divinely allotted to Paul.”³⁹

As such, Corinth was in the midpoint of Paul’s westerly expanding mission (cf. Rom. 15:19). As a result, Paul’s opponents were overstepping the limits of their commission geographically and nationally by usurping Paul’s God-given apostolic territory.

Of course, it is a question of much debate whether Galatians 2:7–10 reflects Acts 10 or an earlier meeting between the apostles. Moreover, in Galatians 2:9 it is God’s grace, not the pillar apostles, that gives Paul his ministry and jurisdiction. The specific content of his commission is not determined by their understanding of the world, but by the limits of God’s grace in Paul’s life as seen in the churches he establishes.

The primary problem with this territorial view, therefore, is that in 2 Corinthians 10:13–14 Paul likewise points explicitly to his having reached Corinth with the gospel as the basis for his divinely granted authority, not a prior geographical distribution that was granted by the Jerusalem council. Paul too would have been overreaching his apostolic authority in Corinth if he had not founded the church there. His sphere grows by virtue of the fact that his ministry is blessed by the pouring out of the Spirit as manifested in the establishment and solidification of a church, not by virtue of a static geographical demarcation. Galatians 2:7–10 is primarily about the grace of God among Jews and Gentiles, not geography.