Original Meaning

THE CENTRAL QUESTION driving this complex section is what constitutes valid evidence for establishing a servant of Christ. Since Paul answers this question by taking on the persona of a fool (cf. 11:1; 12:11), all of 11:1–12:13 is often referred to as Paul’s “Fool’s Speech.” Actually, however, the speech itself occupies only part of 11:21b–12:10 (cf. the other references to being “foolish” and a “fool” in 11:16, 17, 19; 12:6). Moreover, many commentators consider Paul’s “foolishness” to be a literary or rhetorical device designed to establish his own legitimacy as a servant of Christ by mocking or parodying the boasting of his opponents.

Paul certainly uses many rhetorical devices in this passage (e.g., irony, sarcasm, plays on words, and parodies). Yet there is no evidence that he crafted his argument according to a distinct genre or literary form, whether from among those employed in the debates between the philosophers and the Sophists or from the arsenal of professional oratory.¹ Paul himself denies that he uses those kinds of technical, academic approaches in his ministry (cf. 11:6; cf. 1 Cor. 2:1–5). Rather than trying to categorize the type of rhetorical speech Paul employed, the most fruitful approach to this passage is to trace the flow of Paul’s argument.

Most commentators argue that Paul’s “foolishness” consists in his boasting in and of itself. In contrast, we will argue that Paul’s “foolishness” in 11:1–12:13 consists only in his being forced to boast in his “strength,” which, after preparing his readers at length for such a ridiculous act, he nevertheless does in 11:21b–23b and 12:1–4. But he does so reluctantly and in a manner as curtailed and oblique as possible. Furthermore, the reason Paul considers such boasting to be foolish is not because he is thinking of the role of the fool in Greek comedy, Stoicism, or professional rhetoric. Rather, he has in view the picture of the fool portrayed in Jewish wisdom tradition, who refuses to acknowledge or praise God, and the false boasting of the arrogant, which is condemned by the prophets as an affront to God’s glory.²

Consequently, Paul’s criterion for determining what is “foolish” is not Greek philosophy or the theater, but “not talking as the Lord would” (11:17; lit., “not according to the Lord”) and instead “in the way the world does” (11:18; lit., “according to the flesh”). In other words, foolish boasting does not conform to the principle established in Jeremiah 9:23–24, as already applied to Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians 10:17–18. Thus, the boasting in 11:21b–23a and 12:1–4 is foolish because it focuses on Paul’s human distinctives and private spiritual experiences instead of calling attention to the Lord as the giver of all things in Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 1:26–31).³

The rest of Paul’s boasting, however, is focused on his “weakness,” which is not the act of a fool but an essential aspect of his legitimate apology for being an apostle (11:23–33). As we will see in the next chapter, Paul’s boasting in his weakness is also the appropriate means for glorifying God’s grace and power in his ministry (12:5–10). So if forced to boast about himself at all, Paul will do so concerning his weakness (cf. 11:30; 12:5, 9). Thus, 11:23–33 and 12:5–10 are part of Paul’s positive self-commendation as seen earlier in 1:3–11; 2:14–17; 4:7–12; 6:3–10.

Although most commentators take all of 11:21b–12:10 as Paul’s playing the fool, it is crucial for understanding his argument to recognize that his foolishness is identified only with boasting in what his opponents boast in (i.e., their Jewish pedigree in 11:21b–23b and their visions and revelations in 12:1–4). The issue is the object of one’s boast, not the act of boasting itself (cf. 10:12–18).⁴ Indeed, it is Paul’s boasting in his weakness, not boasting per se, that unmasks his opponents’ foolishness and falsity.⁵

There is, therefore, a double irony in this passage. On the one hand, Paul considers it foolish to boast in the very things his opponents think are appropriate. On the other hand, he gladly boasts in those things that his opponents think are foolish. While Paul’s opponents point to their ethnic identity and spiritual experiences, Paul lists his sufferings. He calls foolish what they think is wise (i.e., the strength of their Jewish pedigree and revelatory experiences) and boasts freely in what they consider foolish (i.e., his weakness). Read in this light, 11:1–21a is not part of the “fool’s speech” itself, but prepares its way by setting out why it has become necessary for Paul to engage in such foolish boasting. Paul then concludes his discourse in 12:11–13 by declaring why such boasting should not have been necessary in the first place.

Here, too, Paul’s “thesis statement” in 2:14–3:3 is central for the development of his argument.⁶ Earlier, when addressing the repentant majority, Paul moved from a discussion of his weakness in 2:14–17 to his ministry of the Spirit as the founder of the Corinthian church in 3:1–3. Now the order is reversed. In addressing those who still question his apostleship, he moves from the “canon” of his founding function in 10:12–18 to a discussion of his weakness in 11:1–12:13. Paul’s purpose in doing so is to offer an extended apologetic for his legitimacy as an apostle by unpacking his earlier affirmation that his “being led to death” is the very means by which God is revealing himself through Paul’s ministry (2:14–17; cf. 4:7–12; 6:3–10). His goal is to confront the accusations of the rebellious head-on, both those within the church and his opponents from outside the church; the former he addresses directly, the latter, indirectly.⁷

In 11:23b–33, Paul details the ways in which “the sufferings of Christ flow over” into his own life as a “jar of clay” and “servant of God” (1:5; 4:7; 6:4). He does so in order to tackle the claim that since he lacked commendations from others, he had no recourse but to commend himself (cf. 2:16a; 3:1). According to his opponents, Paul lacked such commendations because he was insufficient for the apostolic ministry, as indicated by his suffering. Just the opposite is true. Paul’s suffering itself, as the vehicle for the mediation of the Spirit and embodiment of the gospel, is an essential aspect of his letter of recommendation (3:2–6; 4:2; 5:12; 10:18).

Thus, Paul’s argument in 11:1–12:13 is not new but builds on the case he has already demonstrated earlier in his letter (cf. 1:8–11 in support of 1:3–7; 4:7–12 in support of 4:1–6; 6:3–10 in support of 5:11–6:2; 10:12–18 in support of 10:1–11). What is new is the forceful way in which he now applies this argument to his opponents in order to win back those who are still under their influence. This is Paul’s last attempt to rescue them and hence his most pointed. Indeed, he is so desperate for their sake that he willingly joins his opponents in acting like a fool by boasting in his own Jewish distinctives and heavenly visions (cf. 11:22; 12:1). But before doing so, he must prepare his readers for what he considers to be an act that is so foolish and dishonoring to God that someone would have to be “out of [his] mind to talk like this” (11:23).

The Necessity of Paul’s Boast (11:1–21a)

DESPERATE SITUATIONS DEMAND desperate measures. Paul knows it has become necessary to boast like his opponents. Nevertheless, boasting “in the way the world does” (11:18; lit., “according to the flesh”) makes him extremely uncomfortable. This is reflected in that his justification for engaging in such foolish boasting lasts from 11:1–21a, while his initial expression of foolish boasting itself occupies only two verses (11:21b–23b)!

The danger in Corinth (11:1–6). In 11:1–4, Paul begins his justification for boasting like a fool by expressing his desire that the Corinthians “put up with” him as he does so for the reasons given in verses 2–4.⁸ Since they are already “putting up with” the false apostles so easily, they should bear with Paul too (see vv. 4, 19, 20). This is irony. Paul does not really want them to be so patient with foolishness. But if they can “put up” with the opponents, who are truly fools, then they should be able to “put up” with Paul when he plays the fool.

In mounting this plea, Paul is not expressing jealousy over being rejected. As their “father” in the faith (cf. 1 Cor. 4:15; 2 Cor. 6:13; 12:14), he supports this drastic request by reminding the Corinthians that he has pledged them to be Christ’s bride (2 Cor. 11:2). It is Paul’s “paternal” relationship to the Corinthians and their ensuing “marriage” to Christ, not their rejection of him in and of itself, which explains his “jealousy.” According to Jewish betrothal customs in the New Testament era, a father pledged his daughter to her future husband and was then responsible for her purity until the marriage took place (cf. Deut. 22:13–24). In the same way, Paul is fighting for the faithfulness of the Corinthians because of their current temptation to commit spiritual adultery.

Paul’s portrayal of the Corinthians as engaged to Christ in 11:2 recalls the Old Testament representation of Israel as betrothed to God (cf. Isa. 50:1–2; 54:1–8; 62:5; Jer. 3:1; Ezek. 16:23–33; Hos. 2:19–20; for Israel as God’s “bride,” cf. Isa. 49:18; 54:5–6; 62:5). Moreover, Paul’s use of this metaphor reflects his conviction that the church is now living between her engagement to Christ and the consummation of her “wedding,” which is yet to come (cf. 4:14). Hence, Paul is jealous for the Corinthians since he regards them as God’s people under the new covenant (cf. the jealousy of God that brings about the final redemption of his people in Isa. 9:7; 26:11; 37:32; 42:13; 59:17; 63:15–16; Joel 2:18; Zech. 1:14; 8:2). As such, unlike Israel’s history of adultery toward God (cf. comments on 2 Cor. 3:7–18), they must keep themselves pure for Christ (cf. 5:1–10; 6:16–18). Like God’s jealousy for Israel (cf. Ex. 20:5; 34:14; Deut. 4:24; 5:9; 6:15), Paul is jealous with a “godly jealousy” for the Corinthians.

In spite of his intervention, however, the apostle fears that those who are still in rebellion may be falling prey to Satan’s temptation, even as Eve did in the garden (11:3; cf. 1 Tim. 2:14). Just as the devil deceived Eve by calling into question the sufficiency of God’s provisions (Gen. 3:1–13), so too he is seeking to undermine the Corinthians’ purity of devotion to Christ by enticing them with “another Jesus,” as if the Christ of Paul’s gospel were not enough. Satan tempts God’s people by presenting a substitute savior: In the garden it was the false promise that they could provide for themselves without consequence; in Corinth it was the promise that the real “Christ” would provide for them health and wealth. Paul’s argument thus moves from portraying the rebellious in the church as the counterpart to Israel under the law in verse 2 (i.e., reduplicating the “fall” of Israel; cf. 3:14), to portraying them as the counterpart to Eve at creation in verse 3 (i.e., reproducing the “fall” of humanity; cf. 4:4).

The reference to the Fall reveals just how serious the danger facing the Corinthians really is. It is a warning that, in reality, his opponents are “servants of Satan” who are seeking to destroy the Corinthians’ marriage with Christ in the same way that Satan spoiled Eve’s relationship with God (cf. 11:14–15).⁹ As in the garden, the goal of their deception is to create a new way of thinking among the Corinthians that no longer agrees with God’s will.¹⁰ But those who are truly God’s people will resist this satanic temptation to idolatry and strife (cf. 2:11; 6:14–7:1; also Rom. 16:17–20). In this way they show themselves to be “new creatures” in Christ, who are being transformed by God’s glory in their midst (2 Cor. 3:18; 5:17). Like Paul, their lives will be characterized by sincerity and purity toward Christ (for sincerity as evidence of the grace of God in one’s life, cf. 1:12; 2:17; on purity, cf. 6:6).

The instrument of Satan’s deception is the opponents’ preaching of another “Jesus,” a “different [S]pirit,” and “a different gospel” (11:4). Paul’s use of the generic singular in 11:4 (“if someone comes”) could refer to the leader of the opposition, but it is more likely a collective reference to the opponents as a whole (cf. 3:1; 10:12). There is no consensus among scholars concerning the origin, identity, and theology of these adversaries.¹¹ The key to this question is not to drive a wedge between “Judaizers” and “pneumatics” within the early church. Instead, the appeal of the Judaizers’ demand that the Gentiles keep the old covenant resided in the promise of the Spirit that undergirded it (cf. 3:1–18 with Gal. 3:1–5¹²). Paul’s opponents promised more of the Spirit (i.e., health, wealth, and ecstatic experiences) to those who would keep more of the law (i.e., adding the stipulations of the old covenant to those of the new). For, in their view, Jesus suffered in order that we might not have to do so ourselves.

It is therefore important to keep the three issues of 11:4 together. The proper understanding of the mission of Jesus, the proper understanding of the role of the Spirit (not simply a human “spirit,” contra the NIV13), and the proper understanding of the relationship between the gospel of the new covenant and the role of the old are inextricably linked together. The central question is what Jesus accomplished in his ministry, how one receives and grows in the Spirit as a result, and what the conditions are for belonging fully to the people of God. In short, the issue is “what constitutes a proper manifestation of the Spirit in the ministry of the gospel. A mistaken emphasis on the miraculous by these so-called super-apostles (11:5) resulted in a construal of the Spirit as a wonder-worker rather than a guarantor of the kerygma.”¹⁴

Whereas Paul preached and embodied the fact that the Spirit of God is experienced in and through the suffering of this age, his opponents maintained that the Spirit of God, if truly present, delivers one from such suffering. For Paul, the cross is still central to the gospel. He carries in his body the death of Jesus (cf. 4:7–12). In his opponents’ “different gospel,” the cross is merely a matter of history, having been replaced by the resurrected Lord.

This may explain Paul’s use of “Jesus” in 11:4 without the title “Christ,” since the debate in Corinth revolved around different conceptions of what Jesus had in fact accomplished in his earthly ministry as the Messiah. The opponents maintained that Jesus brought the kingdom in its fullness; Paul preached that the kingdom had been inaugurated but is not yet consummated. In the imagery of our text, the opponents claimed to be married to Christ already, whereas Paul saw the church as betrothed but still waiting for her wedding day.

This reading of the conflict between Paul and his opponents is confirmed by his designation of their message as proclaiming a Jesus “other than the Jesus we preached,” which recalls Paul’s earlier argument in 4:5.¹⁵ There Paul made it clear that the true gospel of Jesus’ lordship, in contrast to the monetary and personal demands of his opponents, is embodied in a Christ-like “slavery” to the needs of his people. Sumney has therefore rightly emphasized that in 2 Corinthians 10–13 “the central issue at Corinth is the appropriate way of life for apostles.”¹⁶ Hence, Paul’s implied critique of his opponents in 4:5 and 11:4 becomes explicit in 11:20. Paul’s opponents do not preach Jesus as the Lord who is embodied in the suffering of his apostle.

As a result, Paul’s willingness to be a slave of all stands in stark contrast with their having made the Corinthians their slaves. That his opponents preach “another Jesus” is clearly revealed in their refusal to take up their cross on behalf of the Corinthians (cf. comments on 4:5). Rather than following in the footsteps of the crucified and then risen Lord (cf. 4:7–12 with 4:13–18), they preach an “exalted” figure that they wrongly assert is reflected in their assertions of superiority and the demands that they lord over the Corinthians. Nevertheless, the Corinthians gladly “put up” with such mistreatment because the opponents’ Jesus promises the power of the Spirit over all sickness and financial want to those who will accept their gospel. To do so, however, is to go back on the true Jesus, gospel, and Spirit as first preached by Paul.

Against this backdrop, the meaning and flow of Paul’s argument from 11:4 to 11:5 has been a matter of much debate. The NIV opts for one side of the debate by translating verse 5 as a contrast to verse 4 (“but”) and rendering those to whom Paul compares himself as “those ‘super-apostles.’ ” Read in this way, the “super-apostles” of verse 5 are equated with the opponents of verse 4, with the title itself understood to be ironic or sarcastic (note the quotation marks). By using this designation, Paul is reflecting his opponents’ inflated view of themselves, while Paul himself is viewed as going back on his prior resolve not to compare himself with his opponents. As Witherington puts it, this gives “a dialectic character to this whole section since Paul refuses to compare himself with his rivals and then proceeds with the comparison.”¹⁷

From this perspective, the peddlers of God’s Word in 2:17 and those “recommending themselves” in 10:12–16 become equated with the “super-apostles” in 11:5 (cf. 12:11), who are then identified as the “false apostles,” “deceitful workmen,” and “servants of Satan” in 11:13–15. Paul’s point is that he is not inferior to his opponents, regardless of the fact that they hold themselves to be “super-apostles.”

It would be highly unusual, however, for the conjunction introducing verse 5 (gar) to indicate a contrast. Its most common function is to introduce a ground or support (i.e., “for” or “because”). Moreover, it is difficult to imagine that Paul would go back on his resolve not to compare himself with others or that he would try to establish his authority by comparing himself positively to Satan’s servants!¹⁸ This objection takes on special force in light of 11:12, where Paul refuses to allow his opponents to be compared to himself. Furthermore, the Greek text need not be translated as “those super-apostles” but can be rendered simply as “the highest ranking apostles”¹⁹ or “superlative” or “eminent apostles” (cf. NASB). Rendered in this way, in 11:5 Paul is not comparing himself to his enemies but to the authority and status of the leading apostles of the early church, namely, to the acknowledged “pillar apostles” of Galatians 2:9 and those within their sphere of authority.

Hence, the “most eminent apostles” of 11:5 and 12:11 should not be equated with the false apostles of 11:4 or 11:13–15. Paul is not continuing his discussion of his opponents and their “gospel” from verse 4, but is switching focus in verse 5 by introducing the reason why the Corinthians are in such danger if they accept Paul’s opponents (11:2–4) and why they ought to “put up” with Paul instead (11:1). In turning their backs on him, the Corinthians must remember that in his message and ministry he is in no way inferior to those acknowledged to be the church’s most eminent apostles but that he carries their same authority and status. Those who reject Paul are therefore rejecting the one common, apostolic gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3, 8–11). By comparing himself positively to the “pillar apostles,” Paul is driving a wedge between his gospel and the subsequent claims of his opponents, who may have supported their message by boasting that they came with the Jerusalem church’s stamp of approval. In reality, however, Paul is the one who represents the apostolic tradition.

Paul’s equality with the leading apostles means that even if he is an amateur in the art of professional rhetoric and public oratory, his knowledge of the gospel is not second rate (11:6). Indeed, he has manifested this knowledge to the Corinthians “in every way,” that is, by both word (i.e., his preaching) and deed (i.e., his suffering), a clear reference back to 2:14. Paul’s statement in 11:6 also recalls 1 Corinthians 15:11, where Paul stated that it was of no significance whether the Corinthians heard the gospel from Paul or from any of the other apostles, since they all represent the same message. Paul’s reference in verse 6 to his “knowledge” makes this same point: His knowledge is on a par with any of the apostles, just as he himself shares their apostolic authority in every way.

The necessity of Paul’s boasting in his weakness (11:7–15). Earlier, Paul moved from a general statement concerning his manifesting the knowledge of God through his suffering in 2:14 to his practice of self-support in Corinth as a specific example of such suffering in 2:17.²⁰ Now he moves from a general statement of his mediating the knowledge of God in 11:6 to the specific instance of “lowering himself” for the sake of the Corinthians by preaching the gospel for free in 11:7–12 (cf. 12:13–18). Once again, his point is that his willing practice of self-support (i.e., his lowering himself), which his opponents consider a “sin,”²¹ is in reality the very means God has used to manifest himself to the Corinthians. Paul’s lowering himself has led to his elevating the Corinthians because of his love for them (11:7, 11; cf. 1 Cor. 4:8–15; 9:12–23).

Paul returns to the theme of his self-support in 11:7–12 because his voluntary humiliation and suffering are at the heart of the debate among those still questioning his apostleship. From Plato through Paul’s day, the Sophist philosophers and professional orators charged fees and took money for their teaching, since a free or cheap message implied that the message itself was not worth much (cf. the discussion to 2:17).²² We might call this the “Harvard principle” of charging fees in accordance with one’s perceived status (though the actual quality of the instruction may or may not match the price tag). Hence, Paul’s refusal to solicit support from the Corinthians could be viewed as casting an aspersion on his teaching: He gives his gospel away because nobody will pay for it. In his opponents’ view, Paul’s refusal to accept money is not an expression of Christ-like love for the Corinthians but a tacit admission of the inferior nature of his apostleship.

At the same time, Paul’s self-support is an affront to the pride of the Corinthians, who most likely want to be viewed as Paul’s benefactors or patrons, with him as their client. But as an apostle, Paul is their patron, representing his true Patron, Christ. Far from calling his ministry into question, his preaching for free represents God’s gift in Christ. Christ’s humbling himself in the “poverty” of his incarnation, suffering, and death (cf. 8:9) leads to Paul’s humbling himself in the “poverty” that results from supporting himself for the sake of the Corinthians (11:7).

Given the precarious situation of itinerant craftsmen in Paul’s day, 11:8–9 reports that Paul’s ministry of self-support in Corinth was made possible in that the Macedonian churches supplemented Paul’s income when needed. Thus, the Macedonians’ generosity as an expression of God’s grace (cf. 8:1), combined with Paul’s self-support as an extension of the gospel of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 8:13; 9:19–22; 10:24, 33; 2 Cor. 2:17), made it possible for him not to “burden” the Corinthians. There is therefore no basis for his opponents’ accusation that Paul is somehow using the ministry or the collection to serve his own ends (cf. 12:16–18). His “robbing” other churches for the sake of his ministry in Corinth was not a scam but an expression of Christ-like love, both on Paul’s part and on the part of those who gave.²³ This is why Paul pledges to continue his practice of not relying on the Corinthians financially—he will not put any stumbling block in the way of the gospel.

The two oath formulas of 11:10 and 11²⁴ undergird Paul’s resolve to continue his boast of preaching the gospel for free in Achaia. No criticism can stop him from doing so (cf. v. 7), since his boast is an expression of the truth of Christ in his life. He can equate his commitment to preach for free with the truth of Christ because the humiliation and suffering that his practice of self-support entails derives from his love toward the Corinthians, as God himself can attest (cf. 2:4; 3:2; 5:14; 6:6; 8:7; 12:15).

The bold assertions of 11:10–11 thus reiterate what Paul has already argued in detail in 1 Corinthians 9:15–18. There Paul made it clear to the Corinthians that he would rather die than give up his practice of self-support, since giving up his right to financial support was an essential part of that “boast” for which he would be rewarded by God. As a slave of Christ entrusted with the gospel, he has no choice but to preach. For this there will be no reward; to preach is Paul’s duty. But his practice of self-support in doing so goes beyond the call of duty for the sake of the gospel. So what his opponents called a “sin” (2 Cor. 11:7) is the very thing for which Paul expects to be rewarded by God. For Paul’s practice of self-support demonstrates without further argument that he loves the Corinthians.

There is a second reason why Paul will not stop supporting himself in Corinth. It is also his way of exposing the fraudulent motives of his opponents. Paul’s preaching for free makes it impossible for his opponents to compare their missionary practice favorably with his own. In so doing, it removes their “ground” (11:12, aphorme, a military term referring to the base from which an attack can be launched). Indeed, that Paul willingly suffers like Christ for the sake of others calls into question the dictum of the health and wealth gospel that Christ has suffered so that his people need not do so. That is why the opponents are denigrating Paul; they realize that his practice of self-support calls their own ministry into question. His refusing support as evidence of his love for the church destroys his opponents’ ability to demand support under the pretense of claiming to be the ones who really love the Corinthians.

Many commentators argue that Paul engages in boasting because the opponents are comparing themselves to Paul in order to assert their own superiority. But in 10:12 the opponents are said to be comparing themselves to themselves, not to Paul. Their tactic is not to compare themselves with Paul, but to generate commendations from one another without the kind of evidence that counted in Corinth (cf. 10:13–18). As 11:12 makes clear, the opponents are actually afraid to compare themselves to Paul because of the clear testimony that his practice of self-support gives to the sincerity of his motives. It is Paul, not the opponents, who therefore initiates the comparison in chapters 10–13.

Thus, in 11:12 Paul goes on the offensive by turning his opponents’ criticism on its head and exposing it for what it really is: an attempt to get Paul to compromise his convictions so that they will not look so bad by comparison. The decisive issue is whose gospel and way of life are truly motivated by love: Paul’s willingness to support himself for the sake of the Corinthians as the “slave of all” (cf. 1 Cor. 9:12, 17; 2 Cor. 4:5), or his opponents’ attempt to “enslave” the Corinthians by demanding that they support them (cf. 11:20). Paul maintains that his message and ministry are the true criteria of legitimacy by which the opponents are to be measured, not the other way around.

Paul must set himself up as the criterion for true apostleship because of the deceptive nature of his opponents, who are “masquerading as apostles of Christ” (11:13). This is no innocent misunderstanding on their part. The verb translated “masquerading” signifies the idea “to change the form of, transform … change or disguise oneself into or as something.”²⁵ It is best taken here to signify “disguising oneself.” The opponents are “deceitful workmen” in that, though false or pseudo-apostles, they are pretending to be genuine apostles.²⁶

Paul is not surprised by this, since Satan too “masquerades as an angel of light” (11:14). This exact designation for Satan is not found in the Old Testament or Judaism, though the idea is certainly there (cf., e.g., Job 1:6–12; Isa. 14:12–15; Life of Adam and Eve 9:1; Apocalypse of Moses 17:1–2). The point of designating Satan as a false “angel of light” is to highlight his counterfeit nature as a messenger of God. Satan pawns himself off as the real messenger of the light—that is, Christ²⁷—in contrast to the true apostles, who mediate the “light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” and the “light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (cf. 4:4, 6). Note the focus on Christ. The opponents disguise themselves as “apostles of Christ” even though they serve Satan, who presents himself as the one who truly reveals the glory of God. As prisoners of Satan’s deceit, these opponents preach a “different Jesus.”

As a result, just as God made Paul competent to be a “servant” (diakonos) of the new covenant “ministry [diakonia] of righteousness” (3:6, 9), so too Satan’s “servants” are masquerading as “servants [diakonoi] of righteousness” (11:15). Their deceptive, satanic claim is that Christ’s life and death are not sufficient to bring about the righteousness of God, but must be supplemented with the stipulations of the old covenant. Keeping the old covenant in addition to the new is consequently trumpeted as the way to experience the fullness of the Spirit, the sign of which was health, wealth, and supernatural experiences.

This insistence on the continuing validity of the old covenant brings with it, in reality, a conviction that the Christ proclaimed by the apostles is insufficient to bring about God’s promises—that is, they represent “another Jesus” (cf. 4:4–6). The opponents’ overrealized emphasis on the glorified Christ therefore includes a false understanding of what God has promised by pouring out his presence in the midst of this evil age; that is, they promise a “different Spirit” (cf. 3:3–6). As a result, they are ministers of a gospel that cannot save; that is, they proclaim a “different gospel” (cf. 5:16–6:2). Those who preach such a false message will be rewarded “according to their works” (NIV, “what their actions deserve;” cf. 5:10; Rom. 2:6; 3:8; Gal. 6:7–9; Eph. 6:8; Phil. 3:18–19; Col. 3:24; 2 Tim. 4:14), a sober reminder of the principle of 1 Corinthians 3:17: “If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him.”

The foolishness of boasting in one’s strength (11:16–21a). Paul knows where his argument is leading, that is, that he is about to boast in his human distinctives. Again, desperate situations demand desperate measures. But before he goes down this path, Paul hesitates yet again in 11:16–21a in order to make it clear just how inappropriate such boasting actually is. Understood in this way, Paul’s statement in 11:16 refers back to 11:1.²⁸ Despite the fact that he is about to boast in himself, no one should take him to be a real “fool” for doing so. He understands what he is doing and why he must do it. If the Corinthians do take him to be a fool, they should do so only for the sake of allowing him to boast “a little” (i.e., just enough to make his point).

Indeed, 11:17 indicates that Paul is well aware that his boast will be that of a fool, since it will not be the kind of boasting that honors the Lord by exalting in his grace and gifts. In Paul’s words, it will not be talking “according to the Lord” (NIV, “as the Lord would”), that is, in accordance with who the Lord is (cf. 1:14; 10:17–18; Rom. 5:11; 15:17–18; 1 Cor. 1:26–31; Gal. 6:14; Phil. 3:3; 1 Thess. 2:19). Instead, the foolish boast takes pride in its own distinctives, spiritual endowments, and/or leaders, as if these were not all gifts from God (cf. 1 Cor. 3:3; 4:5–7). As a result, the boast that is “according to the Lord” is the opposite of boasting that is “according to the flesh” (NIV, “the way the world does”). Such boasting is rooted in the world’s values, devoid of the Spirit.

Nevertheless, Paul feels compelled to conform to such boasting for the sake of winning back the Corinthians, since they are gladly bearing with Paul’s opponents, the real fools (11:18–19a). This description in 11:18 of the boasting to come as being done “according to the flesh” indicates that the “fool’s speech” cannot be extended to include all of 11:21–33, but must be limited to 11:21b–23b (i.e., his “little boasting,” 11:16). It is difficult to imagine that Paul would characterize his extended boasting in his weakness as “fleshly” or “worldly,” since it is precisely his suffering through which the power and glory of Christ are made known in the Spirit (cf. the thesis statements in 2:14; 3:2–3; 12:5, 9–10).

In contrast to Paul’s foolishness, in 11:19 those Corinthians who remain enamored with his opponents are pictured, ironically, as the “wise.” The irony is that those claiming to be “wise” are the real fools for accepting such fools. Having introduced this irony, Paul develops it further. Since the Corinthians are the “wise” ones, their acceptance of the real fools must be an act of condescension (cf. 1 Cor. 4:10). But if they can accept Paul’s opponents (the real fools), then surely in their “wisdom” they can accept Paul’s foolish boasting too. If the opponents’ “strength” qualifies them to be apostles, then Paul too must be accepted under this criterion, since he too can boast in his “strength.” Certainly the Corinthians will be “wise” enough to see this!

Paul unmasks his irony in 11:20–21a. The progression of abuse the Corinthians have suffered from the false apostles details why they are not really wise but fools for accepting his opponents. As we have seen, the reference to the opponents’ “enslaving” the Corinthians recalls Paul’s characterization of his own ministry as being enslaved to the Corinthians (cf. 1:24; 4:5). So too, the fact that his opponents “exploit” (lit., “devour”) the believers in Corinth for their own gain recalls Paul’s own willingness to be spent for them (cf. 2:17; 4:11, 15; 6:4–5; 12:14). The insulting “slap … in the face” received from his opponents most likely refers to their denigrating the Corinthians as second class citizens in the kingdom—unless, of course, they side with the opponents, who pride themselves on their Hebrew and Israelite heritage (cf. 11:22).

In stark contrast stand Paul’s pride in, affection for, and willingness even to die with the Corinthians (1:14; 6:12; 7:3–4, 14, 16; 11:11). In yet another statement of biting irony, even sarcasm, Paul therefore admits to the “shame” he feels over being too “weak” to act like his opponents (11:21a; cf. the earlier reference to his physical weakness in 10:10). His “weakness” is the strength of his apostolic calling and character; his opponents’ supposed “strength” reveals the weakness of their claims and the sinfulness of their attitudes and actions.

Paul’s Boast in His Weakness and the Boasting of a Fool (11:21b–33)

THE IDENTITY BETWEEN Paul’s person and his proclamation is spelled out in the twofold boast of verses 21b–23b and verses 23c–33. Nevertheless, the former is the boasting of a fool, the latter that of the true apostle of Christ. Since to boast in one’s strength is, in reality, to be a fool, Paul would be “out of his mind” to take refuge in his pedigree (11:23b). In line with this, his “fool’s speech” includes only his boasting in his Jewish heritage in 11:21b–23b, framed by declarations of his foolishness in 11:21b and 23b.²⁹

By contrast, Paul, like the suffering righteous of the Old Testament, is no fool when he boasts in his suffering. His rightful boast unmasks the ridiculous behavior of his opponents. Paul’s genuine boast in his weakness is what his opponents’ deplore; his foolish boast in his distinctives is what they do. In both cases, his boast becomes an indictment of their own. Thus, Paul’s declaration of “daring” to boast in 11:21b is most likely an ironic reference to a slogan of his opponents, who bragged about being “bold” enough to boast about their ethnicity and accomplishments. Of course, to be daring in this way is to be a fool, so Paul must once again qualify what he is about to do lest the Corinthians think he puts any stock in such posturing.

The boasting of a fool (11:21b–23b). Paul’s litany of boasts in verses 21–33 is arranged in an ascending order of emphasis. First, Paul marshals in increasing force his “foolish” claims to apostolic authority, climaxing with his boast in being a “servant of Christ” (v. 23). He then turns to his suffering, from his labors as an apostle to his being exposed to death, in which the generalized statements first given in 11:23c are unpacked in the details that follow.³⁰

In verses 22–23b Paul matches his opponents’ foolish boast element for element. Paul too can boast in his ethnic identity as a Jew (he is a member of the Hebrew nation; cf. Phil. 3:5), in his religious identity as a member of God’s chosen people (he is an Israelite; cf. Rom. 1:4; 11:1), and in his identity as part of the remnant who have received the Spirit as the true descendants of Abraham (cf. Rom. 9:6–9; 11:1–6; Gal. 3:8, 16, 29). If heritage makes one an apostle, then Paul can claim the heritage of the most esteemed Jewish apostles.

In fact, if this is the way his opponents are prepared to argue, then Paul can claim to be “more” a servant of Christ than they are. Nobody can top his well-known pedigree and his former life of zeal for the law and the Pharisaic traditions (11:23b; cf. Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:4–6). But this way of arguing is madness. It denies the very basis of apostolic authority itself: the call of the risen Christ to take on the character of the crucified Christ.

The boasting of Christ’s apostle (11:23c–33). It is striking that the Greek text of 11:23c continues on without indicating much of a break, if any. Because of the absurd and sinful nature of such boasting in one’s self, Paul abruptly cuts it short and turns to the suffering outlined in 11:23–33 as the real proof and ground of his apostleship. Paul’s reference in verse 23 to his greater labors recalls the way he has spent himself for the ministry (cf. 1 Cor. 15:10), as well as the suffering that surrounded his supporting himself for the sake of the gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 4:12; 9:15–23; 2 Cor. 2:17; 11:7–9; 12:14). Both of these are “boasts in the Lord” (cf. 10:17), since his willingness to work and suffer manifest God’s grace and calling in his life (cf. 10:18).

Likewise, Paul’s various arrests, imprisonments, and punishments referred to in verses 23–26 were suffered as an apostle for the gospel (cf. 6:5; Acts 16:23–30). His more severe beatings (2 Cor. 11:23) refer both to the Jewish punishment of thirty-nine “lashes” (v. 24) and to the Gentile punishment of being beaten with rods (v. 25a). Five times Paul received synagogue punishment, which, among other things, was inflicted for false teaching, blasphemy, and seriously breaking the law. It was the most severe beating Scripture allowed (cf. Deut. 25:1–3). Paul’s receiving such punishment five times attests that the synagogue continued to be a strategic focus of his ministry. He went to the Jews first, even though they often accused and convicted him of false teaching and/or breaking the law for his witness to Jesus as the Messiah and for his ministry among the Gentiles (cf. Acts 9:20; 13:5, 14–43; 14:1; 17:1–3, 10–21; 18:4, 19; 19:8).³¹

That Paul submitted to these punishments rather than separating himself from the Jewish community is an indication both of his self-understanding as an apostle and of his amazing love for his people (cf. Rom. 1:16; 9:2–3). He suffered for his mission to the Gentiles while never abandoning his commitment to his own people (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19–23). For him to live like a Gentile for the sake of his mission and yet to remain within the Jewish community “was to incur the virtual necessity of regular punishment in order to maintain his Jewish connections. It was a heroic course, of a piece with all those other ordeals which Paul underwent for the sake of the gospel.”³²

Paul’s ministry as the Jewish apostle to the Gentiles also caused rifts within the Jewish and Gentile social fabric as a whole. Hence, three times the Romans punished Paul for disturbing the peace by beating him with rods, a form of punishment usually reserved for noncitizens and slaves (11:25a; cf. Acts 16:22–23, 35–38; 22:25–29; 1 Thess. 2:2).

Finally, Paul’s repeated exposure to death (v. 23c) includes his being stoned in Lystra (cf. Acts 14:5–19), the most common form of execution in the Bible,³³ his three shipwrecks, and the manifold dangers he encountered as part of his missionary journeys (vv. 25b–26).³⁴ Of special note is the fact that within Paul’s listing of his various dangers, “ ‘dangers from false brothers’ stands alone and unpaired at the foot of the list, thus giving it preeminence in the catalogue of hazards to Paul’s life.”³⁵ By calling special attention in this way to the danger posed by false brothers as the climax of all his dangers, Paul is subtly reminding the Corinthians of the serious peril they themselves are now facing by embracing his opponents (cf. Gal. 2:4 for Paul’s only other reference to “false brothers,” where it refers to the Judaizers, thus supporting a similar identification here).

In verse 27 Paul returns to the suffering caused by his practice of self-support. He does so in a carefully structured list of three doublets (“labored and toiled,” “hunger and thirst,” “cold and naked”) that are separated by references to going without sleep and food, a consequence that recalls his earlier catalog in 1 Corinthians 4:11–12 (cf. 15:10; 2 Cor. 6:5; 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8). Paul labored day and night in order to support himself and preach (cf. Acts 20:9–11, 31), while the uncertainties of his work and travel meant days of hunger and thirst. His sleeplessness could refer to late nights he spent writing and studying, as well as to the consequence of his pressing concern for his churches.³⁶ Paul’s being “naked” is probably a metaphor representing the shame of being afflicted and disgraced, which he certainly was in the eyes of the world (1 Cor. 4:13; 2 Cor. 6:8; cf. Gen. 2:25; 3:7–11; Ezek. 16:8; Nah. 3:5; Mic. 1:11; Rev. 3:18³⁷). Here too, what others considered shameful Paul boasts in as legitimating expressions of his calling and commitment to the ministry.

In 11:28a, Paul concludes his list properly by summarizing the other physical afflictions he could have listed with the phrase, “besides everything else.” He moves on at this point to his personal struggles on behalf of the gospel, passing “over what he might have mentioned in order to come to what he needs to say to the Corinthians.”³⁸ As Barnett rightly observes, “This suggests that the privations listed are illustrative, not exhaustive, and that his anxiety for the churches was the greatest suffering of all.”³⁹ Paul’s catalog of affliction reaches its climax not with any of his specific sufferings but with a reference to the “daily … pressure of [his] concern for all the churches” (v. 28).

This too is part of Paul’s apostolic suffering, since the pressure he feels is brought about by his identification with the weak and by his indignation over those who lead others into sin (v. 29). Normally, such concern or anxiety is considered negative, since it expresses a lack of confidence in God’s care and a lack of satisfaction in God’s provision (cf. Matt. 6:25–34; Mark 4:19; 1 Cor. 7:32–34; Phil. 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:7). In these cases, however, the anxiety is directed toward oneself. Paul’s anxiety, in contrast, is not for himself but for the welfare of others as an expression of his love (cf. 1 Cor. 12:25; Phil. 2:20). The Corinthians must have realized that in this context he was talking about them. The apostle is emphatic in stressing that his continual concern over the Corinthians, a recurrent theme throughout the letter, is more difficult than any of his physical sufferings (cf. 2 Cor. 1:6; 2:4; 2:12–13; 4:12, 15; 7:3, 5; 11:2; 12:20–21; 13:9). Paul’s greatest boast is his constant worry over their welfare.

Paul’s main point is clear. Contrary to what his opponents maintain, Paul is “weak” not because of his own inadequacies, but because of his willingness to identify with those to whom he has been sent with the gospel (11:29). His reference to his weakness in verse 29 returns us to the comparison with his opponents established in 11:20–21. Whereas they lord their status over the Corinthians in order to exploit them, Paul gives his up in order to match their weakness with his own. Since the mark of a true apostle is a willingness to suffer for his people as a representative of the crucified Christ (cf. 13:4), Paul’s weakness is his boast.

The counterpart to Paul’s weakness is his strong anger over the thought of someone falling away from Christ (11:29bc).⁴⁰ The reference to his “burning” in verse 29 is therefore an apt metaphor for the intense passion he experiences over those who are led astray (cf. 1 Cor. 7:9). Far from being a self-defense, the very letter the Corinthians are now reading is another example of Paul’s burning zeal for their salvation (cf. 12:19). His boasting in 11:23c–29 leaves no doubt that his weakness, brought about by his unrelenting concern for the welfare of his people, is the primary support for his apostleship.

Paul’s argument concludes with the principle stated in verse 30, which is illustrated one last time by the story recounted in verses 31–33: If forced to boast, he will do so concerning his weaknesses. Of course, Paul’s list in verses 23–29 has already made this point by way of illustration. But its surprising nature leads him to underscore the veracity of his declaration with yet another oath in verse 31. As in 11:10, he again swears an oath in order to testify to the validity of his boast that his weakness is the divinely ordained vehicle of God’s self-revelation (cf. 2:14–17). His oaths earlier in this chapter were by the truth of Christ (11:10) and the knowledge of God (11:11). Now he brings the two together. Moreover, the interpretation of God’s character in terms of his relationship to “the Lord Jesus” reflects Paul’s specifically Christian worldview, in which Jesus, under the authority of the Father, is the direct sovereign over his people.

To illustrate his boast one last time, Paul recalls his experience in Damascus after his conversion when he escaped from the Nabatean governor who was serving there under the reign of Aretas IV (cf. Acts 9:8–25).⁴¹ Aretas IV ruled Nabatea from 9 B.C. to A.D. 40, whose capital was in Petra. He was the father-in-law of Herod Antipas, who became infamous as the one who divorced Aretas’s daughter to marry Herodias. The governor in view here was most likely the head of the Nabatean community in Damascus, albeit under Roman jurisdiction, since there is no evidence that the Nabateans were in direct control of either the city or the region during this period. Moreover, “had the Nabateans been in control of Damascus they would, surely, have arrested Paul openly and would not be reduced to the expedient of keeping watch over the city.”⁴²

The introduction of this incident at this point is abrupt and seemingly out of place. Moreover, none of the other sufferings Paul lists has either this detail or specificity. It is not surprising, therefore, that scholars have offered various theories concerning why Paul chose this particular event as a capstone to his litany of suffering. Some posit that he chose it for thematic reasons, in order to emphasize a humbling “descent,” as a matter of contrast to the “ascent” into heaven portrayed in 12:1–4. But the transition in 12:1 makes this unlikely (see next sec.). Others suppose that Paul’s opponents were using this incident against him, so that he chose it for polemic reasons. Though perhaps true, it does not explain how the incident functions in this context.

Others give a theological reason for 11:31–33, viewing it as an allusion to Proverbs 21:22 (cf. 2 Cor. 10:4–5), in which Paul contrasts his life of weakness with “the scaling of cities” done by the wise.⁴³ Yet this allusion is not strong enough to be convincing; in 11:32–33 Paul is describing the event in its own terms, not those of Proverbs 21. Still others compare it to the Roman military honor, corona muralis, which was awarded for valor to the first soldier to scale the defender’s wall during an attack upon a city. Read against this backdrop, Paul is “parodying the images of what it means to be truly heroic in a culture saturated with Roman imperial propaganda…. Paul is saying that while the typical Roman hero is first up the wall, he is first down the wall.”⁴⁴ Nevertheless, the absence of warfare motifs in 11:32–33 and the difficulty of seeing how portraying himself as a coward could fit into Paul’s self-defense (for Paul, being weak is not the opposite of being a hero) render this suggestion untenable.

The most likely reason for Paul’s adducing this experience at this point in his apology is that, as a result of his conversion-call on the road to Damascus, it was the initial and foundational example of his newly granted weakness as an apostle. As such, it stands in stark contrast to the strength in which he had originally left for Damascus to persecute the believers—the same foolish “strength” his opponents continue to boast in (11:22). But the one who left for Damascus to persecute Christians left Damascus as a persecuted Christian. Given the fact that his weakness is now his strength, this experience also provided the platform for his increasing “power” in regard to preaching Jesus as the Christ (cf. Acts 9:16, 22). This is why Paul structures his sentence to emphasize that this experience took place in “Damascus,” the place associated with his conversion call (the NIV rightly follows the Greek, which has the prepositional phrase “in Damascus” standing at the beginning of 2 Cor. 11:32 for emphasis).

Hence, to wrap up his boasting in his weakness as the consequence of his calling to be an apostle, Paul provides one final and especially poignant example of his suffering. Like his suffering in Asia recounted in 1:8, his opponents may well have used this incident against him as an example of his cowardice. But from Paul’s perspective, his narrow escape in Damascus, like his despairing even of life (cf. 1:8–11), serves to highlight God’s deliverance and sustenance. It forms a paradigm of his calling to suffer for the sake of Christ and the gospel. In Heckel’s words, Paul’s flight from Damascus is the “counter-history to the vision that brought about Paul’s calling.”⁴⁵ Paul’s litany of suffering in 11:23–29 is nothing new; weakness was the contour of his calling from the very beginning of his apostleship.⁴⁶

Bridging Contexts

THE IMPLICATIONS OF this passage derive primarily from Paul’s self-understanding as an apostle. Most of the issues involved in moving from his discussion of his own suffering and practice of self-support to our day have been taken up in earlier chapters when these themes were first introduced (cf. the discussions to 1:3–11; 2:14–17; 4:7–18; 6:3–10). In applying this particular passage, the contemporary interpreter should keep in mind the two essential themes that emerge anew from this text: the content of “foolish” boasting and the issue at stake in Paul’s speaking as an amateur.

The content of “foolish” boasting. Paul’s boasting in his weakness is the main point and central theme of this section. There have been two predominant interpretations of this theme in Paul’s letters: (1) the psychological interpretation, associated with the work of C. H. Dodd, in which Paul’s boasting is part of his own struggle for recognition, and (2) the theological interpretation, associated with Rudolf Bultmann, in which Paul’s boasting indicates the basis of the believer’s confidence before God.⁴⁷ Paul’s argument in 11:1–12:13 clearly involves both dynamics, since the nature of one’s boasting before others, rightly or wrongly, reflects the nature of one’s relationship with God. Paul boasts because his legitimacy as an apostle is being attacked, but the nature of his boast is determined by his understanding of the way in which God commends his servants (cf. 10:12–18).

Driven by his experience “in Christ” and by the content of the gospel itself, Paul’s boasting in his weakness is not simply a parody of his opponents, as often argued. It is a positive expression of his own apostolic calling. This priority of theology over practice is crucial for evaluating the content and validity of boasting today, whether in our personal lives and churches or in the quality of our ministries and ministers. Regardless of cultural pressures to do otherwise, we must boast only in what God has done in and through us, giving credit to God for all that we are and do, since everything is a gift from him. There is no synergism in the life of faith, in which we add our contributions to what God has done. Rather, the scriptural principle crystallized in Jeremiah 9:23–24 provides the key both to the positive practice and content of Paul’s boast and to the contours of our own.

This means that the “foolishness” in which Paul is forced to participate (11:1, 16–19, 21; cf. 12:6, 11) does not consist in the fact that he “boasts” per se.⁴⁸ What makes Paul a “fool” is the content of what he boasts in, that is, when he boasts in his Jewish pedigree, in a self-generated claim to be an apostle, or in private, spiritual experiences (cf. 11:22–23a; 12:1–5). As we will see, when he concludes in 12:11–12 that he has become foolish, he is referring to the two times he felt compelled to engage in such boasting about his “strength”—that of his spiritual heritage and of his spiritual experiences. Both are true factually, but neither one is relevant to the issue at hand. In view of the principle summarized in 11:30 (cf. 12:9–10), such things are simply useless for establishing the validity of Paul’s apostolic authority, since the grace of God and power of Christ are revealed in his weakness.

As a result, to point to such things is to boast “according to the flesh” (11:18; NIV, “in the way the world does”), while only the work of the Spirit can authenticate one’s validity as a Christian (10:7) and the genuineness of one’s ministry (10:17–18). To boast in such human distinctives and private experiences is therefore to be “out of [one’s] mind” (11:23). It evidences a desire to “push [oneself] forward” (11:20) and can be exploitative (11:20). It denies that Christ is the one who determines his servants (11:23). It erects barriers between believers based on human distinctives (11:22). In the end, if it persists, such boasting in ourselves reflects a different gospel (11:4).

Thus, by boasting in such things, Paul’s opponents are the real fools. In turn, by accepting such boasting, the Corinthians are being led astray from their devotion to Christ as the ultimate and all-sufficient provision from God (11:3). In contrast, suffering and the Spirit are the true signs of apostolic authority and the true marks of the gospel. In order to apply this passage, it is therefore imperative to keep in view the distinction Paul makes between a “foolish boast” and the boast in weakness. The former is irrelevant and arrogant when it comes to making spiritual claims (cf. 11:21–23a; cf. 12:1–5), the latter is the appropriate counterpart to boasting in God’s power (cf. 11:23b–33; cf. 12:5b, 9–10).⁴⁹

Paul’s speaking as an amateur. As we have seen, Paul’s opponents criticized him for failing to reflect the sophisticated style and flashy rhetorical forms that were characteristic of professional entertainers and orators in first-century Greco-Roman culture. It is important that we understand just what was at stake in this issue if we are to respond appropriately today to the same pressures to measure up to the popular “media” that Paul faced. As Duane Litfin has pointed out,

Paul simply did not measure up to the rhetorical standards the Corinthians had come to expect. They were used to the polished eloquence of the orators of the day, in comparison to which Paul’s preaching was found lacking. He was, as he himself admitted in 2 Corinthians 11:6, only a “layman” when it came to public speaking.⁵⁰Training in Greco-Roman rhetoric constituted the crown of a liberal education in the ancient world, and the orators it produced became the movie stars of their day. The people of the first century loved eloquence and lionized those who could produce it. Eloquence was perhaps their primary entertainment, and it was ubiquitous throughout the Roman Empire. Audiences consisted of avid and sophisticated listeners who knew what they liked and what they disliked. But the orators were willing to risk their displeasure for the sake of gaining their approval and the rewards that accompanied it (61).

In short, with its goal of informed entertainment, “ancient rhetorical education was designed to train an orator in the art of persuasion” (61). For this reason, the ancient orator was always adapting to his audience in order to achieve his goals. Since the orator’s desired results and audience were variable, his methods were equally variable (62). Rhetorical education was therefore designed to enable the speaker to evaluate his audience and to determine his desired results in order to adapt his efforts to that particular situation. Hence,

the persuader’s stance is both audience-and results-driven, and is methodologically uncommitted…. That is why so much attention is paid in the ancient rhetorical literature to the mindset of the audience, to their belief systems, to their likes and dislikes, and to what it takes to win particular responses from them…. This ability to mold one’s efforts to the demands of the given situation in order to achieve a particular result with an audience was what ancient rhetorical theory and training were designed to teach. (62–63)

In order to apply Paul’s model to our contemporary situation, Paul’s refusal to utilize the rhetorical approaches of his day for the reason he did so takes on great significance. He intentionally remained an “amateur” when it came to public speaking because he viewed his calling to be proclamation, not persuasion. He did whatever it took not to be confused with an entertainer or professional speaker. “In the literally dozens of places in Paul’s writings where he refers to his own preaching, the apostle scrupulously uses the language of the herald … language which plays no part in the rhetorical literature because it describes non-rhetorical behavior” (64–65).

Though Paul’s audience may change, his methods were fixed, since they were determined by the message that had been given to him to proclaim (cf. 1 Cor. 2:2). Regardless of the responses he received, his message also remained the same, since it was the Holy Spirit, not his own power of persuasion, that brought about the desired results. “Paul was determined to depend upon the spiritual dynamic of the cross rather than the human dynamic of the persuader” (64).

Paul’s concern was “the possibility of obtaining false, human-centered results … (1 Cor. 2:5)” (64). Consequently, his “efforts are neither results-driven nor audience-driven; they are obedience-driven” (65). Indeed, as Savage points out, “in the first century the cross was simply too repugnant to be exploited for personal gain.”⁵¹ How different it is today when Christ’s cross, often reduced to a piece of polished jewelry, has become nothing more than a vague religious symbol and those who represent the crucified Christ come across as polished showmen.

Contemporary Significance

LIKE THE CORINTHIANS, we too long for immediate gratification and personal autonomy rather than finding our delight in learning to depend on God in the midst of suffering and affliction, weakness and woe. Like Paul’s opponents, our leaders are drawn to models of cultural power and prestige. Like all people, we gravitate to promises of health and wealth and to messages that puff us up rather than glorify God. In a word, we have become “worldly.” As David Wells makes clear:

This “world” … is the way in which our collective life in society (and the culture that goes with it) is organized around the self in substitution for God. It is life characterized by self-righteousness, self-centeredness, self-satisfaction, self-aggrandizement, and self-promotion, with a corresponding distaste for the self-denial proper to union with Christ.⁵²

As Satan’s “servants”(11:15), all who deny the gospel do so, in the end, by selling the “Self” or some trinket of this world as more reliable, sufficient, and satisfying than knowing and living for God.

Over against these temptations to sin stands Paul’s gospel of the glory of God in the crucified Christ on the one hand, and Paul’s boast in his weakness on the other. Though they both confront our sin, Paul’s message and experience also contain a great promise for God’s people. What God did for Paul, he will do for all who boast in the Lord and in their own weaknesses. This will mean, however, keeping Paul’s priorities clearly in view.

Not church growth, but the growth of God’s glory. Paul’s boasting in his weakness, emphasized all the more by his temporary “boasting as a fool,” calls us to keep our own personal and ministry priorities pure for the sake of the gospel. More and more, modern management strategies, personal and church growth techniques, and therapeutic messages are infiltrating into every area of life. These Self-saturated approaches make it increasingly difficult to boast in God alone as the one whose goal it is to glorify himself by working in and through the weak lives of his people. God’s purpose of revealing his sovereign and loving self-sufficiency as all-sufficient for his creation is blunted by our own “foolish boasting.”

As a result, we are tempted to feel and act as if God may have made our lives and ministry possible, but it is now up to us to make them successful. Deep down we believe that the success of the gospel in our own lives and in the world around us is dependent on our creating ever new and culturally appealing ways to attract and satisfy our ever-changing interests. Rather than holding on to, cherishing, and giving ourselves to the study of God’s self-revelation in the Scriptures, we look for what the Christian publishing industry calls the latest “Bible product” on the market. Rather than following Paul’s example of focusing on the content of the gospel and its implications, we fall into the trap of thinking that the progress of the gospel is determined by the preacher’s own powers of persuasion. After all, everyone loves a great speaker.

As it was for Paul, today too the pressure on pastors to be successful according to the standards of contemporary culture is intense. And as it did for Paul, today too this pressure comes not from the world but from the worldliness within the church. The temptation is to respond by boasting in one’s strength. For in our day we find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that God is at work through the proclamation of his Word if the number of people in our Sunday morning services is not growing exponentially.

In our “size is success” culture, it is almost beyond our ability to resist determining the measure of God’s blessing by the numbers in our congregation. We confuse the ability to draw a crowd with the establishment of a people known by their “sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (11:3). Accordingly, we look to the size of our parking lot rather than to the size of our church’s heart for God, for his people, and for the lost world in which she lives. The result is, as Thomas N. Smith points out, that the “dreadful treadmill” of competition and self-comparison over the size of our churches characterizes so much of modern ministry.⁵³ Yet, as he reminds us:

Caring for a smaller church is no less a sacred stewardship than doing the same for a larger one. ‘Me irrascible John McNeill purportedly told a young minister who lamented the smallness of his congregation, “Tha’s a’right, laddie. In the Great Day it will be the least of your worries that ye’ve only eighty souls to give an account for!”… Evangelicals have not begun to discern the potential of ambition, recognition, popularity, fame, and power to corrupt men. But, while sex and money have slain their thousands, ambition and its unholy siblings have slain their tens of thousands.⁵⁴

There is no doubt that Paul wanted to distance himself from the professional orators of his day. He did not preach for the money and he did not teach to entertain. Nor did he determine his method by the needs and tastes of his audience, as if being persuasive, in and of itself, were his goal. Paul’s method of presentation was determined by his message. His primary goal was to proclaim and embody the gospel, not to move his audience. Nevertheless, instead of resisting the “success” methods of the day, as Paul did (1 Cor. 1:17; 2:1–5, 13), even though he was severely criticized for doing so (2 Cor. 10:10; 11:6), many churches seek a ministry that, like ancient rhetoric, is determined by the felt needs and cultural appetites of its audience. If we do so, our church may grow, but we may not. To quote Duane Litfin again:

We should note that the apostle is working here with a principle that has much wider application than to preaching alone, a principle that he is merely applying to his ministry of preaching. What Paul is working out here is a principle so fundamental that it deserves to shape our entire philosophy of ministry. The results-and audience-driven approach Paul rejects is one we all understand and take for granted. It is quintessentially American and wonderfully useful and practical. Indeed, it is the most natural thing in the world. But it is also an approach to ministry the apostle was required by his own theology to reject, precisely because it is so “natural” (1 Cor. 2:14). It is the product of a merely anthropocentric way of thinking and doing and as such is out of concert with God’s way of working. Moreover, it is fraught with the potential for obtaining false, merely “natural,” results.⁵⁵

It is certainly true that we owe a great debt to the “Church Growth Movement” for its driving emphasis on evangelism and for its insistence on culturally relevant communication. Litfin rightly warns us, however, that

the Church Growth Movement remains vulnerable to accusations that it has largely embraced the persuader’s stance. If one looks, not to what can merely be found written somewhere within church growth literature, but to the constant and distinctive emphases of the Church Growth Movement, what one finds is a characteristically pragmatic, methodologically-neutral stress upon audience-driven, results-oriented strategies that “work.” Despite the inevitable disclaimers, it is an approach which does seem to show the telltale signs of the persuader’s stance….In their fierce pragmatism they evaluate strategies only on the basis of their ability to generate results. (68, 71)

Since Paul’s opponents were so successful in Corinth because they “met the needs” of the Corinthians, Litfin is careful to point out that ministry methods are not simply neutral tools, but must be rooted in our understanding of God himself and of God’s own way of working in the world (72).

Paul did not disavow the persuader’s stance because it was immoral; he rejected it because it was based upon a purely human dynamic which produced human results. Has the Church Growth Movement adequately come to grips with these two issues? …If Paul was so exercised about avoiding methods which engendered merely human results, why aren’t we? (72–73)

We cannot assume that as long as we avoid immoral, unfair, or fraudulent methods, we are free to use whatever other means will “work.”

For a Christian there exists a crucial added dimension which the audience-and results-driven approach largely ignores. It is the concern for driving out the divine work of God by unduly crowding our human methods into the process….For example, while Paul was aghast at the thought of basing his approach to ministry on the pragmatic insights of classical rhetorical theory, the church growth movement seems to harbor no such reservation. In fact, the movement often appears to be sold out to classical rhetoric’s closest modern counterpart, the world of advertising and marketing, and leans upon it constantly for advice and strategy. (73–75)

Paul was being compared to his opponents, who advertised themselves as the true apostles by pointing to their self-aggrandizing “gospel” and way of life. But Paul resisted this pressure to compromise to the norms of his culture, even when it appeared for a while that he would lose his church to Satan. In their place, he stood for truth and instituted his own basis of comparison, namely, his willingness to lay down his life for his people, by which he demonstrated that he was the one who, like Christ, truly loved the Corinthians (11:7–12).

Wells observes that the reason churches today are so quick to adopt the strategies and worldview embodied in modern marketing, with little if any regard for truth as her primary message, is because they have been convinced that “the church must define its services in terms of contemporary needs just as any secular business must.”⁵⁶ The church, rather than resisting its culture and offering another standard of measurement, has herself become a market-driven company in the “business” of selling relationships with Jesus. Wells warns us, however, that

allowing the consumer to be sovereign in this way in fact sanctions a bad habit. It encourages us to indulge in constant internal inventory in the church no less than in the marketplace, to ask ourselves perpetually whether the “products” we are being offered meet our present “felt needs.” In this sort of environment, market research has found that there is scarcely any consumer loyalty to particular products and brands anymore. The consumer, like the marketeer, is now making fresh calculations all the time. And so it is that the churches that have adopted the strategy of marketing themselves have effectively installed revolving doors…. People keep entering, lured by the church’s attractions or just to check out the wares, but then move on because they feel their needs, real or otherwise, are not being met.… What is going to happen when churches meet all of the felt needs of their consumers and then realize that they have failed to meet the genuine need for meaning? Meaning is provided by the functioning of truth—specifically biblical truth—in the life of the congregation.… A business is in the market simply to sell its products; it doesn’t ask consumers to surrender themselves to the product…. Businesses offer goods and services to make life easier or more pleasant; the Bible points the way to Life itself, and the way will not always be easy or pleasant.⁵⁷

Paul’s concern in his boasting was to remain true to Jesus, to the work of the Spirit, and to the message of the apostolic gospel (11:4–6). Thus, his example drives us to ask why, when we “advertise” our church, we do not “promote” the death of Christ for sinners, boast in God in what we say and do, highlight our own weaknesses, and call attention to the voluntary suffering of our role models? Why do we seek instead to portray an image of ourselves as successful and “normal”? The reaffirmation of Paul’s principle from 11:30 is just as essential today as it was in his own: “If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.” The goal of the ministry is not attaining numerical growth, but fostering a growing experience of depending on Christ’s grace and power, knowing that the one who gives the grace receives the glory, which is God’s own purpose in all that he does as the Giver of all things. Thus, Ron Man, a pastor of worship, draws the right conclusion that

as believers, our ultimate motivation in all of our endeavors is His glory (“Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God,” 1 Cor. 10:31)….If this is true in all of life, it is even more important to have this perspective when we undertake the work of the Church. Human theories, techniques, ideas, systems, tastes, structures—all must be submitted to a compelling and overriding passion for the glory of God. How quickly we forget whose work, whose church, whose worship service it is! How quickly we seek to supplement the revelation of Scripture with human ingenuity, demographic studies, and how-to seminars. How anxious we are to find gimmicks which will attract people and keep them coming back! Our single-minded focus in worship must be on recognizing, reflecting, declaring, and celebrating the glory of God!⁵⁸

No new images, but the image of integrity. As the corollary to Paul’s boasting in his weakness, his refusal to employ professional rhetoric also calls us to examine whether there is a direct link between what we say we believe and the actual manner of our ministries. Both Paul and his opponents were convinced that the “medium was the message.” This is why they carried themselves so differently in public. Hence, inasmuch as the character of their ministries differed so dramatically, so too they must be preaching different gospels.

Yet the real proof was in the pudding. The opponents’ use of rhetoric was merely emblematic of their values as a whole. From Paul’s perspective, the gospel of the crucified and risen Christ could not be mediated to the Corinthians by a lifestyle or manner of presentation that implicitly promised health and wealth, success, and an escape from suffering. The contrary values embodied in the ministry style of Paul’s opponents thus revealed that their preaching, no matter how persuasive it was rhetorically, was, in reality, poison. They proclaimed themselves to be servants of Christ (11:13, 15), but their way of doing so made it clear that they were serving their own egos. And their corresponding unwillingness to serve the Corinthians unmasked the hollowness of their profession. Instead of meeting the needs of the Corinthians, they made the Corinthians their slaves (11:18, 20).

This is why Paul did not respond to his opponents’ charges by arguing for the “correct” way of praising oneself inoffensively. The question was not simply whether one could boast and how such boasting was to be carried out publicly. Nor did Paul engage his opponents on the question of rhetorical style per se, even though his opponents had made their differing styles a major point of contention. For Paul, the deciding issue was not a distinct manner of speaking. Paul knew that he was not engaged merely in a personality contest in Corinth. As important as it is, the debate, in the end, was over theology, not technique.

Paul’s mode of argument in this chapter again reflects his conviction that our public manner inevitably reveals our private character (cf. 1:12–14). He therefore focused his polemic on what his manner of preaching revealed about the character of his person and the content of his proclamation, which he backed up by pointing to his practice of self-support (cf. 2:17; 4:1–2). The heart of the issue is that the gospel we believe will invariably be expressed in the image we portray, and vice versa, so that the integrity of the gospel and its messenger must be our primary concern. A right heart produces appropriate habits, even in the pulpit.

When all is said and done, rhetorical skill can never make up for unbelief. Paul preaches himself as the Corinthians’ slave because he preaches the crucified Christ as the glory of God (cf. 4:4–6). So too, if our focus remains centered on faithfulness to the gospel, our concern for a proper image, style, and way of life, though important, will be met when approached with a measure of scriptural and sober self-evaluation. There are no “how to” chapters in the Bible on the technique of public ministry. We can be confident, however, that if we seek to love Christ, we will serve others in ways that honor him, not ourselves.

As a result, because Paul’s opponents believe in “another Jesus,” they preach themselves as lord and enslave the Corinthians. As Savage points out,

Far from being humble servants, the opponents actually exploit, take advantage of, assume airs over and insult members of the Corinthian church (11:20). It is clear that in Paul’s mind the opponents are patently not proclaiming Jesus as Lord.… Their self-regarding ambitions represent the exact antithesis of the self-giving gospel of Christ. For this reason, Paul unleashes his most scathing invective on the intruders at Corinth. They are false apostles, workers of deceit, ministers of Satan (11:13–15).⁵⁹

Today we often fail to penetrate Paul’s argument, thinking that the primary purpose of this passage is to call us to rethink our public image. Indeed, the focus on style and circumstance in this passage may be misleading. Ultimately, however, Paul is not concerned with himself at all. He must spotlight himself in order to expose the darkness of his opponents. That Paul, like Christ, would lower himself in order to exalt the Corinthians (11:7; cf. 4:5; 8:9) reveals the genuine nature of his apostleship. Paul’s simple rhetoric, his willing self-support, and his daily suffering for his churches all indicate that his ministry in Corinth, unlike that of his opponents, was aimed at benefiting the Corinthians, not himself. By doing so, Paul’s rejection of flashy rhetorical practices and his boasting in his weakness expose those who “masquerade as servants of righteousness” (11:15).