Original Meaning

SECOND CORINTHIANS 12:14–21 is the last section of Paul’s extended defense of his legitimacy as an apostle, which extends from 10:7–12:21. Having completed his argument, Paul returns in 13:1–10 to the exhortations with which he began in 10:1–6. The admonitions of 10:1–6 and 13:1–10 thereby frame the apologetic of 10:7–12:21. Moreover, these last two sections of Paul’s letter, both of which are introduced by a reference to his third visit (12:14; 13:1), do not introduce new material but conclude Paul’s letter by recalling earlier discussions. In doing so, Paul highlights what he considers the central issues in the conflict. In 13:11–14, he then ends his letter with a final word of exhortation and a closing benediction.

Paul’s Final Appeal Regarding His Legitimacy as an Apostle (12:14–21)

IN 12:14, PAUL once again takes up the theme of his travel plans by explicitly announcing his upcoming, third visit to Corinth (cf. 1:15–2:1; 9:3–5).¹ His current readiness to return reflects the changed situation in Corinth. Now that the majority has repented in response to his “tearful letter” (2:4, 9; 7:4–16), the apostle will return to solidify the faithful (6:14–7:1; 7:2), complete the collection as evidence of their repentance (chs. 8–9), and sift out those still in rebellion against him (cf. 10:1–6; 13:1–4). Accordingly, the paragraphs before us are Paul’s last attempt to keep this rebellious minority from the judgment of God to come.

Given these purposes, it is not surprising that in announcing his impending visit Paul emphasizes one last time his commitment to support himself in Corinth (12:14–18; cf. 2:17; 11:7–12; 12:13). This theme, above all, encapsulates his own claims as an apostle, while at the same time calling into question the counterclaims of his opponents. Paul’s self-support was a dramatic expression of his call to suffer on behalf of his churches (2:14; 4:7–12; 6:3–10; 11:23–33). For this reason, he refuses to stop boasting in this practice in order to expose the motives of his opponents (11:9–12, 20–21). Paul maintained that his opponents’ demand for support revealed the true character of their hearts (cf. 2:17; 11:12, 20). To them, however, Paul’s self-support revealed that he preached a second-class message of no value and created a “pious” smokescreen for his attempt to defraud the Corinthians through the collection (7:2; 8:18–24).

Hence, in spite of their criticism and in accordance with his principle of self-support for the sake of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:18), Paul will continue not to “burden” the Corinthians with his monetary needs when he returns for his third visit (12:14). Unlike his opponents, he is not interested in benefiting financially from them. Instead, he “wants [lit., seeks] the Corinthians” themselves (12:14b). In stark contrast to the false apostles, Paul does not lord his authority and status over the Corinthians for his own material benefit. Instead, as their slave, he works to support himself because he desires their welfare (cf. 4:5). Specifically, Paul is referring to the fact that all of his ministry, including his upcoming visit, is aimed at solidifying their faith for the sake of their own happiness (cf. 1:24).

In 12:14b–15a, Paul supports his affirmation that he is seeking the Corinthians’ welfare, not his own, by returning to the imagery of parenthood to describe his relationship with the church. Because he is their spiritual father, Paul is responsible to give to his “children,” not the other way around, even if this means pouring out his life on their behalf (cf. 1 Cor. 4:14–15; 2 Cor. 2:14; 3:3; 4:10–12; 6:11–12; 7:3).

James Scott goes so far as to suggest that Paul’s refusal to accept support from the Corinthians reflects his evaluation of them as still in their infancy as believers (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1), since grown children can be expected to provide for their parents (Ex. 20:12; 21:17; Mark 7:8–13).² This would explain why Paul was willing to receive financial support from churches he considered more mature in their faith (cf. 2 Cor. 11:8–9). It could also explain why the Corinthians could interpret Paul’s refusal to take their money to mean that they were “inferior” to his other churches (cf. 12:13).

Paul’s practice of self-support, however, is not a putdown. Even if their continuing struggles do show that the Corinthians have not yet grown up in Christ, Paul gives up his life for the Corinthians because he feels the love of a father for his children (cf. 2:4; 6:13; 11:11). And to continue to support himself is no drudgery. As their father in the faith, Paul “gladly spends” himself for the Corinthians (12:15a).

Thus, with yet another jab at his opponents, Paul uses a rhetorical question in verse 15b to draw the only conclusion that can possibly follow from this concrete evidence of his fatherly love toward the Corinthians. Paul’s loving them “more” than his opponents by refusing to take their money should not cause the Corinthians to love him “less” than those who demand their money. The Corinthians must reject the model of patronage advanced by his opponents, in which the false apostles purport to “honor” the Corinthians by relying on their financial support, while the Corinthians gain the self-satisfaction of being their benefactors. The Corinthians are not Paul’s patron; rather, he is their parent in the faith. He is not dependent on the Corinthians as their client; rather, they are dependent on Paul as his children.³ If the Corinthians want to show the maturity of their faith by giving away their money, they should do so by contributing to the collection for Jerusalem (chs. 8–9).

In 12:16–18, Paul presses home his point. Those Corinthians who are still rebelling against him must now make a final decision. Are they right that Paul’s practice of self-support was simply a smokescreen to cover up his attempt to defraud them, an accusation that Paul parodies in 12:16 (cf. 8:20–21)? Was Paul skimming off the collection to line his own pockets? Regardless of the Corinthians’ perspective on Paul’s practice of self-support (“Be that as it may,” v. 16), they cannot deny that Paul did not burden them by asking for their money (12:16a).

Titus’s careful handling of the money and Paul’s sending of the well-respected “brother” to Corinth also speak concretely against his opponents’ accusation (12:17–18; cf. 8:6, 16–24).⁴ Since Paul is the one who gave Titus and the brother their mandate, he can argue from their integrity to his own (12:18a). The two rhetorical questions in 12:18 make it clear that an examination of Titus’s behavior and of Paul’s own precautions against suspicion should lead the Corinthians to the only appropriate conclusion: Titus’s honesty is merely a reflection of “the same spirit” and conduct in Paul (cf. 7:2).

In 12:19, Paul’s rhetorical questions continue. This time he leads his readers to a surprising conclusion, given the lengthy apologetic that runs throughout 2 Corinthians. Lest the believers in Corinth misunderstand his purposes, Paul wants it clear that his confidence in the integrity of his ministry means, in reality, that his “apologetic” is not a self-defense before them at all (12:19a). By recalling his earlier argument in 2:17, in 12:19b Paul reaffirms that, as one “in Christ,” he “has been speaking in the sight of God,” a reference to the fact that God is the judge of his proclamation, not the Corinthians (cf. 5:10). Furthermore, the apostle is confident of God’s approval (cf. 3:1–6; 4:1–6; 6:3–10; 10:12–18)!

Thus, in defending himself, Paul has not been seeking the approval of the Corinthians but fighting to strengthen their faith (12:19c). He does so as the outworking of his calling to be Christ’s ambassador (5:20a). Since God is making his appeal through Paul (5:20b), for him to fight for his own legitimacy as an apostle is to fight for the faith of the Corinthians. Conversely, given the identity in his life between the message and the messenger, to reject him is to reject the gospel and hence to be rejected by God himself. Thus, Paul is fighting for the faith of the Corinthians because his ultimate goal is to remain faithful to God in Christ, who loves his people and has entrusted the apostle with the ministry and message of reconciliation (5:18–19). Controlled by Christ’s love and knowing the fear of God’s impending judgment, Paul defends his ministry before God for the sake of the Corinthians (5:11, 13–15).

The basis of Paul’s concern for the Corinthians’ welfare, therefore, is his fear that the continuing rebellion of those who have not yet repented, as evidenced in their sinful lifestyles,⁵ will lead to their being condemned by God through Paul’s hand (12:20–21). Apparently, the rebellion against Paul’s authority, fueled by the arrival of his opponents, included an unwillingness to repent from the kind of sexual immorality that had been a problem in Corinth from the beginning (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1–2, 9–11; 6:9, 15–20). That Paul mentions these sins for the first time at the end of his argument indicates that such sins were not the direct problem, but symptomatic of the larger issue still facing the church: the continuing rejection of Paul’s apostolic gospel for a different Jesus and Spirit (cf. 11:4). This fundamental acceptance of an alien message had led to the Corinthians’ continued lives of rebellion.⁶

Paul’s reference to sexual immorality at this point in his letter also serves to remind the Corinthians of the punishment to come. Just as Paul had the sexually immoral person put out of the church in 1 Corinthians 5:1–13, so too the judgment for such habitual sins will be excommunication from the church when he returns. Since the church is the temple of the Holy Spirit, where God’s glory is now being encountered, unveiled, on the face of Christ (2 Cor. 3:7–18; cf. 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19), to be cast out of the church is to be given back over to Satan (1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 6:14–7:1).

It follows, then, that those who adhere to the false apostles, Satan’s servants, will be given over to Satan to suffer with him and his servants the judgment they deserve (11:15). As Paul closes his last appeal, the situation in Corinth demands such a drastic verdict since he attributes the continuation of such a pattern of unrepentant sin to the absence of the Spirit, thereby testifying to the unregenerate nature of their lives as those still outside the new covenant. When faced with such sin, only repentance indicates that one belongs to the body of Christ, the temple of the living God (12:21; cf. 6:14–16; 7:8–13).

This is what Paul means by the reference in 12:20 to his not finding the Corinthians as he wants them to be when he returns. By continuing to follow the false teachers and to live in sin as a result, the rebellious among them are not “perfecting holiness out of reverence for God,” which is the work of the Spirit in the lives of those whose hearts have been created anew in Christ (7:1; cf. 3:18; 5:17). At the same time, when Paul returns they will not find him as they want him to be either, that is, still willing to tolerate their sinful rebellion against the gospel. Those whom Paul does not find repentant when he comes this “third time” will not find him willing to withdraw yet again in order to spare them (cf. 1:23). In writing this final warning, he is aware that as an apostle he is the instrument of both life and death (cf. 2:14–16a). He is also aware that how the Corinthians react to him will consequently reveal the condition of their hearts.

Nevertheless, all is not lost for those still in rebellion against Paul and his gospel. The danger seen in the pattern of their lives described in 12:20–21 need not be the last word. The writing of 2 Corinthians 10–13 itself demonstrates that Paul is still committed to working for the Corinthians’ joy in the faith by giving them yet one more opportunity to be restored (cf. 1:24; 2:3). Indeed, he does so even though he knows that his continued patience and mercy could mean yet another humbling experience for himself (12:21a).

When Paul had been with them in the past (10:1), the opposition in Corinth had accused him of being “lowly” (tapeinos; NIV, “timid”), especially because of the lowly state brought about by his practice of self-support (11:7: emauton tapeinon; NIV, “to lower myself”). While waiting for news from Titus about the Corinthians’ reaction to his earlier call for repentance, Paul had again been “humbled” or “made low” (tapeinos; NIV, “downcast”) by their plight (7:6). Now, he fears that “God will humble [tapeinose] him” once again, this time by using Paul as a grieving instrument of their excommunication (12:21).

The sorrow Paul felt over their rejection during his second, “painful visit” (cf. 2:1, 5–11) will be matched by the mourning he will feel over their upcoming punishment. To be forced finally to judge them when his primary mission is their salvation and joy (cf. 1:24; 10:8; 12:19; 13:10) would be yet another humbling experience. There is no glee in Paul’s contemplating this possibility, nor is there a spirit of revenge. Instead, given his love for the Corinthians, both their rejection of him and his eventual rejection of them can be described equally as his being humbled before them. In this last case, such humiliation will express itself in grief over all who continue to presume upon and spurn God’s grace (cf. 5:20–6:2).

Paul’s Final Appeal for the Repentance of the Rebellious (13:1–10)

IN VIEW OF God’s judgment against the unrepentant (12:21), in 13:1 Paul introduces the last major section of his letter with a final announcement of his impending third visit (cf. 12:14 with 13:1). In doing so, he refers to the legal requirements from Deuteronomy 19:15 for accepting evidence in a trial: Everything must be corroborated “by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” The necessity of meeting this qualification in conjunction with his visit indicates that his arrival will initiate a judicial act within the congregation against all still in rebellion against him (cf. Matt. 18:16–17; 1 Tim. 5:19 for the application of this principle in the church).⁷

Paul’s promise to fulfill this legal mandate is his final scriptural word to the Corinthians. When he arrives, he will make his case against his opponents and those who follow them, which, as an application of 6:14–7:1, will be verified by multiple witnesses from within the congregation itself, and all those found guilty will be punished. This is, of course, a harsh declaration. For this reason, Paul warns them in advance, as he did on his second visit, that when he returns the period of patience will come to an end (cf. 13:2a with 1:23–2:2). As God did not “spare” (pheidomai) his own Son the judgment required by sin (Rom. 8:32), so too Paul will not “spare” (pheidomai) those who reject Christ (2 Cor. 13:2b). Like the return of Christ, when Paul returns it will be to judge. According to 13:2, this judgment will take place against those who have sinned earlier during his painful visit and⁸ against any others who have joined their cause since then.

The theological foundation of Paul’s warning, unfolded throughout chapters 10–13, is crystallized in 13:3–4. When he arrives, Paul will not spare the Corinthians, “since [they] are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through [him]” (cf. 2:17; 5:20). Believing that Christ was not “weak” but “powerful” among them, the Corinthians insisted that Christ’s apostles should manifest such power as well (13:3b).

Most likely, this reference to Christ’s power among the Corinthians is a quote from Paul’s opponents, who have portrayed the believer’s relationship to the risen Christ in a triumphalistic way. They then used this picture to critique Paul’s weakness and to justify their own emphasis on health, wealth, and the miraculous as expressions of Christ’s “power” in their midst (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8). Paul turns the tables and uses their own emphasis against them. If they want to see the power of Christ, then it will come in judgment, even as the return of the risen Christ will mean the judgment of the world.

Paul could not agree more that the resurrected Christ is acting powerfully in the midst of the Corinthians. Christ “lives by God’s power” (13:4). At the same time, Paul will not concede that his suffering and endurance as an apostle are not just as much a revelation of Christ’s resurrection power (1:3–11; 2:14; 4:7–15; 6:3–10; 11:23–33; 12:7–10). Paul carries the glory of God and the life of Christ in a clay pot (4:7). Hence, in affirming Christ’s resurrection power in 13:3, the apostle reintroduces the cross in 13:4 in order to remind the Corinthians that Christ too was “weak” for the sake of his people.

Specifically, Paul grounds his reference to Christ’s power among the Corinthians in 13:3 (cf. “for,” gar, in v. 4) by portraying Christ’s cross as the counterpoint to the resurrection in 13:4: Christ is powerful among the Corinthians because “he was crucified in [Gk. ek, “out of” or “because of”] weakness, yet he lives by God’s power.” For Christ too, as for Paul, his “weakness” is the platform for God’s power, culminating in the resurrection.

Christ’s “weakness” in 13:4 is best understood as a reference to his human, bodily existence, which he willingly took on in order to humble himself by becoming a servant to God’s people and by dying on a cross for their sins (cf. 8:9; Phil. 2:7–8).⁹ In the same way and as the consequence of Christ’s own experience of death and resurrection (13:4a), Paul too is weak in Christ, “yet by God’s power … will live with him toward you (13:4b).”¹⁰

The rendering of the end of 13:4 in the NIV as “to serve you” (Gk. eis hymas, “toward you”) gives the wrong nuance; in this context the expression of God’s power “toward” the Corinthians is now not to serve but to judge them. Since they seek proof of the power of the resurrected Christ in Paul’s life, Paul’s living with Christ from the power of God will be seen in his not sparing the Corinthians upon his return. Just as the crucified, weak Jesus gives way to the resurrected Christ who lives by God’s power and will come again in judgment, so too the suffering Paul will give way to a Paul who “lives” to return to Corinth in judgment. In this way, Paul pictures his return to Corinth as participating in the resurrection power of God already displayed in Christ.

Paul’s portrayal of his return to Corinth in these terms seems at first strange to our ears. He intends by it to remind the Corinthians that the judgment he will bring on his third visit is an inauguration of the final judgment to come. To “live with Christ” is clearly an eschatological designation that refers to experiencing the final resurrection.¹¹ The surprising thing is that Paul declares that he is already experiencing the resurrection and will do so in a dramatic fashion when he returns to Corinth. As we have seen throughout this letter, his endurance for the gospel in the midst of adversity replicates Christ’s resurrection as an inauguration or foretaste of the resurrection still to come (cf. esp. 4:7–12; 6:3–10).

Thus, the parallels established between Christ and Paul in 13:4 show how Christ’s power is made perfect in Paul’s ministry (cf. 12:9). His primary purpose as an apostle is to mediate through his suffering in Christ the knowledge of God and the transforming power of the life-giving Spirit (2:14–3:18; 4:1–15). This is the way in which Paul usually mediates the power of Christ’s resurrection. But toward those who reject the cross and power of Christ as embodied in his suffering and endurance, the resurrection power of Christ will be made known through his acts of judgment within the church. If Paul is an agent of God’s redemption, he must also be an agent of God’s judgment (cf. 2:15–16a; 4:4; 6:1–2). Those who reject him in his suffering will face him in his judgment, just as those who reject the cross of Christ will one day face Christ in his resurrected glory. Christ’s power is the power of his resurrection, which vindicates his weakness and vanquishes his foes (v. 4a).

In view of Paul’s imminent return to bring God’s judgment to Corinth, his commands in 13:5 again contain a severe warning. In the past, he postponed his return in order to give the Corinthians time to repent, since his primary goal as an apostle of the new covenant is the ingathering of God’s people (cf. 1:23–2:4; 5:18–20; 10:8; 12:19). In his next visit, however, Paul will carry out both aspects of his apostolic calling by being a fragrance of both life and death to those he encounters with the gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18 with 2 Cor. 2:15–16a). Like the prophets of the old covenant, Paul thus announces the coming judgment in advance in order to bring about the repentance of those who are truly God’s people (cf. 10:1–6). He does so by calling the rebellious in Corinth “to examine” or “test themselves” to see if they are truly “in the faith” (13:5). The goal of the test is to make it clear that Christ is indeed in them (cf. 7:11–12; 8:7–8).

The means by which the test is performed is Paul himself. Allegiance to him as their apostle is the criterion that determines whether Christ is present in their lives, since Paul is confident that he himself has already passed the test (13:6).¹² To accept Paul’s message of reconciliation is to accept God’s message of reconciliation (cf. 5:18–20). For this reason, because they have responded to Paul and his preaching in the past, he gives them the benefit of the doubt that Christ is in fact in them (13:5b).

In view of their current rebellion, however, the Corinthians must confirm the reality of their conversion by responding once again to Paul’s person and proclamation. His call for repentance is therefore based on the assumption that those in whom God is at work by his Spirit will recognize that Paul’s holiness, sincerity, and way of life all derive from the same grace of God that Paul is now calling them to accept (cf. 1:12 with 6:1–2).

This assumption also means that those in whom Christ is present will not continue in the lifestyles of rebellion characterized in 12:21. Where Christ is, there is a life of growing holiness. To encounter the glory of God on the face of Christ is to be transformed by it (3:18). Conversely, to continue in lives of disobedience is to fail the test of Christ’s presence. In 13:7, Paul thus prays that the Corinthians will “stand the test” by “not doing anything wrong.”

Put positively, this means showing support for Paul’s ministry by manifesting the life of the new creation that flows from trusting his gospel (5:17). Paul prays this not for the sake of his own reputation but for their good.¹³Indeed, he desires this for them even if their repentance at this last hour will make him look as if he has failed again, for it will mean yet another change of plans, from his announced coming in judgment to an arrival filled with mutual acceptance (13:7; cf. again 1:23–24). Although such an arrival may look as if Paul does not mediate the visible power of Christ, nothing is farther from the truth. The primary “proof” of the power of the Spirit in Paul’s ministry is the conversion and moral transformation of the Corinthians. This is Paul’s true “letter of recommendation” (3:2–6, based on 3:7–18).

Paul’s confidence in 13:6 and his corresponding prayer for the Corinthians in 13:7 are both buttressed by the conviction that the truth of the gospel will prevail over all contenders (13:8; cf. 4:2; 7:14; 11:10; 12:6). Not even Paul’s inadequacies and infirmities can do anything against it. Therefore Paul rejoices whenever he is “weak,” but the Corinthians are “strong” (taking the gar of 13:9a, untranslated in the NIV, as inferential). The apostle is glad whenever, as an extension of the cross, he is being led into suffering on their behalf (i.e., whenever he is “weak”) so that, as an expression of the resurrection, they are being consoled and encouraged in their faith (i.e., they are “strong”; cf. 1:4–7; 2:14; 4:10–12, 15; 11:29). Just as Paul’s weakness leads to his own strength in Christ (12:10; cf. 1:8–11; 4:11), so too his weakness leads to the strength of others as they learn from his experiences to trust God’s grace (1:3–7; 4:12).

This is why Paul prefers to be “weak” for their sake and why he prays for the “restoration” or “completion” (katartisis)¹⁴ of those who have begun with Christ but have now been led astray by the false apostles (13:9b). Paul takes no pleasure in having to judge the Corinthians. This is also why he is writing “these things” (13:10)—a reference to the present letter, especially chapters 10–13 (cf. 10:1–6, 11; 12:19; 13:2).

Paul’s desire is that he will not be forced to exercise his authority harshly when he comes again to Corinth (13:10b). For in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s promise that God will one day “build” his people, Paul’s ministry under the new covenant, in contrast to Jeremiah’s under the old, is predominantly for “building … up, not for tearing … down” (13:10c, alluding to Jer. 24:6; cf. Jer. 1:10; 31:4, 28; 33:7). Paul used this same definition of his ministry in 2 Corinthians 10:8, thereby beginning and ending the last major section of his letter by reflecting on the nature of the new covenant ministry. The link between chapters 10–13 and the thesis statements of 3:3–6 is clear.

That chapters 10–13 are framed by this allusion to Jeremiah 24:6 is not accidental. Paul intentionally ends the final section of his letter by recalling the pastoral purpose with which he began in order to put his third visit in perspective. He views the necessity and purpose of his exhortations, like all else in his ministry, through the lens of redemptive history and the Scriptures. This means that his primary goal as an apostle of Christ is the building up of the church in fulfillment of the promise of the new covenant.

At the same time, Paul makes it clear that God’s act of deliverance in Christ includes both the salvation of the righteous and the judgment of the wicked (2:14–16a; 4:1–6; 6:14–17; 10:4–6; 11:15). The message of the cross is the power of God to those being saved, but it is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Cor. 1:18–25). Hence, if judge he must, then in this way too Paul will be acting “for the truth” of the gospel (2 Cor. 13:8).

Paul’s Final Words of Exhortation and Benediction (13:11–14)

JUST AS HE did in his opening, Paul closes his letter by following the conventions common to ancient letter writing. In the past, modern readers largely ignored Paul’s letter closings, viewing them as simply standard conventions used to say “good-by.” Indeed, Weima’s survey of Hellenistic and Semitic letters has shown that there were a number of standard epistolary conventions that belonged to the closings of ancient letters, though they were rarely all utilized at once.¹⁵ Paul too uses these conventions to end his letters.

This is where the similarities end, however. Unlike other ancient letters, in which the closings were curt and only linked to the body of the letter in a general way, Paul expands the letter closing significantly, strategically employing it to echo specific themes from his letter. Paul’s closings are not merely ways to end his letters; they are summations of his arguments. As Weima puts it:

Every one of Paul’s letter closings … relates in one way or another to the key issue(s) taken up in their respective letter bodies…. The closings serve as an hermeneutical spotlight, highlighting the central concerns of the apostle in his letters and illumining our understanding of these key themes and issues.¹⁶

The closing to 2 Corinthians supports this thesis. Paul closes his letter with additional commands (13:11), greetings (13:12), and two farewell benedictions, one for peace and one for grace (13:11, 13). In each case, his closing highlights a main theme of his letter.

As in 1 Corinthians 16:13–14, here too Paul begins his closing with five commands: to rejoice,¹⁷ to aim for restoration,¹⁸ to encourage one another,¹⁹ to be of one mind, and to live in peace. The first three commands focus on the Corinthians’ relationship with Paul as their apostle; the last two refer to their life together as those who have been reconciled to God.

In particular, the commands to rejoice and to aim for restoration pick up Paul’s reference in 13:9 to his own joy over the strengthening of the Corinthians’ faith and to his prayer for their restoration. In the former case, Paul calls them to manifest their unity with him as their apostle by joining him in rejoicing over the strength they have derived through his weakness. In the latter, his exhortation that they be restored becomes the instrument by which his own prayer to that end will be fulfilled. So too, Paul’s call that they encourage or admonish one another recalls his earlier appeals in 5:20; 6:1; and 10:1.

We must be careful not to gloss over these commands, as if they were merely some “closing remarks” thrown in only to fulfill a rhetorical or literary purpose. From Paul’s perspective, there is much at stake in issuing these exhortations. Moreover, the structure of his closing again reveals the structure of his theology. In particular, the movement from the admonitions of verse 11a to the benediction in verse 11b demonstrates that God’s continuing presence among the Corinthians is inextricably linked to the purification and repentance of his people (cf. 6:14–7:1). Even in his closing Paul wants to make it clear yet again that the blessing of God’s presence is contingent on the obedience of his people.

This does not mean that the obedience of God’s people earns or merits his presence. Note how Paul begins his final exhortations by reminding the Corinthians that in Christ they are all “brothers,” a reference to their standing a s believers. Keeping the commands of 13:11 does not make one a Christian; rather, being a Christian means that one will keep these commands. The obedience of the believer is the link between the reality of God’s presence that he or she already enjoys, as a matter of grace, and the continuing reality of God’s presence in the future.

Hence, both are matters of grace, since the future blessing of God’s presence is predicated on an obedience that has been brought about by God’s blessing his people in the past. This explains why Paul calls the Corinthians “brothers” at the beginning of the first two major sections of the letter, where he is primarily addressing the repentant (cf. 1:8 and 8:1), but not in chapters 10–13, where he directly addresses those in rebellion against him. “Brothers,” because they are “brothers,” do not rebel against the gospel but respond to its call. Against this backdrop, it is striking that Paul closes his letter by addressing the whole church in this way. He is expressing his hope that all in Corinth may be considered his “brothers” when he returns.

Paul’s own greeting in verse 11 is matched by two final greetings in verses 12–13, both of which continue his emphasis on unity within the church by stressing its local and universal dimensions respectively. Paul first calls for a greeting of “one another with a holy kiss,” a practice unique among believers that signified their mutual acceptance and oneness as a family (cf. Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 1 Thess. 5:26²⁰).

Next, Paul extends to the Corinthians a greeting from “all the saints,” thereby emphasizing their oneness with the church at large. Taken together, these greetings implicitly emphasize that to reject Paul’s pleas will put one not only outside the church in Corinth, but also outside the church universal (cf. 6:18). For Paul’s speaking on behalf of “all the saints” also “alludes to [Paul’s] own apostolic authority and, thus, indirectly to the obligation that the Corinthians have to obey his exhortations in the letter.”²¹

This emphasis on unity in Paul’s closing, which is unique to 2 Corinthians, is carried through in Paul’s two farewell wishes (vv. 11b, 14), which for him become benedictions of God’s blessing on the church as a whole as she lives together under the gospel. In contrast to the formula found in his other letters (“May the God of peace …”), Paul’s benediction in 13:11b is the only one that combines “love” with the wish for “peace.” Likewise, the dramatic grace benediction in 13:14 is the only one in Paul’s letters that is Trinitarian in structure. It is also the only one that combines the wish for grace with wishes for “love” and “fellowship,” all of which come from God (taking all three genitives to be genitives of source): grace from the Lord Jesus Christ, love from God, and fellowship with one another brought about by the Holy Spirit.²²

Paul also adds “all” at the end to stress further the inclusive unity of the church. Moreover, as with his use of the direct address “brothers” in 13:11, this emphasis on love and fellowship recalls themes from chapters 1–9 not found in chapters 10–13.²³ In so doing, Paul again subtly indicates his goal of incorporating those who are still in rebellion against him back into the church as a whole. Paul’s benedictions thus stress the implications of what it means to be in the presence of God: grace from Christ and love and peace from God necessarily include the fellowship with one another brought about by the Spirit.

Paul’s letter closing in 13:11–14 is much more than simply a pious platitude included as a necessary literary convention. The closing admonitions, greetings, and benedictions all reflect the reconciliation for which Paul longs (5:20–6:2; 6:13; 10:1–2; 11:2), prays (13:7) and labors as a minister of the new covenant (2:17; 6:3–10; 12:19), and toward which he has written this letter (13:10). Indeed, the structure of his closing benediction signifies the blessing of the new covenant itself, in which the grace of Christ has made it possible to experience God’s love, poured out in the Holy Spirit.

It is not accidental, therefore, that Paul’s letter climaxes with a reference to the fellowship brought about by the Spirit. The pouring out of the Spirit on God’s people is the gift of the new covenant (cf. 3:3–18). So in closing, Paul prays as a minister of the new covenant that God will grant to all those in the church the unity of the Spirit that he has worked so hard to mediate.²⁴For after everything is said and done, and despite all her flaws and growing pains, the church remains the temple of the living God.

Bridging Contexts

THE SUMMARY NATURE of this closing passage brings us back to the interpretive principles and perspectives suggested throughout our study. Perhaps the most important point to be made in closing is that Paul’s appeal for repentance, both here and throughout his letter, and the direct link between this repentance and the blessing of God rest on Paul’s confidence in the power of the Spirit being unleashed through the gospel as proclaimed in this very writing (cf. 13:10). In short, from beginning to end, Paul speaks and writes as a minister of the new covenant of the Spirit (1:22; 3:5–6; 13:14).

Keys to applying Paul. To bring this passage from Paul’s day to our own, we need to recapture his confidence in the authority of his writings and in the power of the Spirit. A key to this recovery will be a deepened understanding of the significance of our place as Christians in the continuing flow of redemptive history. Inasmuch as the church is “the temple of the living God” (6:16), contemporary readers must take seriously that nothing less than the very presence of God among his people is at stake in Paul’s appeals (cf. 13:11, 13).

To this end, we must be careful not to paint Paul as an egotist with an exaggerated sense of his own importance, who cannot “get over” the fact that not everybody is bowing to his authority. In 2 Corinthians, Paul is not defending himself but working for the joy and strengthening of the Corinthians’ faith (1:24; 4:5; 12:19).

Nor should we make him into a moralist who is concerned with the reformation of human character for the good of the family, the church, and society. Paul’s self-understanding and his concern for the Corinthians are not the result of new moral insights. His goal is not to “improve” the world. Rather, Paul’s life and writing are the consequence of having come face-to-face with the Christ who “was crucified in weakness” but now “lives by God’s power” (13:4; cf. 4:6), and of experiencing the power of the Spirit that raised him from the dead (13:14c; cf. 1:22). So too the grace, love, and fellowship Paul wishes for the Corinthians in 13:11, 14 come from Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit. In other words, when everything is said and done, Paul’s final desire for the Corinthians is that God himself might be with them. Paul’s theology was driven by the reality of the presence of the living God.

Paul’s covenant perspective. Given Paul’s emphasis on the transforming power of God’s presence, it is also important to keep in mind when applying this passage that the manner of Paul’s “self”-defense for the sake of the Corinthians reminds us that he is no mystic either. His experience of the risen Christ and the unleashing of the power of the Spirit in his ministry do not lead him to a private spirituality with a personal code of ethics. Paul does not trumpet his spiritual experiences as a model for others. What he teaches does not derive from his “visions and revelations” (12:1).

Instead, Paul’s experiences as an apostle cause him to realize that he stands before the judgment of God (2:17; 5:10; 12:19), so that he too is called to act in accordance with the revealed truth of God (13:8). Even in closing, Paul quotes from and alludes to the law and prophets (13:1, 10). The authority of the Scriptures and of Christ himself, not Paul’s spiritual experiences per se, drive his exercise of his own authority, to which his letters now belong. As a continuation of this scriptural and Christological authority, Paul’s own writing now becomes an instrument by which Jeremiah’s promise is to be fulfilled (cf. 13:10).

At the same time, Paul’s closing defense, appeal, and benedictions make it clear that in mediating God’s glory to his churches, the apostle was not simply transferring a data bank of information. The urgency and passion of his writing reveal that his theology and authority derive from a burning love for his people. Paul does not write as the Corinthians’ boss but as a parent who is willing to spend his very life for their welfare (12:14–15).

The presence of God in the gospel is mediated to others not least through the love of those who have encountered the living Christ. Our doctrinal purity in allegiance to Paul must be matched by a love like Paul’s that rejoices whenever he can serve others for the sake of their joy and faith in God (13:9). As Paul anticipates his third visit to Corinth, he is not gloating over the chance to get even with his enemies. Instead, he longs for the salvation of those for whom he has suffered so much (13:4–5, 10).

Finally, to apply 13:1–14 properly will entail placing it within its larger context, both in terms of 2 Corinthians itself and in terms of Paul’s basic “covenant” theology. We have seen that this passage embodies and brings to a head the purpose of his argument in chapters 10–13: to provide the means, one last time, of instigating the “godly grief” that leads to repentance (cf. 7:8–11). Paul’s conviction is that, “in Christ,” the consequences of humanity’s fall into sin (Gen. 3) and of Israel’s idolatry with the golden calf (Ex. 32–34) are both being reversed in the lives of those who are truly members of the “new covenant” (cf. 2:14–3:18; 6:14–7:1). If “Christ Jesus is in [them]” (13:5), he will make himself known in their repentance and growing obedience, since they are now a “new creation” (5:17) and the “temple of the living God” (6:16; cf. 3:3; 7:2–16).

Hence, a growing transformation into the image of God himself marks the lives of those on whom God has “set his seal of ownership” by pouring out his Spirit in their hearts (1:22; 3:18). God’s presence and power bring about the “godly sorrow” over sin that “leads to salvation and leaves no regret” (7:10). “All will appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad” (5:10). At that time, God’s people will stand firm in this judgment, since God himself “makes [his people] stand firm in Christ” (1:21).

Paul’s warning in 13:1–10 is the final application of this covenant perspective. The call to test one’s faith, like the call to reaffirm one’s allegiance to Paul (5:20–6:1; 6:11–13; 7:2; 10:1–7), to separate from unbelievers (6:14–15 and 7:1), and to participate in the collection (chs. 8–9), is grounded in the reality of what God has done for his people in establishing the new covenant in Christ. The framework of Paul’s thinking is that the new covenant brought about by the redemption in Christ is the inauguration of the new creation in which God once again dwells in the midst of his people (3:7–18).

The commands of God—from the command to be reconciled to God in Christ (5:20) to the commands to forgive others (2:7) and to give away one’s money (8:7, 11)—are nothing other than explications and applications of what the grace of God has brought about and continues to bring about in the lives of God’s people. To obey God’s commands is what trusting in God’s provisions in Christ looks like in everyday situations. To “accept Christ” is to obey God’s call to be like Christ. As Jonathan Edwards put it, the “acts of a Christian life,” that is, our “evangelical obedience,” all imply and are expressions of faith. Hence, they

may be looked upon as so many acts of reception of Christ the Saviour…. The obedience of a Christian, so far as it is truly evangelical, and performed with the Spirit of the Son sent forth into the heart, has all relation to Christ, the Mediator, and is but an expression of the soul’s believing union to Christ. All evangelical works are works of that faith that worketh by love; and every such act of obedience, wherein it is inward, and the act of the soul, is only a new effective act of reception of Christ, and adherence to the glorious Saviour.²⁵

Therefore, from Paul’s perspective as a minister of the Spirit who makes us alive (3:6), it is simply impossible to be in God’s presence and not manifest a transformed life (cf. 3:18; 5:17). Conversely, only those who are experiencing the transforming power of the glory of God in the face of Christ (4:4–6) can be considered members of the new covenant community. Paul simply assumes that those whom he calls “brothers,” if they are indeed part of the family of God and thereby deserving of a “holy kiss,” will respond to his commands. In doing so, they will enjoy the “fellowship of the Holy Spirit” that exists within God’s people (13:11, 12, 14). This means that to preach the gospel Paul must also test the Corinthians’ faith by calling for their obedience (13:5). The same will be true for all those who preach the gospel today.

Contemporary Significance

FOR PAUL, THE reality of “Christ Jesus [being] in you” (13:5) means that there is no cheap grace in the gospel, no easy believism in the biblical definition of faith, no repentant-less forgiveness in the cross, no powerlessness in the Spirit, and no absence of judgment in the future. Put positively, those in whom Christ is present will pass the “test”; those who claim Christ without the repentance-and obedience-producing power of the Spirit in their lives will not.

The expectation of godliness. In an age of disappointment over the lives of high profile leaders in the church, such an expectation seems unrealistic, being openly mocked by the daily news. Such disappointment over others is matched by our own slow progress in the faith, in which some sins seem to haunt us forever. We are also aware of the rank nominalism of the church at large and of the shallowness of so much of contemporary worship, in which the weekly emotionalism of the “praise service” is separated by days of lifelessness. As a result, modern readers of Paul are often put off by his spiritual and moral enthusiasm, which calls for and anticipates a real difference in the everyday lives of those whom God has encountered.

Paul’s conviction that the power of God is being unleashed in the gospel seems abstract and utopian when confronted with the diluted nature of what it means to be “Christian” in our post-Christian culture. During the 1990s, 39 percent of adults in the United States called themselves born-again Christians, 68 percent claimed they had been in the presence of God at some time in their lives, 65 percent claimed they had made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that was still important to them, and 85 percent considered themselves to be Christian.²⁶ Can Paul’s claims be taken seriously? Is the practice of church discipline a relic of an unrealistic and overly zealous past?²⁷ Is there any hope this side of heaven?

In answer to these questions, Paul’s letters offer several important perspectives.²⁸ (1) Paul recognized that sanctification is a matter of progress over a lifetime, not of perfection overnight (cf. Phil. 1:25; Col. 1:10; 1 Thess. 4:1; 2 Thess. 1:3). When it comes to completing the work he himself has begun in our lives, we cannot put God on our timetable. Both justification and sanctification are a matter of grace. Often the slow rate of change is itself part of our school of faith, teaching us to be wholly dependent on the only One who can free us from our sin. Patience with the slow progress of others, not to mention with our own, is often needed. If 2 Corinthians reveals anything about Paul, it reveals his long-suffering patience with God’s people.

(2) Yet the fact that 2 Corinthians is written in preparation for Paul’s third visit, in which he plans to judge those who continue in rebellion against him, reveals that eventually patience comes to an end. Some of those addressed in 12:20–21 may have been Christians, albeit “infants in Christ” (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1–3). If they were “spiritual,” Paul fully expects them to grow up, an expectation encapsulated in the final admonitions of 2 Corinthians 13:11 (see 1 Cor. 1:10; 3:18–22; 4:7, 16; 5:1–2; 6:4–8, 18; 11:17–22; 14:20). Moreover, Paul expects those who are already strong in the faith to get even stronger (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:11; 10:24, 31; 11:1; 14:1; 2 Cor. 8:7–8, 24; 9:3, 13; cf. Rom. 14:13–21). Talk is cheap; perseverance is the only evidence of a genuine conversion.

(3) The sober nature of Paul’s conclusion to 2 Corinthians does not derive from a religious moralism or a belief in human potential, but from the life-transforming reality of Christ that Paul himself had experienced (3:4–6; 4:6; 5:16–6:2; cf. Phil. 2:12–13; 2 Thess. 2:14–15). Paul’s expectations for the Corinthians are expectations for God. His admonitions to them are expressions of his confidence in what God can do in the lives of sinners. He can be demanding because, as the “worst of sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15), he knows from his own life that there is no deception or pattern of behavior that God cannot overcome. Every command of God is a promise of deliverance in disguise. There is hope for all who trust in Christ. Perseverance is not reserved for a Christian elite but is promised to all who belong to God. A reconciled way of life is the necessary implication of having experienced the love, peace, grace, and fellowship that come from God the Father, Christ, and the Spirit (13:11–14).

This means that the “carnal Christian” of 1 Corinthians 3:1–4 is not a third class of humanity that exists somewhere between being a non-Christian and being a “Spirit-filled Christian.” Just as the designation “Spirit-filled Christian” is a needless tautology (Rom. 8:9, 14), “carnal Christian” is an oxymoron that cannot endure for long. In 1 Corinthians 3:3, Paul places the behavior of those “acting like mere men,” who are still “infants in Christ,” in the category of those who do not have the Spirit at all. In the same way, those who refuse to repent after receiving 2 Corinthians will have failed the test of Christ’s presence in them, despite their professions of faith (13:5). To claim to be Christian while at the same time gladly remaining in baby-like states of immature sin such as described in 12:20–21 is a contradiction in terms.

Real sin, real redemption, real prayer. Inherent in Paul’s closing admonitions, therefore, is the recognition of real sin and the promise of a real redemption. We must recover this recognition and promise if we are to remain faithful to the witness of the gospel in the modern-postmodern world. If the church is to speak to the culture around it, whose “moral fabric is rotting,” David Wells has rightly observed that

it will have to become courageous enough to say that much that is taken as normative in the postmodern world is actually sinful, and it will have to exercise new ingenuity in learning how to speak about sin to a generation for whom sin has become an impossibility. Without an understanding of sin … there can be no deep believing of the Gospel.Second, the Church itself is going to have to become more authentic morally, for the greatness of the Gospel is now seen to have become quite trivial and inconsequential in its life. If the Gospel means so little to the Church, if it changes so little, why then should unbelievers believe it?It is one thing to understand what Christ’s deliverance means; it is quite another to see this worked out in life with depth and reality, to see its moral splendor…. That is what makes the Gospel so attractive. The evangelical Church today, with some exceptions, is not very inspiring in this regard…. Much of it, instead, is replete with tricks, gadgets, gimmicks, and marketing ploys as it shamelessly adapts itself to our emptied-out, blinded, postmodern world. It is supporting a massive commercial enterprise of Christian products, it is filling the airways and stuffing postal boxes, and it is always begging for money to fuel one entrepreneurial scheme after another, but it is not morally resplendent. It is mostly empty of real moral vision, and without a recovery of that vision its faith will soon disintegrate. There is too little about it that bespeaks the holiness of God. And without the vision for and reality of this holiness, the Gospel becomes trivialized, life loses its depth, God becomes transformed into a product to be sold, faith into a recreational activity to be done, and the Church into a club for the like-minded.²⁹

Here is where “the greatness of the Gospel” is so crucial. In the light of Paul’s critique of the Corinthians and his conviction concerning the transforming power of the glory of God in Christ, the sting we feel from such an analysis is not a summons “to try harder” but to pray. The majesty of the message Paul preached about God and the radical nature of his corresponding expectations for God’s people can both be seen in the simple fact that Paul ends his pleas with prayer. He knows the magnitude of his demands, and he knows that they cannot be met from our own spiritual or moral resources. For this reason, Paul pours out his life for the Corinthians, while at the same time praying that God will keep the Corinthians from doing wrong, that God will restore them, and that God will grant them the benefits of his presence (cf. 13:7, 9, 11–14). In the end, the apostle knows that only God himself can bring about the repentance he calls for. What is needed is the “godly grief” that only God can create (7:10).

Our tendency today is to skip over these references to prayer as mere platitudes of an obligatory religious piety. We do so because this is what prayer has so often become for us. Rather than a cry of desperation, prayer becomes a duty performed for God. The power of God’s presence is a theological doctrine, but not a theological reality in our lives. Giving lip service to our need for God, we quickly turn to the latest technique, self-help program, or growth group. To quote David Wells again, “The fundamental problem in the evangelical world today is that God rests too inconsequentially upon the church. His truth is too distant, his grace is too ordinary, his judgment is too benign, his gospel is too easy, and his Christ is too common.”³⁰

In stark contrast, Paul ends his letter by praying because only God can enable the Corinthians to pass the test that Paul has given, for the goal of the test is the presence of God himself. Accordingly, his final word is that the love, peace, and fellowship he calls for in the commands of 13:11 all come from the presence of God he prays for in 13:14. Paul does not take such a prayer for granted. He offers it because of the promise of the new covenant, under which God’s people, in Christ and by the power of the Spirit, may enter into God’s presence without being destroyed (3:7–18). If the Corinthians are to keep the commands of 13:11, it is only because God has answered the prayers of 13:7, 9, 14.

The real God. Though implicit, it becomes evident that the interplay between Paul’s prayers and his closing admonitions reflects the same covenant structure that has informed his thinking throughout 2 Corinthians (cf. 3:6; 6:14–7:1). God’s prior act of grace in the mercy of the cross, by which he grants to us his presence in Christ, through the Spirit, is the all-sufficient ground of our relationship with him. Moreover, God’s presence with his people here and now brings with it his promise to sustain them through this life and to bring them into his presence in the age to come. God is faithful; he will not forsake his people. Our response is to trust God for our future, no matter what may come our way. As his people, we trust him with our lives.

Paul again makes clear in closing his letter that the expression of this faith is always obedience to God’s commands. To know God is to live a life of believing obedience or obedient faith. The two cannot be separated. Nor can our obedience ever be construed as earning or meriting the blessing of God’s presence. Believing obedience to God’s commands flows from and is made possible by his presence in our lives, granted to us by an act of his gracious mercy. Faith-driven obedience is therefore the only evidence that “Christ Jesus is in us” (13:5).

Conversely, obedient faith is the condition that must be met for God to remain with us (13:14). God’s continuing presence with us flows from and is made possible by his present dwelling with us, the “test” of which is faith-driven obedience. This is why Paul’s benediction in 13:11b is based on the obedience called for in 13:11a. Only those who obey can be promised God’s love and peace, because only they have already received them. As “a new creation” in Christ (5:17), we “are transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory” (3:18).

In sum, Paul commands what he does and prays as he does because God rests heavily on his daily life and experience. As moderns and postmoderns, perhaps we can best learn what this means by listening to someone from the past, such as Augustine, seeing that our own age of autonomy, self-reference, and self-sufficiency so clouds our vision. Augustine was a “premodern” man, who knew with a profundity not often matched in our own day that he was utterly dependent on God for everything, including any obedience he might render to God’s commands. The entirety of Augustine’s most famous and influential work, his Confessions, is a desperate prayer for help. In his words:

My entire hope is exclusively in your very great mercy. Grant what you command, and command what you will…. He loves you less who together with you loves something which he does not love for your sake. O love, you ever burn and are never extinguished. O charity, my God, set me on fire … grant what you command, and command what you will…. But remember, Lord ‘that we are but dust’ (Ps. 102:14)…. Paul had no power in himself because he was of the same dust as we, but he said these words [Phil. 4:11–12] under the breath of your inspiration and I loved him for it…. Strengthen me that I may have this power. Grant what you command, and command what you will … it is by your gift that your command is kept.³¹

Augustine’s prayer reflects Paul’s conviction that God grants what he commands by mercifully revealing the all-consuming and incomparable nature of his divine love, a love that eclipses all other objects of desire and takes them into its shadow. To obey God in all things, God must have no competitors. One must love all other things for God’s sake, glorifying the Giver by receiving them as gifts with thankfulness and by using them in accordance with his will.

Yet, to love all things for God’s sake, we must know the supremacy of God’s own “burning love.” This is why Augustine, like Paul, prays when confronted with the need for restoration and obedience. Augustine had learned what we need to learn afresh, that such a “holy desire” for God cannot be manufactured or willed into existence. Such a desire for God comes not from our latest techniques or therapies, but from encountering the superiority and ravishing goodness of God himself. We will desire God enough to trust him only if we have first experienced him.³²

Augustine prayed for the power to obey because he knew that only God could reveal himself in such a way that the joy and peace to be found in his beauty, holiness, and love would drive out all lesser pleasures. Compliance to God’s will does not derive from our own willpower, but from a new thirst and love created by encountering God himself. In this sense, we are prisoners of God. Only God can make himself known to us; he cannot be manipulated by our designs. As Augustine put it to God in his last confession:

What man can enable the human mind to understand this? Which angel can interpret it to an angel? What angel can help a human being to grasp it? Only you can be asked, only you can be begged, only on your door can we knock (Matt. 7:7–8). Yes indeed, this is how it is received, how it is found, how the door is opened.³³

The only antidote to the preoccupation with technology and technique that dominates the contemporary church is to return to the God-centeredness that runs throughout 2 Corinthians, from the opening word of praise for the comfort of God’s sovereignty in 1:3 to the closing benediction for God’s presence in 13:14. The hope of the church is not a new program but God’s invasion of our lives. Nothing else can save us from the health and wealth gospel that threatens so much of contemporary Christianity, just as it did the Corinthians in Paul’s day. The only cure for the cancer of modern materialism now growing in our hearts, with its insatiable desire for ever-multiplying pleasures on earth, is the surpassing and profound pleasure of knowing the God of love and peace (13:11).

In reality, Paul’s moral “enthusiasm” is an enthusiasm for the all-surpassing and life-transforming grandeur of the eternal glory of God that far outweighs all the afflictions and affections of this world (4:16–18). In our cramped modernity, Paul’s God seems too big to us because our god is too small. May Paul’s last word to the Corinthians in 13:14 be fulfilled in our lives as well.

O My Saviour,help me.I am so slow to learn, so prone to forget, so weak to climb;I am in the foothills when I should be on the heights;I am pained by my graceless heart,my poverty of love,my sloth in the heavenly race,my sullied conscience,my wasted hours,my unspent opportunities.I am blind while light shines around me:take the scales from my eyes,grind to dust the evil heart of unbelief.Make it my chiefest joy to study thee,meditate on thee,gaze on thee,sit like Mary at thy feet,lean like John on thy breast,appeal like Peter to thy love,count like Paul all things dung.Give me increase and progress in grace so that there may bemore decision in my character,more vigour in my purposes,more elevation in my life,more fervour in my devotion,more constancy in my zeal.As I have a position in the world,keep me from making the world my position;May I never seek in the creaturewhat can be found only in the creator.Let not faith cease from seeking thee until it vanishes into sight.Ride forth in me, thou king of kings and lord of lords,that I may live victoriously, and in victory attain my end.³⁴

Scripture Index

GenesisGe 1:26–27Ge 1:2–3; 181Ge 1:3; 179Ge 1:26–28; 189Ge 1:26–27; 161, 210Ge 1:26; 180Ge 2:8–10; 459Ge 2:25; 209, 441Ge 3:1–13; 427Ge 3:1–7; 210Ge 3:7–11; 441Ge 3:7; 209Ge 3:10; 209, 459Ge 3:11; 209Ge 3:22; 44Ge 3; 295, 500Ge 8:21; 110Ge 10; 404Ge 12:1–3; 85Ge 22:12; 44Ge 27:38; 319Ge 28:15; 184Ge 31:44, 50; 87Ge 32:4; 44ExodusEx 2:24–25; 142Ex 3:1–4:17; 127Ex 3:10; 44, 50Ex 3:12; 50Ex 3:16; 143Ex 3:20; 468Ex 4:10; 113, 127, 400Ex 4:13, 28; 50Ex 4:31; 143Ex 6:7; 284Ex 7:3; 468Ex 8:23; 468Ex 9:14–16; 316Ex 9:16; 142Ex 10:1–2; 316, 468Ex 11–13; 142Ex 12:23; 316Ex 13:19; 143Ex 14:4; 142, 316Ex 14:13–14; 257Ex 14:17–18; 142Ex 14:17; 316Ex 14:25; 142Ex 14:29–31; 258Ex 14:31; 316Ex 15:1, 6; 142Ex 15:11; 142, 468Ex 15:16; 316Ex 15:21; 142Ex 16:6–7, 10; 142Ex 16:18, 28; 341Ex 19:5–9; 153Ex 19:5–6; 47, 142Ex 19:6; 285, 434Ex 20:1–3; 302Ex 20:4; 282Ex 20:12; 485Ex 20:20; 142, 144, 153Ex 21:17; 485Ex 23:24; 282Ex 24:12; 117, 146Ex 24:15–18; 146Ex 25:8; 465Ex 29:25, 41; 110Ex 29:45; 434Ex 31:18; 117, 146Ex 32–34; 135, 142, 144, 146, 148–49, 155–56, 161, 500Ex 32:1–8; 258Ex 32:7–9, 19; 142Ex 32:9–10; 146Ex 32:9; 142Ex 32:10; 142Ex 32:11–33:17; 142Ex 32:13; 142Ex 32:22; 146Ex 32:26–28; 143Ex 32:34; 143Ex 32; 295Ex 33:1; 225Ex 33:3, 5; 143–44, 146, 148Ex 33:7–11; 143Ex 33:16; 143Ex 33:18–23; 143Ex 33:19; 143Ex 34:1–28; 143, 146Ex 34:1–10; 143Ex 34:1; 143, 146Ex 34:4; 146Ex 34:9; 142–43, 146Ex 34:11–35; 143Ex 34:12–26; 143Ex 34:27–28; 143Ex 34:29–35; 146–48, 154, 157Ex 34:29–30; 144Ex 34:32–33; 144Ex 34:34–35; 144Ex 34:34; 159Ex 40:34; 465LeviticusLe 1:13, 17; 110Le 4:13–14; 247Le 4:20–21, 24; 247Le 5:6–7, 10–12; 247Le 6:18; 247Le 10:17; 247Le 11:44; 47Le 16; 247Le 16:15; 247Le 17:11; 247Le 19:2; 288Le 19:19; 279Le 19:34; 225Le 20:2; 440Le 20:24–26; 47Le 20:27; 440Le 24:14, 16, 23; 440Le 25:8–55; 366Le 26:1; 282Le 26:11–12; 283–84Le 26:41; 138NumbersNu 14:10–35; 94Nu 14:22; 468Nu 14:26–35; 149Nu 15:3; 110Nu 15:35–36; 440Nu 16–17; 434, 488Nu 16:3; 435, 488Nu 16:8–11; 435, 488Nu 16:11; 435Nu 16:13–14; 488Nu 16:15; 435Nu 16:28; 435Nu 16:30; 435Nu 16:31–35; 435Nu 16:40; 434Nu 20:14; 44Nu 23:9; 47Nu 33:55; 462DeuteronomyDe 1:3, 34–46; 149De 2:14–16; 149De 2:25; 316De 4:13; 146De 4:16, 23; 282De 4:24; 427De 4:34; 468De 5:7–10; 282De 5:9; 427De 5:22; 146De 6:4–5; 135De 6:4; 67De 6:15; 427De 6:20–25; 135De 6:22; 468De 7:6; 434, 47De 7:19; 468De 9:6–8; 149De 9:9–11; 146De 9:10; 117, 46De 10:16; 135, 138De 10:17; 67De 10:21; 423De 11:18; 135De 11:25; 316De 13:1–4; 467De 13:10–11; 440De 13:13; 281De 14:2; 434, 47De 15:9; 281De 15:10; 366De 17:2–7; 440De 19:15; 489–90De 21:21; 440De 21:23; 242De 22:10; 279De 22:13–24; 426De 22:21–24; 440De 25:1–3; 439De 26:8; 468De 26:19; 434De 27:1–29:29; 144De 27:15; 282De 28:9; 434De 29:1–4; 142De 29:3–4; 156De 29:3; 158De 29:4; 149, 158De 29:12–13; 284De 30:1–20; 144De 30:6; 138De 31:6, 8; 184De 31:10–11; 366De 31:16–32:44; 144De 32:16, 21; 282De 34:11; 468JoshuaJos 3:5; 468Jos 6; 10Jos 7:22; 44Jos 7:25; 440Jos 23:7; 282Jos 24:17; 468JudgesJdg 6:8; 44Jdg 6:11; 127Jdg 6:14, 35; 44Jdg 19:22; 281Jdg 20:1–2; 461 Samuel1Sa 2:3; 4231Sa 2:10; 405, 4231Sa 2:12; 2811Sa 12:5–6; 871Sa 16:7; 2371Sa 20:23, 42; 871Sa 26:21; 3192 Samuel2Sa 7:8, 27; 2862Sa 7:14; 284–862Sa 7:24; 284, 2862Sa 15:21; 3082Sa 16:7; 2812Sa 22:5; 2811 Kings1Ki 7:31; 2121Ki 8:9; 1171Ki 8:14; 461Ki 14:6; 441Ki 17:12; 871Ki 21:10; 4401Ki 21:13; 2811 Chronicles1Ch 1:1–2:2; 4191Ch 2:6; 4591Ch 5:10; 1171Ch 6:17; 2121Ch 6:18; 4591Ch 6:35; 4231Ch 9:23; 2121Ch 17:22; 2841Ch 28:20; 1841Ch 29:13; 4232 Chronicles2Ch 36:15; 44NehemiahNe 9:6; 459Ne 9:10; 468Ne 9:16–31; 158JobJob 1:6–12; 435Job 1:22; 423Job 2:10; 423Job 4:8; 366Job 31:8; 366Job 33:28–30; 435PsalmsPs 1–17; 187Ps 2:9; 187Ps 2:11; 289Ps 5:7; 289Ps 5:12; 423Ps 6:2; 472Ps 6:4–5; 472Ps 7:12; 260Ps 8:5–6; 189Ps 8:5; 210Ps 14:1; 259, 423Ps 16:10; 184Ps 16:11; 73Ps 18:4; 281Ps 18:28; 435Ps 19:1–2; 180Ps 22:22; 46Ps 23:4–6; 61Ps 23:4–5; 187Ps 26:5; 46Ps 27:1; 435Ps 31:12; 182, 187Ps 32:1–2; 248Ps 32:4; 462Ps 32:11; 423, 472Ps 34:18; 473Ps 35:18; 46Ps 37:25; 184Ps 37:28; 184, 187Ps 40:8; 135Ps 40:9; 46Ps 42:1–2; 199Ps 45:4; 393Ps 46:1; 61Ps 51:10–12; 259Ps 51:12–19; 319Ps 53:1–2; 423Ps 55:5; 316Ps 55:17; 464Ps 63:3; 203Ps 68:17–18; 110Ps 69:33–34; 187Ps 71:20–21; 61, 187Ps 74:4, 18, 22; 423Ps 78:5–8; 158Ps 78:21–22; 149Ps 78:43; 468Ps 78:54–64; 158Ps 84:1–12; 199Ps 92:6; 423Ps 94:8; 423Ps 94:17–18; 61Ps 94:19; 187Ps 95:10; 149Ps 102:12; 153Ps 102:14; 507Ps 105:26–28; 246Ps 105:27–36; 468Ps 106:6–39; 158Ps 106:16–18; 488Ps 106:23, 26; 149Ps 106:47; 423, 472Ps 111:3; 368Ps 111:9; 153Ps 112:9; 368, 371, 379Ps 116:9; 188Ps 116:10; 187, 197Ps 118:17–18; 187Ps 118; 187Ps 119:71; 480–81Ps 119:105; 435Ps 126:5; 366Ps 132:1; 393Ps 135:9; 469Ps 139; 187Ps 148:4; 459Ps 149:5; 423ProverbsPr 1:7; 259, 289Pr 3:4; 361Pr 3:7; 259Pr 3:27–28; 339Pr 8:13; 259, 289Pr 8:29; 289Pr 9:10; 259Pr 9:13–18; 423Pr 11:21; 366Pr 19:3; 423Pr 21:22; 395, 443Pr 22:8; 366, 367, 379Pr 22:9; 367Pr 22:11; 367Pr 27:1; 423IsaiahIs 1:22; 114Is 2:2–3; 162, 331Is 6:1–8; 127Is 6:8; 44Is 6:9; 156Is 9:2; 179, 281, 435Is 9:7; 247, 427Is 12:1; 61Is 14:12–15; 435Is 14:19; 247Is 19:16; 316Is 19:20–24; 316Is 20:2–5; 209Is 24:23; 162Is 25:6–9; 162Is 25:8; 213Is 26:11; 427Is 26:20; 159Is 29:10; 158Is 29:15; 281Is 30:14; 182Is 32:5–6; 423Is 32:11; 209Is 32:15; 118Is 35:5; 159Is 37:32; 427Is 40–66; 243Is 40:1; 61, 249Is 40:8; 153Is 40:13; 92Is 42:6–7; 249Is 42:7; 159Is 42:9; 250Is 42:13; 427Is 42:16; 159Is 43:1–21; 243Is 43:1–4; 248Is 43:6; 284–85Is 43:10, 12; 87Is 43:16–21; 244Is 43:18–19; 243Is 43:19–20; 162Is 43:19; 250Is 43:21; 162Is 44:3; 118Is 47:3; 209Is 48:6; 250Is 49:3; 249Is 49:8–13; 311Is 49:8; 187, 247, 249, 310Is 49:13; 61, 310Is 49:18; 427Is 49:22; 285Is 50:1–2; 426Is 51:3; 459Is 51:7; 135Is 52:7; 247, 284Is 52:11; 284–85, 287Is 52:13–53:12; 246–48Is 52:15; 285Is 53:4–8, 10–12; 248Is 53:5; 187, 247–48Is 53:9; 248Is 53:10; 247Is 53:11; 248Is 54:1–8; 427Is 54:5–6; 427Is 55:10–11; 379Is 55:10; 369Is 56:6–8; 162Is 57:15; 473Is 59:17; 427Is 59:21; 118Is 60:1–3; 162Is 60:1; 435Is 60:4; 285Is 60:5–6; 331Is 60:19–20; 435Is 62:5; 427Is 63:7–19; 158Is 63:15–16; 427Is 64:1–4; 257Is 64:4; 70Is 65:2–7; 158Is 65:16–23; 243Is 65:16; 244Is 65:17–25; 243Is 65:17–18; 250Is 65:25; 162Is 66:2; 473Is 66:17; 243Is 66:18–21; 162Is 66:18–20; 419Is 66:22–23; 243–44Is 66:22; 153Is 66:23; 162JeremiahJe 1:10; 130, 398, 494Je 1:4–10; 127Je 1:7; 44Je 2:5–8; 134Je 2:21–22; 134Je 3:1; 427Je 3:17; 134Je 3:25; 158Je 4:4; 138Je 5:20–25; 134Je 5:21; 156Je 5:31; 134Je 6:13, 17; 134Je 7:18–26; 158Je 7:23; 284Je 7:24–26; 134, 149Je 7:25; 158Je 7:26; 135Je 8:7; 134Je 9:12–16; 134Je 9:22–23; 404–5, 466Je 9:23–26; 138Je 9:23–24; 423, 445, 465Je 9:25–26; 406Je 10:21; 134Je 11:11; 134Je 11:14; 134Je 12:13; 366Je 13:10, 23; 134Je 14:11, 22; 134Je 14:18; 134Je 15:1; 134, 158Je 15:10–21; 472Je 16:7; 187Je 16:11–13; 158Je 16:12; 134Je 17:1; 134Je 17:14; 423Je 17:23; 134, 158Je 18:12–15; 134Je 19:11; 187Je 19:15; 134–35, 158Je 22:9–10; 134Je 23:3; 285Je 23:13–14; 134Je 23:15; 287Je 23:17; 134Je 23:32; 364Je 24:6; 494, 398Je 24:7; 284Je 24:10; 398Je 27:16; 134Je 28:2; 134Je 30:22; 284Je 31:1; 286Je 31:4; 494Je 31:9; 286Je 31:13; 61Je 31:27–28; 398Je 31:28; 130, 494Je 31:31–34; 118, 130, 132–36, 144, 159–60, 179, 284Je 31:31; 129Je 31:32, 33; 134Je 32:21; 468Je 32:37–40; 153Je 32:40; 136Je 33:7; 494Je 38:9; 61Je 42:5; 87Je 42:10; 398Je 44:9–10; 158Je 45:4; 398LamentationsLa 2:2; 395La 3:55–57; 472La 4:2; 182La 5:7; 158EzekielEze 1:1–3:11; 127Eze 1:14–28; 110Eze 1:15–20; 459Eze 1:26, 28; 179Eze 2:1–8; 132Eze 2:1–7; 179Eze 2:3; 44, 158Eze 3:12, 23; 179Eze 8:2–4; 179Eze 8:3–18; 283Eze 9:3; 179Eze 10:1–4; 179Eze 11:17; 285Eze 11:19; 117, 131–32, 160Eze 11:20; 284Eze 11:22–23; 179Eze 12:2; 156Eze 16:8; 441Eze 16:19; 110Eze 16:23–33; 427Eze 16:36–39; 209Eze 19:5; 364Eze 20:1–31; 132Eze 20:8–36; 158Eze 20:21–26; 149Eze 20:34; 284–85Eze 20:40–41; 110Eze 22:19; 285Eze 23:10, 26, 29; 209Eze 26:11–12; 284Eze 27; 419Eze 28:11–17; 210Eze 28:13; 459Eze 28:24; 462Eze 31:8–9; 459Eze 32:15; 117Eze 34:1; 117Eze 36:25–27; 179Eze 36:25–26; 124, 132Eze 36:26–27; 117, 131–32, 159–60, 282, 288Eze 36:28; 284Eze 36:29; 132Eze 37:23, 26–27; 284Eze 37:27; 284, 465Eze 38–39; 419Eze 43:2–5; 179Eze 44:4; 179DanielDa 4:26; 153Da 11:6; 153Da 11; 419Da 12:3; 210HoseaHo 2:3; 209Ho 2:6; 463Ho 2:8–13; 209Ho 2:19–20; 427Ho 8:10; 285Ho 10:12; 369JoelJoe 1–3; 82Joe 2:11; 112Joe 2:18; 427Joe 2:28–3:21; 257Joe 2:28–29; 118AmosAm 2:4; 158Am 2:16; 209Am 4:3; 209MicahMic 1:8; 209Mic 1:11; 209, 441Mic 4:1–2; 331Mic 4:6; 285Mic 6:8; 347Mic 6:15; 366NahumNa 3:5; 441ZephaniahZep 3:19, 20; 285HaggaiHag 1:12; 44ZechariahZec 1:2–4; 158Zec 2:8–9; 44Zec 4:9; 44Zec 7:11–14; 158Zec 8:8; 284Zec 9:1–7; 257Zec 9:9; 393Zec 10:8, 10; 285Zec 12–14; 82Zec 13:9; 284Zec 14:10; 153MalachiMal 3:1–5; 257Mal 3:1; 44Mal 3:7; 158Mal 4:1–6; 257Mal 4:5; 44MatthewMt 3:1–12; 257Mt 5:5; 392Mt 5:16; 85, 226, 360Mt 5:29–30; 442Mt 5:37; 84Mt 6:12; 90, 96Mt 6:13; 279Mt 6:14–15; 90, 96Mt 6:19–24; 200Mt 6:19–21; 101, 349, 351Mt 6:19–20; 324Mt 6:21, 24; 352Mt 6:25–34; 441Mt 6:26; 366Mt 6:34; 384Mt 7:7–8; 508Mt 7:16–23; 216Mt 10:1, 7–8; 45Mt 10:28; 259Mt 11:4; 397Mt 11:29; 392–93Mt 12:23; 239Mt 12:33–37; 216Mt 13:15; 156Mt 13:17; 397Mt 16:27; 216Mt 18:4; 392Mt 18:16–17; 489Mt 18:21–35; 96Mt 18:21–22; 353Mt 19:14; 279Mt 21:5; 393Mt 21:13; 212Mt 24:2; 397Mt 25:31–46; 216Mt 26:67; 463Mt 27:3; 319Mt 27:52; 57MarkMk 2:12; 239Mk 3:14; 45, 48Mk 3:21; 238Mk 3:22–30; 462Mk 3:31–35; 270Mk 4:12; 156Mk 4:13–20; 216Mk 4:19; 441Mk 6:7; 48Mk 6:30; 45Mk 7:8–13; 485Mk 8:9–13; 178Mk 8:32; 154Mk 8:34–38; 274, 323Mk 8:34–35; 69, 200Mk 8:34; 202Mk 8:36–37; 248Mk 9:35–37; 392Mk 9:35; 48Mk 9:37; 45Mk 9:41; 398Mk 9:42–47; 442Mk 10:2; 45Mk 10:26; 112Mk 10:32; 48Mk 10:33; 184Mk 10:43–44; 69Mk 10:45; 85, 178, 248Mk 11:11; 48, 282Mk 11:17; 212Mk 12:35; 282Mk 12:42–44; 332Mk 13:1; 282Mk 13:9; 315Mk 14:24; 248Mk 14:32–41; 464Mk 14:58; 208, 282Mk 14:65; 463Mk 15:29; 282LukeLu 1:16–17; 159Lu 1:23; 370Lu 2:25; 310Lu 3:14; 433Lu 4:20; 146Lu 4:43; 45Lu 6:13; 45, 48Lu 6:29; 279Lu 6:43–45; 216Lu 8:56; 151, 239Lu 9:1–2; 45Lu 9:7; 151Lu 9:10; 45Lu 11:49; 45Lu 12:13–34; 365Lu 12:32; 259Lu 12:33; 324Lu 12:48; 340Lu 13:7; 147Lu 13:10–17; 462Lu 17:5; 45Lu 18:14; 392Lu 19:12–27; 216Lu 19:21; 366Lu 19:43–44; 395Lu 19:46; 212Lu 22:14; 45Lu 22:31–34; 319Lu 22:56; 146Lu 23:43; 459Lu 24:10; 45JohnJn 1:7–9; 435Jn 1:14; 465Jn 2:16; 212, 279Jn 3:19–21; 282, 435Jn 4:36–37; 366Jn 5:28–29; 216Jn 5:36; 45Jn 6:56; 153Jn 7:13, 26; 154Jn 8:5; 440Jn 8:12; 435Jn 8:35; 153Jn 9:5; 435Jn 10:24; 154Jn 10:31–33; 440Jn 11:8; 440Jn 11:14; 154Jn 12:36, 46; 435Jn 13:14–17; 392Jn 13:16; 45Jn 14:10; 153Jn 15:2; 216Jn 15:4–7, 9–10; 153Jn 15:16; 216Jn 16:13; 151Jn 17:3; 201ActsAc 1:2; 48Ac 1:10; 146Ac 1:12–26; 48Ac 1:22; 48Ac 2:7, 12; 239Ac 2:22; 467Ac 2:29; 154Ac 2:38; 225Ac 2:42; 48Ac 2:43; 467Ac 2:44–45; 340Ac 3:4, 12; 146Ac 3:19; 159Ac 4:13, 29, 31; 154Ac 4:32–37; 340Ac 5:1–11; 297Ac 5:11; 259Ac 5:12; 467Ac 5:26; 440Ac 6:1; 333Ac 6:2; 48Ac 6:15; 146Ac 7:36; 468Ac 7:47, 49; 212Ac 7:55; 146Ac 7:58; 440Ac 7:59–60; 464Ac 8:1; 48Ac 8:13; 239Ac 8:39; 459Ac 9:1–19; 180Ac 9:3–9; 458Ac 9:8–25; 442Ac 9:12; 330Ac 9:13; 57Ac 9:15–16; 61, 180Ac 9:15; 49Ac 9:16; 68, 444Ac 9:20; 439Ac 9:21; 239Ac 9:22; 444Ac 9:23–25; 440Ac 9:28; 154Ac 9:29–30; 458Ac 9:31; 259Ac 9:35; 159Ac 9; 442Ac 10:4; 146Ac 10:45; 239Ac 11:6; 146Ac 11:19; 330Ac 11:21; 159Ac 11:25–26; 458Ac 11:27–30; 330Ac 11:29–30; 330Ac 11:29; 366, 333Ac 12:16; 239Ac 12:25; 330, 333Ac 13:1–3; 49, 458Ac 13:5; 439Ac 13:8; 440Ac 13:9; 146Ac 13:11; 467Ac 13:14–43; 439Ac 13:45; 440Ac 13:46; 154Ac 13:50; 440Ac 14:1; 439Ac 14:3; 154Ac 14:4; 48Ac 14:5–19; 440Ac 14:9; 146Ac 14:10; 467Ac 14:14; 48Ac 14:15–17; 368Ac 14:15; 159Ac 14:22; 68Ac 14:23; 360Ac 15:2; 48Ac 15:12; 467Ac 15:19; 159Ac 15:22–23; 48Ac 15:23–29; 330Ac 15:26; 333Ac 16:1–3; 45Ac 16:9–17:15; 332Ac 16:18; 467Ac 16:22–23; 440Ac 16:23–30; 439Ac 16:35–38; 440Ac 17:1–3; 439Ac 17:4; 235Ac 17:5; 440Ac 17:10–21; 439Ac 17:11–12; 416Ac 17:13–15; 45Ac 17:13; 440Ac 17:24–31; 66Ac 17:24–25; 377Ac 17:25; 368Ac 17:34; 416Ac 18:1–17; 20Ac 18:1–11; 46Ac 18:1–8; 419Ac 18:3; 45, 431Ac 18:4; 235, 439Ac 18:5; 45, 46, 332, 433Ac 18:6; 440Ac 18:8; 23Ac 18:9–10; 416, 458Ac 18:12; 216, 440Ac 18:16–17; 216Ac 18:17; 23Ac 18:19; 439Ac 18:21; 416Ac 18:24–28; 360Ac 18; 484Ac 19:8; 235, 439Ac 19:9; 440Ac 19:11–12; 467Ac 19:21–22; 332Ac 19:21; 331Ac 19:22; 20, 45Ac 19:23–41; 440Ac 19:26; 235Ac 20:1–4; 332Ac 20:2–4; 364Ac 20:3–4; 360Ac 20:3; 440Ac 20:4; 45, 331Ac 20:9–11; 440Ac 20:16; 331Ac 20:19; 440Ac 20:22; 331Ac 20:31; 440Ac 20:32; 56Ac 20:34–35; 431Ac 21:11; 331, 440Ac 21:15–26; 358Ac 21:27–36; 331Ac 21:27; 440Ac 21:30–31; 440Ac 22:3–16; 180Ac 22:5; 330Ac 22:6–11; 458Ac 22:22–24; 331Ac 22:25–29; 440Ac 22; 442Ac 23:1; 146Ac 23:11; 458Ac 24:4; 393Ac 24:17; 331, 358Ac 24:25; 151Ac 25:9; 315Ac 26:9–18; 180Ac 26:12–21; 442Ac 26:12–19; 458Ac 26:13; 181Ac 26:17–18; 180Ac 26:18; 56, 159, 435Ac 26:26; 154Ac 26:28; 235Ac 27:2; 332Ac 27:23–24; 458Ac 28:3–6, 8; 467Ac 28:23; 235Ac 28:26–27; 156Ac 28:31; 154RomansRo 1:1–7; 334Ro 1:1–5; 128Ro 1:1; 48, 128Ro 1:3; 241Ro 1:4; 438Ro 1:5–6; 419Ro 1:5; 48, 138–40, 166, 224, 226, 315, 413Ro 1:7; 47, 57, 333Ro 1:9; 360Ro 1:11–12; 68Ro 1:11; 212, 371Ro 1:14–16; 399Ro 1:14; 196Ro 1:16–21; 152Ro 1:16–17; 112, 225Ro 1:16; 395, 439Ro 1:18–32; 258Ro 1:18–25; 66Ro 1:18–21; 139Ro 1:21; 65, 188, 386Ro 1:22–25; 282Ro 1:22; 65Ro 1:29; 365Ro 2:2; 206Ro 2:4–5; 312Ro 2:5–11; 216–17Ro 2:5; 153, 457Ro 2:6–13; 413Ro 2:6; 435Ro 2:7; 368Ro 2:9; 62Ro 2:11–14; 152Ro 2:18; 337Ro 2:19; 281Ro 2:25–29; 413Ro 2:28; 241Ro 2:29; 405Ro 3:3; 147Ro 3:4–5; 153Ro 3:8; 436Ro 3:10–18; 283Ro 3:18; 259Ro 3:19; 206Ro 3:20; 241Ro 3:21–26; 85, 151, 248, 252Ro 3:21; 250Ro 3:23; 188Ro 3:25–26; 247Ro 3:26; 184, 340Ro 3:27; 82Ro 3:31; 147Ro 4:1–8; 226Ro 4:1–3; 152Ro 4:2–4; 226Ro 4:4–5; 233Ro 4:7–8; 462Ro 4:8; 160Ro 4:11; 85Ro 4:13–17; 287Ro 4:14; 364Ro 4:17; 181Ro 4:18–25; 224Ro 4:20–21; 232Ro 4:21; 367Ro 4:22–23; 233Ro 4:25; 184, 247Ro 5:1–5; 151Ro 5:2; 82, 190Ro 5:3; 62, 206Ro 5:6–11; 253Ro 5:6–7; 152Ro 5:8–9; 226Ro 5:8; 247Ro 5:9; 250Ro 5:10; 245Ro 5:11–21; 210Ro 5:11; 245, 250, 436Ro 5:12–21; 180Ro 5:12; 77Ro 5:15–6:23; 213Ro 5:16–19; 241Ro 5:17; 225Ro 6:1–23; 241, 263Ro 6:5–7; 226Ro 6:5–6; 189Ro 6:8; 492Ro 6:9; 206Ro 6:16–23; 161Ro 6:16–20; 81Ro 6:16; 206Ro 6:19; 281Ro 6:23; 226Ro 7:4; 226Ro 7:5; 242Ro 7:6–7; 142Ro 7:6; 147Ro 7:8; 237Ro 7:12; 132Ro 7:14–15; 152Ro 7:14; 132, 206Ro 7:18–19; 152Ro 7:18; 206, 242Ro 7:22–25; 189Ro 7:25; 107, 242Ro 8:1–13; 241Ro 8:1–6; 152Ro 8:1; 112, 250Ro 8:2–10; 151Ro 8:3–17; 81Ro 8:3–12; 242Ro 8:3–5; 82Ro 8:3–4; 140Ro 8:3; 45, 247, 413Ro 8:5–8; 81Ro 8:6–7; 82Ro 8:8–9; 82Ro 8:9–16; 196Ro 8:9; 504Ro 8:11; 196Ro 8:12–15; 152Ro 8:12–13; 82Ro 8:14; 196, 504Ro 8:15; 259, 286Ro 8:17–25; 196Ro 8:17; 492Ro 8:18–24; 152Ro 8:18; 62, 190, 340Ro 8:19; 457Ro 8:21; 190Ro 8:22–25; 212Ro 8:23; 140, 196, 213, 286Ro 8:24–25; 191Ro 8:24; 294Ro 8:26; 206Ro 8:27; 312, 333Ro 8:28–39; 66Ro 8:28–30; 74, 180, 190, 225Ro 8:28; 206Ro 8:29; 56, 492Ro 8:31–39; 76Ro 8:32; 184, 204, 490Ro 8:35; 62Ro 8:38–39; 308Ro 9:1; 433Ro 9:2–3; 439Ro 9:3; 241, 391Ro 9:4; 286–87Ro 9:5; 241Ro 9:6–9; 438Ro 9:8; 241Ro 9:22–29; 66Ro 9:28, 29; 160Ro 9:33; 442Ro 10:6–8; 160Ro 10:9–10; 370Ro 10:12; 337Ro 10:13; 160Ro 10:14–18; 128Ro 10:14–15; 360Ro 10:15; 44, 247, 284Ro 11:1–24; 136Ro 11:1–6; 438Ro 11:1; 438Ro 11:4; 331Ro 11:5; 340Ro 11:7–10; 156Ro 11:8; 158Ro 11:11; 340Ro 11:12; 245, 337, 369Ro 11:13; 49, 117, 128, 340Ro 11:15; 245, 369Ro 11:25–26; 331, 340Ro 11:30–32; 340Ro 11:30; 250Ro 11:33–36; 33, 66, 372Ro 11:34; 112, 160Ro 11:36; 136, 178Ro 12:1–2; 216, 333Ro 12:1; 33, 93, 392Ro 12:2; 337Ro 12:3; 402Ro 12:8; 81, 313, 332, 367Ro 12:11; 313Ro 12:13; 333Ro 12:16; 392Ro 12:17–18; 197Ro 12:17; 361Ro 12:19; 287Ro 13:3; 368Ro 13:4; 129Ro 13:6; 370Ro 13:8–10; 226Ro 13:11; 206, 250Ro 13:12–13; 396Ro 13:12; 281Ro 13:14; 209Ro 14:4; 367Ro 14:8; 398Ro 14:10–12; 216Ro 14:11; 160Ro 14:13–21; 503Ro 14:13; 442Ro 14:17–18; 216–17Ro 14:17; 151Ro 14:18; 337Ro 14:19; 399Ro 14:21; 442Ro 14:22; 337Ro 15:1–3; 324Ro 15:2–3; 93Ro 15:2; 399Ro 15:3; 337Ro 15:7–9; 331Ro 15:7; 93, 361Ro 15:8; 129, 287Ro 15:11; 160Ro 15:14–22; 49Ro 15:14; 391Ro 15:16; 56Ro 15:17–18; 436Ro 15:17; 82Ro 15:18–29; 331Ro 15:18–19; 467Ro 15:18; 138, 140, 224, 315, 413Ro 15:19; 420Ro 15:20–21; 419Ro 15:20; 399Ro 15:21; 285Ro 15:25–32; 330Ro 15:25–28; 329, 364Ro 15:25–26; 57, 330Ro 15:25; 117Ro 15:26; 333, 342, 359Ro 15:27; 331, 340, 342, 370Ro 15:30–32; 331Ro 15:30–31; 358Ro 15:30; 392Ro 15:31; 117, 330, 440Ro 15:32; 43Ro 15:33; 498Ro 16:1–2; 330Ro 16:1; 20, 128Ro 16:3–5; 345Ro 16:3; 362Ro 16:4; 333Ro 16:5; 28Ro 16:6; 404Ro 16:7; 48Ro 16:9; 362Ro 16:10; 337Ro 16:12; 404Ro 16:16; 497Ro 16:17–20; 427Ro 16:17; 442Ro 16:19; 315Ro 16:20; 338, 498Ro 16:21; 45, 362Ro 16:23; 28, 345Ro 16:25–26; 336Ro 16:25; 457Ro 16:26; 138–39, 2241 Corinthians1Co 1:1–3; 431Co 1:1; 43, 48, 128, 3341Co 1:2; 20, 56–57, 129, 178, 333, 4641Co 1:3; 47, 1781Co 1:4–4:13; 1851Co 1:5; 28, 335–361Co 1:7; 178, 340, 4571Co 1:8–9; 1371Co 1:8; 82, 3351Co 1:10–13; 1931Co 1:10; 90, 338, 392, 5031Co 1:12–13; 4191Co 1:13; 1781Co 1:17–31; 129, 1371Co 1:17–25; 1181Co 1:17–19; 29, 27, 120, 151, 194, 2661Co 1:17–18; 111, 1851Co 1:17; 44, 238, 364, 410, 450, 4611Co 1:18–2:15; 4671Co 1:18–25; 491, 4951Co 1:18–21; 1521Co 1:18; 176, 395, 4931Co 1:19; 1871Co 1:20–22; 241Co 1:20; 81, 1381Co 1:23; 178, 395, 4421Co 1:26–31; 195, 424, 4361Co 1:26–29; 4051Co 1:26–27; 231Co 1:26; 3971Co 1:28–31; 4001Co 1:28; 147, 151, 181, 4001Co 1:29; 82, 2421Co 1:30; 115, 1511Co 1:31; 82, 187, 4051Co 2:1–5; 120, 125, 137, 182, 185, 236, 238, 266, 391, 410, 423, 4501Co 2:2–5; 35, 1091Co 2:2; 1291Co 2:3–5; 182, 4751Co 2:3; 3151Co 2:5–11; 3141Co 2:5; 178, 195, 266, 400, 4481Co 2:6–16; 128, 371Co 2:6; 1471Co 2:9–13; 1371Co 2:9; 1871Co 2:12–16; 1951Co 2:12–14; 3381Co 2:12; 811Co 2:13–16; 921Co 2:13–14; 1701Co 2:13; 410, 4501Co 2:14–16; 2661Co 2:14; 170, 450, 4911Co 2:16; 92, 1601Co 3:1–4; 5041Co 3:1–3; 90, 137, 5031Co 3:1–2; 3931Co 3:1; 140, 4851Co 3:2–4; 1521Co 3:3; 193, 4361Co 3:4–9; 178, 4191Co 3:5–9; 4661Co 3:8; 4041Co 3:9–10; 3991Co 3:9; 196, 208, 3621Co 3:10–15; 280, 2911Co 3:12; 398–991Co 3:13; 3371Co 3:14; 153, 3991Co 3:16–18; 1961Co 3:16–17; 283, 291, 3991Co 3:16; 129, 195, 206, 282, 4881Co 3:17; 4361Co 3:18–22; 5031Co 3:18; 193, 3981Co 3:19–20; 1871Co 3:19; 811Co 3:20; 1601Co 3:21; 82, 1931Co 3:23; 3981Co 4:1–21; 291Co 4:1–5; 154, 2271Co 4:1; 1781Co 4:2; 2091Co 4:3–5; 4131Co 4:4–5; 821Co 4:5; 2811Co 4:5–7; 4361Co 4:6–21; 2401Co 4:7; 28, 82, 136, 139, 173, 193, 365, 5031Co 4:8–15; 4321Co 4:8–14; 1851Co 4:8–13; 109, 176, 185, 2381Co 4:8; 215, 336, 4901Co 4:9–11; 1851Co 4:9; 35, 109, 184–85, 1971Co 4:10; 4371Co 4:11–13; 67, 1141Co 4:11–12; 116, 4401Co 4:11; 4631Co 4:12–13; 1841Co 4:12; 431, 433, 4391Co 4:13–5:10; 1371Co 4:13; 4411Co 4:14–21; 29, 881Co 4:14–17; 1161Co 4:14–15; 20, 83, 116, 270, 307–8, 4851Co 4:14; 901Co 4:15–17; 1931Co 4:15; 29, 116–17, 403, 426, 4671Co 4:16; 29, 90, 5031Co 4:17; 29, 461Co 4:18–21; 3931Co 4:19–21; 1391Co 4:21; 87, 312, 3931Co 5–7; 1921Co 5:1–6:20; 215, 2441Co 5:1–13; 87, 4881Co 5:1–5; 87, 89, 314, 393, 399, 4901Co 5:1–2; 24, 488, 5031Co 5:2; 881Co 5:3–5; 89, 3121Co 5:3; 5031Co 5:4–5; 1951Co 5:4; 90, 178, 5021Co 5:5; 82, 88, 90, 189, 242, 488, 5031Co 5:6; 82, 2061Co 5:7; 90, 1381Co 5:8; 81, 901Co 5:9–13; 1391Co 5:9–11; 4881Co 5:9–10; 290, 2921Co 5:9; 20, 311Co 5:10–11; 282, 3651Co 5:10; 2791Co 5:11–6:2; 471Co 5:11–13; 2901Co 5:11; 226, 291, 5031Co 5:12–13; 87, 2161Co 5:13; 88, 5031Co 6:1–20; 2911Co 6:1–11; 3141Co 6:1–6; 4901Co 6:1–2; 57, 3331Co 6:1; 90, 313, 3151Co 6:2–3; 2061Co 6:4–8; 5031Co 6:4; 901Co 6:6–7; 901Co 6:6; 279–801Co 6:7; 881Co 6:9–20; 241Co 6:9–11; 137, 138–39, 217, 226, 295, 3991Co 6:9–10; 2161Co 6:9; 138, 206, 2821Co 6:10; 3651Co 6:11; 56, 137–38, 178, 2471Co 6:12–20; 2791Co 6:12; 3381Co 6:13; 1471Co 6:15; 2061Co 6:15–20; 4881Co 6:16; 206, 2411Co 6:17–19; 2881Co 6:18; 901Co 6:19–20; 138, 2951Co 6:19; 129, 195, 206, 282, 4881Co 6:20; 90, 1401Co 7:1–40; 3361Co 7:1; 3631Co 7:6; 3361Co 7:7; 1151Co 7:9; 4421Co 7:10–16; 2911Co 7:12–15; 279–80, 2921Co 7:15; 1971Co 7:17; 3601Co 7:19; 138, 2261Co 7:20–24; 23, 3451Co 7:21–22; 1611Co 7:23; 1291Co 7:25; 336, 338, 3631Co 7:28; 621Co 7:32–34; 4411Co 7:34; 189, 2881Co 7:35; 3381Co 7:39; 1611Co 8–10; 2901Co 8:1–11:1; 193, 2791Co 8:1–13; 901Co 8:1–7; 23, 3351Co 8:1–3; 291Co 8:1; 28, 193, 363, 3991Co 8:2–3; 3981Co 8:4–6; 25, 671Co 8:6; 51, 115, 136, 1781Co 8:7–13; 2901Co 8:7; 281Co 8:9–13; 1781Co 8:9; 90, 3971Co 8:10; 28, 3351Co 8:11–13; 291Co 8:11; 28, 5031Co 8:13; 90, 432, 4421Co 9:1–27; 29, 240, 1931Co 9:1–23; 90, 1141Co 9:1–18; 3911Co 9:1–5; 231Co 9:1–2; 29, 49, 116–17, 1281Co 9:1; 48, 161, 178, 4581Co 9:2; 4661Co 9:3–23; 291Co 9:3–14; 4331Co 9:3–6; 1141Co 9:5; 1131Co 9:7–18; 4681Co 9:7; 396, 4331Co 9:12–23; 116, 176, 4321Co 9:12–18; 1781Co 9:12; 4341Co 9:13; 2061Co 9:15–23; 29, 4391Co 9:15–18; 128, 238, 4331Co 9:15; 82, 3641Co 9:16–17; 152, 1751Co 9:17; 4341Co 9:18; 175, 431, 4851Co 9:19–23; 178, 238, 292, 4391Co 9:19–22; 4321Co 9:23–27; 2271Co 9:24; 140, 2061Co 10:4; 1601Co 10:7–10; 1401Co 10:7; 2821Co 10:11; 661Co 10:13; 75, 137–38, 1971Co 10:14–30; 2901Co 10:14–22; 2911Co 10:14; 25, 90, 140, 282, 2881Co 10:19; 2821Co 10:20–30; 251Co 10:23–32; 901Co 10:23–24; 291Co 10:23; 3381Co 10:24; 324, 432, 5031Co 10:26; 1601Co 10:27; 279–80, 2921Co 10:29; 1611Co 10:31–11:1; 29, 1931Co 10:31; 361, 453, 5031Co 10:33; 90, 324, 338, 4321Co 11:1; 29, 89–90, 332, 5031Co 11:3; 3321Co 11:9; 661Co 11:12; 1151Co 11:13–15; 281Co 11:17–34; 241Co 11:17–22; 5031Co 11:19; 3371Co 11:23–26; 2471Co 11:23, 25; 1291Co 11:26–27; 1781Co 11:27; 1391Co 11:28; 3371Co 11:30–32; 1391Co 11:33–34; 901Co 12–14; 1931Co 12–13; 1791Co 12:1–4; 2391Co 12:2; 2821Co 12:3; 137, 178–79, 1841Co 12:7; 115, 179, 3381Co 12:8–10; 3351Co 12:8; 28, 3351Co 12:9–10; 3351Co 12:9; 1871Co 12:12–14; 1521Co 12:12–13; 1961Co 12:13; 129, 137, 161, 1791Co 12:25; 4411Co 12:26; 95, 1001Co 12:27; 1291Co 12:28; 48, 50, 3351Co 13; 29, 339, 3461Co 13:1–3; 138, 2381Co 13:1–2; 4571Co 13:1; 281Co 13:2; 28, 3351Co 13:3; 3461Co 13:5; 3241Co 13:8–13; 2381Co 13:8; 153, 3351Co 13:10; 1531Co 13:11; 147, 1531Co 13:12; 2011Co 13:13; 153, 2031Co 14:1–12; 2381Co 14:1; 5031Co 14:2–8; 2391Co 14:3; 3991Co 14:4–5; 291Co 14:5; 3991Co 14:6; 335, 4581Co 14:7; 1511Co 14:8; 3641Co 14:9; 3351Co 14:12; 179, 3991Co 14:14–15; 2391Co 14:18–19; 29, 238, 457, 4701Co 14:18; 2391Co 14:19; 3351Co 14:20; 5031Co 14:22–24; 279–801Co 14:23; 239, 2661Co 14:26–33; 2391Co 14:26; 399, 4581Co 14:33; 57, 3331Co 14:34; 3601Co 14:37; 3981Co 14:39; 3351Co 15:1–11; 458, 4671Co 15:1–3; 1291Co 15:1–2; 1391Co 15:1; 3321Co 15:2; 2251Co 15:3–5; 2471Co 15:3–4; 1371Co 15:3; 4311Co 15:5–8; 481Co 15:8–11; 29, 4311Co 15:8–10; 1801Co 15:8–9; 4661Co 15:8; 48, 4581Co 15:9–11; 4681Co 15:9–10; 113, 1751Co 15:9; 49, 821Co 15:10; 116, 364, 400, 404, 431, 439, 440, 4661Co 15:11–12; 1781Co 15:11; 4311Co 15:12; 199, 2151Co 15:14; 3641Co 15:15; 2091Co 15:17–19; 1981Co 15:17; 1371Co 15:20–28; 65, 2131Co 15:20; 1961Co 15:21–55; 2101Co 15:23; 196, 3981Co 15:24; 1471Co 15:25; 1961Co 15:26; 77, 1471Co 15:30–32; 1981Co 15:31; 82, 109, 1781Co 15:32; 64, 67, 198, 4401Co 15:42–49; 180, 2131Co 15:45; 1961Co 15:50–55; 2081Co 15:50–54; 2111Co 15:53–55; 2091Co 15:54; 2131Co 15:57; 106, 1781Co 15:58; 140, 206, 216, 288, 364, 368, 4041Co 16:1–9; 841Co 16:1–4; 329–30, 3801Co 16:1–2; 331, 334, 338, 3411Co 16:1; 333, 3631Co 16:2; 3451Co 16:3; 335, 337, 342, 3601Co 16:5–9; 201Co 16:5–7; 831Co 16:6; 3311Co 16:10–11; 20, 3141Co 16:10; 46, 362, 3971Co 16:12; 335, 3631Co 16:13–14; 140, 4961Co 16:15–16; 3301Co 16:15; 46, 333, 3641Co 16:16; 362, 4041Co 16:17–18; 3301Co 16:17; 3111Co 16:19; 28, 3451Co 16:20; 4971Co 16:22; 139, 178, 312, 4641Co 16:23; 338, 4982 Corinthians2Co 1–9; 31–33, 1052Co 1–7; 32, 106, 3902Co 1; 322Co 1:1–7:16; 3292Co 1:1–2:13; 312Co 1:1–2; 73, 1682Co 1:1; 20, 45, 65, 69, 81, 128–29, 287, 333–34, 362, 364, 398, 4932Co 1:2–3; 1782Co 1:3–7:1; 3902Co 1:3–2:13; 4002Co 1:3–11; 32, 35, 82, 86, 107, 109, 115, 118, 178, 181–82, 187, 235, 269, 320, 396, 424, 444, 457, 465, 4912Co 1:3–7; 270, 309, 332–33, 425, 4942Co 1:3–6; 186, 3092Co 1:3–4; 3102Co 1:3; 35, 85, 101, 107, 124, 187–88, 359, 380, 477, 5082Co 1:4–7; 4942Co 1:4–6; 101, 3322Co 1:4; 3092Co 1:5–6; 3702Co 1:5; 394, 4252Co 1:6–7; 1932Co 1:6; 190, 308, 441, 4772Co 1:7; 35, 137, 166, 4982Co 1:8–11; 35, 81, 91, 110, 188, 190, 238, 308, 332, 384, 425, 444, 465, 4942Co 1:8–10; 184, 2732Co 1:8; 128, 183, 190, 332, 440, 4972Co 1:9–10; 4652Co 1:9; 35, 84, 109, 124, 1842Co 1:10–11; 1862Co 1:10; 184, 3702Co 1:11; 35, 85, 101, 124, 187–88, 398, 4772Co 1:12–2:13; 1162Co 1:12–2:11; 32, 59, 3082Co 1:12–2:4; 30, 77, 236, 2402Co 1:12–22; 3922Co 1:12–14; 69, 176, 238, 454, 458, 4932Co 1:12; 114–15, 154, 332, 394, 412, 428, 465, 4932Co 1:13–14; 2372Co 1:13; 3932Co 1:14; 216, 272, 309, 317, 436–372Co 1:15–2:4; 391–922Co 1:15–2:1; 4842Co 1:15–16; 202Co 1:17; 111, 2062Co 1:18–22; 124, 196, 320, 3952Co 1:18; 4332Co 1:19–20; 1372Co 1:19; 46, 178, 4612Co 1:20–22; 162, 1972Co 1:20; 35, 101, 124, 244, 287, 3412Co 1:21–22; 1152Co 1:21; 136, 5012Co 1:22; 124, 138–40, 166, 188, 212–14, 219, 282, 294, 320, 344, 499, 5012Co 1:23–2:4; 20, 270, 306, 4922Co 1:23–24; 21, 398, 4942Co 1:23; 196, 266, 393, 433, 4892Co 1:24–2:6; 3292Co 1:24; 119, 273, 310, 313, 332, 362, 404, 434, 437, 485, 499, 4892Co 2:1–5; 4612Co 2:1–4; 2762Co 2:1; 20, 111, 311, 393, 4892Co 2:3–4; 20–21, 332, 3932Co 2:3; 332, 4892Co 2:4–11; 3992Co 2:4–5; 3142Co 2:4; 19, 21, 62, 105, 111, 311, 238, 272, 308, 332, 334–35, 433, 441, 484, 486, 4982Co 2:5–11; 21, 61, 77, 80, 121, 123, 257, 263, 329, 394, 412, 468, 489–902Co 2:5–8; 202Co 2:5–6; 311, 5022Co 2:5; 80, 393, 5032Co 2:6–7; 4342Co 2:6; 46, 3152Co 2:7–11; 1542Co 2:7–10; 3442Co 2:7; 501, 3322Co 2:8–9; 802Co 2:8; 3352Co 2:9; 21, 315, 332, 335, 337, 370, 406, 4842Co 2:10–11; 5032Co 2:10; 433, 5022Co 2:11; 281–82, 308, 396, 4272Co 2:12–7:1; 32, 3062Co 2:12–3:3; 126, 1412Co 2:12–14; 166, 2382Co 2:12–13; 21, 30, 67, 182, 306, 309, 317, 4412Co 2:13–14; 312Co 2:13; 2402Co 2:14; 16, 34, 74, 181, 184–85, 187–88, 197, 245, 282, 309, 312, 332, 359, 370, 380, 394–96, 415, 431, 437, 474, 477, 485, 491, 4942Co 2:14–7:16; 3412Co 2:14–7:4; 2432Co 2:14–7:1; 277, 3062Co 2:14–6:13; 31, 128, 4112Co 2:14–4:18; 243, 3082Co 2:14–3:18; 141, 163, 278, 400, 492, 5002Co 2:14–3:17; 1762Co 2:14–3:14; 3002Co 2:14–3:6; 142, 2882Co 2:14–3:3; 30, 175, 188, 214, 317, 360, 390–91, 425, 461, 63, 67, 782Co 2:14–17; 27, 35, 235–37, 278, 391, 395–96, 411, 413, 424–25, 442, 444, 457, 4652Co 2:14–16; 19, 62, 175, 178, 182–83, 186, 269, 391, 396–97, 458, 465, 489, 4952Co 2:15–16; 151, 156, 176, 194, 249, 268, 270, 312, 4932Co 2:15; 4342Co 2:16–3:13; 2472Co 2:16–3:3; 1452Co 2:16–17; 126, 127, 1792Co 2:16; 34, 46, 132, 142, 146, 177, 184, 320, 400, 425, 4342Co 2:17–3:3; 154, 308, 4672Co 2:17; 30, 32, 67, 80–81, 129, 175–76, 178, 235, 237–38, 267, 308, 314, 361, 391, 394, 399, 400, 404, 412, 428, 430, 432, 434, 437, 439, 454, 461, 468, 477, 484, 487, 490, 493, 498, 5002Co 3; 152Co 3:1–18; 27, 33, 183, 278, 4282Co 3:1–6; 49, 187, 274, 4872Co 3:1–3; 49, 86, 88, 126, 163, 175–76, 236, 391, 398, 403–4, 411–12, 425, 4652Co 3:1–2; 175, 272, 308, 4662Co 3:1; 30, 32, 145, 237, 269, 274, 313, 413, 428, 4342Co 3:2–6; 399, 425, 4942Co 3:2–3; 157, 237, 320, 395–96, 398, 413, 437, 4672Co 3:2; 238, 270, 272, 288, 433, 4662Co 3:3–18; 30, 293, 309, 379, 4982Co 3:3–11; 2682Co 3:3–6; 94, 155, 159, 162–63, 188, 236, 282, 436, 4942Co 3:3; 126, 137, 152, 160–61, 166, 175, 181, 187, 195, 217, 214, 242, 282, 288, 294, 309–10, 312, 341, 344, 485, 5002Co 3:4–18; 30, 34, 4342Co 3:4–6; 78, 81, 104, 112–13, 141, 153, 165, 175, 179, 302, 395, 458, 465–66, 5032Co 3:4–5; 46, 142, 400, 4932Co 3:4; 125–27, 154, 163, 175, 1862Co 3:5–6; 4992Co 3:6–18; 35, 242, 249, 258, 3442Co 3:6–11; 3982Co 3:6–9; 1172Co 3:6–8; 1282Co 3:6; 118, 142–43, 145–46, 152, 160–61, 163, 175, 181, 187, 214, 217, 282, 310, 341, 294, 398, 435, 501, 5062Co 3:7–4:6; 4662Co 3:7–18; 32, 86, 104, 130, 133, 175, 224, 236, 241, 248, 251, 288, 380, 465, 488, 494, 501, 5062Co 3:7–14; 2822Co 3:7–11; 195, 225, 2472Co 3:7–9; 333, 3702Co 3:7; 117, 129, 1842Co 3:8–11; 352Co 3:8–9; 214, 2172Co 3:8; 162–63, 175, 177, 282, 294, 3092Co 3:9–11; 177, 2132Co 3:9; 117, 129, 163, 225, 251, 276, 281, 294, 313, 368, 372, 4352Co 3:10; 188, 371, 3782Co 3:11; 1172Co 3:12–18; 3272Co 3:12; 112, 125, 175–76, 179, 186, 188, 214, 270, 3092Co 3:14–18; 46, 244, 3782Co 3:14–15; 133, 177–78, 249, 2682Co 3:14; 133, 178, 3962Co 3:16–18; 124, 163, 180–81, 188, 195, 219, 283, 3712Co 3:17–18; 137, 195, 3982Co 3:17; 1782Co 3:18; 21, 56, 61, 81, 123, 177, 180–81, 190–91, 196, 204, 213–14, 216, 244, 248, 251, 281–82, 292, 294–95, 302, 320, 324, 341, 361–62, 379, 411, 428, 488, 493, 501, 5062Co 4:1–18; 236, 274, 3002Co 4:1–15; 4922Co 4:1–6; 67, 146, 235, 425, 487, 4952Co 4:1–3; 1372Co 4:1–2; 239, 272, 4542Co 4:1; 112, 117, 128, 145, 214, 268, 274, 333, 370, 4932Co 4:2; 32, 82, 115–16, 235, 238, 269, 313–14, 318, 320, 361, 400, 412–13, 425, 466, 4942Co 4:3–6; 94, 2822Co 4:3–4; 120, 244, 3782Co 4:3; 5072Co 4:4–6; 35, 166, 245, 250–51, 254, 281, 320, 362, 396, 454, 5012Co 4:4–5; 4362Co 4:4; 19, 162, 210, 213, 248, 250, 280, 302, 427, 4352Co 4:5–6; 4582Co 4:5; 242, 270, 272, 434, 437, 454, 4992Co 4:6–5:21; 352Co 4:6–7; 192Co 4:6; 128, 161–62, 210, 213, 318, 378, 398, 435, 499, 503, 5072Co 4:7–5:15; 3942Co 4:7–18; 74, 444, 4662Co 4:7–15; 63, 78, 238, 4912Co 4:7–14; 3092Co 4:7–13; 2382Co 4:7–12; 35, 62, 77–78, 109–10, 269, 273, 312, 396–97, 415, 424–25, 429, 457, 465, 485, 4922Co 4:7–11; 2082Co 4:7–10; 762Co 4:7–9; 642Co 4:7; 27, 398, 425, 475, 477, 4912Co 4:8–10; 3702Co 4:8–9; 67, 1872Co 4:8; 3322Co 4:9–13; 4612Co 4:10–12; 63, 67, 235, 308, 485, 4942Co 4:10–11; 2152Co 4:10; 109, 2402Co 4:11; 241, 309, 437, 4942Co 4:12; 184, 270, 441, 4942Co 4:13–5:18; 562Co 4:13–5:10; 192Co 4:13–5:1; 2122Co 4:13–17; 1122Co 4:13–16; 2122Co 4:13–15; 19, 56, 235, 3982Co 4:13–14; 137, 3702Co 4:13; 2822Co 4:14; 85, 206, 211, 213, 217, 365, 427, 4922Co 4:15–18; 3092Co 4:15; 35, 187, 270, 361, 368, 379, 437, 441, 4942Co 4:16–18; 215, 206–7, 209, 299, 5082Co 4:16; 210, 2142Co 4:17–18; 216, 3702Co 4:17; 62, 211, 214, 219, 332, 378–792Co 4:18–5:1; 2152Co 4:18; 211–12, 220, 229, 3652Co 5:1–6:2; 2052Co 5:1–10; 3022Co 5:1–4; 1522Co 5:5; 140, 188, 2822Co 5:6–6:2; 942Co 5:6–10; 3352Co 5:6; 206, 3922Co 5:7; 2042Co 5:8; 3922Co 5:9–11; 1152Co 5:9–10; 3152Co 5:9; 4132Co 5:10–11; 61, 139, 241, 312, 314, 3932Co 5:10; 82, 85, 137, 153, 276, 317, 406, 413, 487, 500–5012Co 5:11–6:2; 67, 379, 4252Co 5:11–16; 1392Co 5:11–12; 396, 4582Co 5:11; 19, 82, 206, 287, 295, 303, 313, 413, 4612Co 5:12–15; 2722Co 5:12–13; 308, 4602Co 5:12; 32, 60, 80, 82, 116, 269–70, 272, 274, 313, 411–13, 425, 4662Co 5:13–15; 398, 4872Co 5:13; 3122Co 5:14–6:2; 3952Co 5:14–21; 112, 1512Co 5:14–15; 308, 4112Co 5:14; 394, 433, 465, 4982Co 5:15–17; 3712Co 5:15; 27, 35, 273, 312, 324, 333, 3412Co 5:16–6:2; 21, 314, 390, 436, 5032Co 5:16–19; 562Co 5:16; 27, 812Co 5:17; 21, 27, 56, 61, 81, 137, 161–65, 195, 295, 309, 324, 341, 411, 428, 488, 493, 500–501, 5062Co 5:18–6:2; 32, 268, 312, 318, 390, 3972Co 5:18–21; 3312Co 5:18–20; 492–932Co 5:18–19; 137, 275, 4872Co 5:18; 115, 117, 128, 268, 276, 333, 370, 4652Co 5:19; 2682Co 5:20–6:2; 47, 56, 61, 489, 4982Co 5:20–6:1; 5012Co 5:20–21; 2762Co 5:20; 81, 194, 270, 272, 312–13, 318, 335, 391, 487, 490, 4962Co 5:21; 85, 166, 225, 281, 294, 337, 3682Co 6:1–10; 1872Co 6:1–3; 1392Co 6:1–2; 268, 269, 317, 358, 4932Co 6:1; 19, 21, 61, 81, 237, 270, 312, 318, 320, 331, 335, 391, 4962Co 6:2; 310, 3982Co 6:3–10; 35, 63, 76, 78, 109–10, 122, 181–82, 238, 240, 273, 278, 308, 415, 425, 444, 457, 465, 485, 487, 491–92, 4982Co 6:3–4; 1282Co 6:3; 32, 116–17, 308, 333, 361, 3702Co 6:4–10; 32, 67, 394, 396, 400, 412–132Co 6:4–5; 114, 4372Co 6:4; 116, 313, 332, 398, 411, 425, 466–67, 4932Co 6:5; 431, 439, 4402Co 6:6–7; 3952Co 6:6; 428, 433, 4982Co 6:7; 276, 368, 396, 4112Co 6:8; 4412Co 6:9; 109, 4882Co 6:10; 309, 332, 337, 342, 3702Co 6:11–7:16; 2372Co 6:11–7:3; 3092Co 6:11–13; 19, 116, 278, 297, 306–8, 333, 5012Co 6:11–12; 4852Co 6:11; 3352Co 6:12–13; 3352Co 6:12; 412, 4372Co 6:13–14; 312Co 6:13; 47, 426, 486, 4982Co 6:14–7:4; 19, 212Co 6:14–7:1; 31, 47, 61, 129, 181, 196, 213, 243–44, 278, 306–7, 329, 341, 358, 379, 390, 395–96, 404, 411, 488, 490, 496, 500, 5062Co 6:14–18; 3792Co 6:14–17; 427, 4952Co 6:14–15; 5012Co 6:14; 435, 4982Co 6:16–18; 1632Co 6:16; 137, 465, 499–5002Co 6:18; 4972Co 7:1–2; 312Co 7:1; 19, 140, 189, 241, 259, 312, 320, 335, 5012Co 7:2–9:15; 32, 3902Co 7:2–16; 19, 46, 61, 181, 5002Co 7:2–13; 2402Co 7:2–4; 19, 297, 329, 3612Co 7:2–3; 47, 4112Co 7:2; 5012Co 7:3–4; 4372Co 7:3; 116, 270, 272, 485, 4412Co 7:4–16; 4842Co 7:4–13; 3332Co 7:4–5; 31, 622Co 7:4; 82, 116, 272, 332, 3632Co 7:5–16; 21, 312Co 7:5–7; 106, 3942Co 7:5–6; 273, 3342Co 7:5; 106, 241, 4412Co 7:6–7; 682Co 7:6; 392, 4892Co 7:7–16; 802Co 7:7–8; 892Co 7:7; 272, 332, 335, 3712Co 7:8–16; 212Co 7:8–13; 20, 88, 94, 411, 4882Co 7:8–12; 88, 3952Co 7:8–11; 5002Co 7:8; 393, 3992Co 7:9–16; 3292Co 7:9–12; 123, 4122Co 7:9–11; 89, 213, 3582Co 7:9–10; 312, 3442Co 7:9; 3322Co 7:10; 184, 329, 501, 5052Co 7:11–12; 333, 335, 360, 362–63, 4932Co 7:11; 329, 371, 4132Co 7:12; 20, 337, 393, 466, 4682Co 7:13–16; 335, 3942Co 7:13; 3322Co 7:14; 82, 334, 363, 437, 4942Co 7:16; 330, 332, 392, 4372Co 8–9; 19, 32, 93, 329, 390, 485–862Co 8; 312Co 8:1–9:15; 21, 32, 612Co 8:1–9:14; 352Co 8:1–15; 3602Co 8:1–7; 362–632Co 8:1–4; 3232Co 8:1; 84, 263, 360, 432, 4972Co 8:2; 314, 332, 3622Co 8:4; 57, 84, 117, 309, 360, 371–72, 388, 4982Co 8:5; 432Co 8:6–12; 3812Co 8:6–7; 842Co 8:6; 316, 360, 363, 371–72, 486–872Co 8:7–15; 359, 3632Co 8:7–8; 140, 313, 332, 365, 493, 5032Co 8:7; 360, 362, 371–72, 396, 404, 433, 486, 498, 5012Co 8:8; 323, 362, 399, 406, 4982Co 8:9; 93, 166, 187, 251, 360, 370–72, 406, 4912Co 8:10; 363, 3802Co 8:11–12; 3612Co 8:11; 5012Co 8:12; 812Co 8:14; 3702Co 8:16–24; 30, 4862Co 8:16–17; 313, 3462Co 8:16; 1062Co 8:17–19; 4862Co 8:17; 3092Co 8:18–24; 4852Co 8:18; 4872Co 8:19–20; 3302Co 8:19; 84, 335, 3392Co 8:20–21; 83, 4862Co 8:21; 1602Co 8:22; 313, 4062Co 8:23; 48, 4982Co 8:24; 82, 272, 309, 316, 335, 498, 5032Co 9; 312Co 9:1; 117, 330, 332–33, 3422Co 9:2–3; 82, 3092Co 9:2; 46, 206, 272, 334, 3392Co 9:3–5; 4842Co 9:3; 316, 5032Co 9:4; 3302Co 9:5–11; 339–402Co 9:5; 335, 341, 3462Co 9:6–15; 2632Co 9:6–11; 84, 344, 3902Co 9:6–7; 3232Co 9:7; 84, 336–37, 4982Co 9:8–11; 3412Co 9:8; 3322Co 9:9; 1532Co 9:11–15; 352Co 9:11; 81, 3322Co 9:12–15; 33, 152, 189, 3302Co 9:12–13; 117, 330, 342, 3612Co 9:12; 332–33, 3422Co 9:13; 81, 140, 332–33, 406, 498, 5032Co 9:15; 107, 3312Co 10–13; 31–33, 80, 329, 390, 429, 434, 489, 494, 497–982Co 10:1–13:14; 312Co 10:1–13:10; 32, 1042Co 10:1–11; 4252Co 10:1–7; 5012Co 10:1–6; 19, 32, 45, 242, 484–85, 493–942Co 10:1–2; 249, 4982Co 10:1; 33, 489, 4962Co 10:2–6; 3592Co 10:2; 812Co 10:3–6; 4332Co 10:4–6; 463, 4952Co 10:4–5; 4432Co 10:6–8; 212Co 10:6; 21, 4692Co 10:7–18; 672Co 10:7; 19, 238, 460, 463, 466, 474, 4932Co 10:8–11; 3112Co 10:8; 47, 56, 82, 130, 318, 332, 336, 465, 489, 492, 4942Co 10:10–11; 212Co 10:10; 30, 60, 120, 238, 242, 437, 450, 478, 4912Co 10:11–18; 4612Co 10:11–14; 4602Co 10:11; 4632Co 10:12–18; 30, 49, 80, 116, 301, 309, 313, 363, 424–25, 445, 457, 467, 4872Co 10:12–16; 430, 4632Co 10:12; 30, 269, 313, 428, 4342Co 10:13–18; 4342Co 10:13–15; 4582Co 10:13–14; 202Co 10:14–18; 4932Co 10:14; 117, 4662Co 10:15–16; 46, 2492Co 10:16–18; 2742Co 10:17–18; 423–24, 436, 446, 458, 4652Co 10:17; 822Co 10:18; 116, 127, 269, 313, 337, 425, 439, 463, 4662Co 11:1–12:13; 400, 423, 4562Co 11:1–12:11; 400, 4112Co 11:1–12:10; 412, 4792Co 11:1–15; 80, 1762Co 11:1–12; 2402Co 11:1–6; 772Co 11:1–4; 192Co 11:1; 406, 4662Co 11:2–4; 1162Co 11:2–3; 3962Co 11:2; 117, 270, 4982Co 11:3–4; 291, 4612Co 11:3; 81, 178, 250, 282, 3322Co 11:4–20; 1792Co 11:4–6; 4782Co 11:4; 20, 29, 33, 113, 176, 179, 184, 242, 248, 395, 417, 419, 463, 4882Co 11:5; 398, 463, 466, 4932Co 11:6; 30, 120, 238, 417, 396, 423, 4742Co 11:7–33; 632Co 11:7–15; 1142Co 11:7–12; 257, 361, 477, 4852Co 11:7–11; 3082Co 11:7–9; 30, 113, 4682Co 11:7; 60, 83, 392, 4892Co 11:8–9; 473, 4862Co 11:8; 117, 3332Co 11:10–12; 302Co 11:10; 46, 82, 364, 4942Co 11:11; 266, 335, 433, 486, 4982Co 11:12–15; 4632Co 11:12; 82, 30, 2372Co 11:13–15; 45, 113, 281, 291, 398, 463, 4662Co 11:14–15; 4632Co 11:14; 2812Co 11:15; 128, 282, 462, 468, 488, 4952Co 11:16–33; 238, 4612Co 11:16–19; 4062Co 11:16; 822Co 11:17; 364, 4232Co 11:18–20; 1792Co 11:18; 30, 70, 82, 4632Co 11:19–21; 302Co 11:20–21; 212Co 11:20; 114, 358, 4632Co 11:21–23; 4232Co 11:21–22; 302Co 11:21; 4062Co 11:22–23; 33, 463, 4742Co 11:23–12:10; 3962Co 11:23–33; 35, 182, 394, 456–57, 465, 485, 4912Co 11:23–29; 4662Co 11:23–28; 672Co 11:23; 70, 128, 184, 398, 457, 4932Co 11:26–27; 1142Co 11:28; 70, 106, 116, 122, 182, 240, 310, 3602Co 11:29; 95, 4942Co 11:30; 457, 460, 465–662Co 11:31; 433, 4642Co 12:1–10; 183, 4572Co 12:1–7; 2382Co 12:1–5; 82, 110, 4452Co 12:1–4; 423–24, 4432Co 12:1; 338, 426, 5002Co 12:2; 2012Co 12:5–10; 4242Co 12:5; 4372Co 12:6; 406, 422, 445, 4942Co 12:7–13; 632Co 12:7–10; 59, 76, 197, 4912Co 12:7–9; 2732Co 12:7; 67, 281, 4912Co 12:9–10; 35, 74, 78, 437, 445–462Co 12:9; 35, 110, 332, 387, 396, 4922Co 12:10; 332, 4942Co 12:11–16; 302Co 12:11–13; 4252Co 12:11–12; 445, 4932Co 12:11; 61, 116, 269, 313, 398, 406, 411, 413, 425, 431, 4452Co 12:12; 30, 269, 3182Co 12:13–18; 83, 308, 4322Co 12:13–16; 1142Co 12:13; 391, 4252Co 12:14–21; 2402Co 12:14–18; 113, 2572Co 12:14–16; 2702Co 12:14–15; 116, 270, 307, 3352Co 12:14; 21, 333, 392, 426, 437, 4392Co 12:15–18; 3582Co 12:15; 433, 4982Co 12:16–18; 30, 361, 4332Co 12:17–18; 3342Co 12:17; 442Co 12:18; 3352Co 12:19–21; 65, 1392Co 12:19; 19, 21, 47, 56, 60, 89, 115, 235, 267, 270, 288, 314, 399, 404, 442, 4932Co 12:20–21; 441, 3922Co 12:21; 19, 24, 215, 312, 3922Co 13:1–10; 21, 47, 61, 65, 94, 196, 2702Co 13:1–5; 212Co 13:1–4; 3592Co 13:1–2; 3922Co 13:1; 21, 3582Co 13:2–10; 1402Co 13:2; 87, 312, 4902Co 13:3–7; 4062Co 13:3–4; 3962Co 13:3; 60, 332, 3702Co 13:4; 35, 152, 4422Co 13:5–10; 2882Co 13:5–7; 882Co 13:5; 61, 118, 137, 140, 280, 320, 337, 404, 4132Co 13:7; 3372Co 13:8; 309, 3962Co 13:9–10; 56, 3132Co 13:9; 309, 332, 4412Co 13:10; 19, 118, 130, 318, 336, 392, 394, 3982Co 13:12; 572Co 13:14; 338GalatiansGa 1:1–2; 49Ga 1:1; 48, 128Ga 1:4; 165, 177, 181, 197, 244, 257, 340Ga 1:11–12; 49Ga 1:11; 332Ga 1:12–16; 245Ga 1:12; 458Ga 1:13–16; 180Ga 1:14; 334, 439Ga 1:15–16; 128Ga 1:15; 66, 334Ga 1:16; 49Ga 1:17; 442Ga 1:18–19; 48Ga 1:20; 433Ga 1:21; 458Ga 2:1; 330Ga 2:2; 364, 458Ga 2:4; 440Ga 2:7–10; 418–20Ga 2:7–9; 49, 419Ga 2:9–10; 330Ga 2:9; 331, 333, 431Ga 2:10; 330Ga 2:16; 206Ga 2:18; 130Ga 2:20–21; 151Ga 2:20; 250, 394Ga 3:1–5; 151, 428, 467Ga 3:8; 438Ga 3:13–14; 85Ga 3:13; 242Ga 3:14; 287Ga 3:16; 160, 287, 438Ga 3:17; 147Ga 3:21; 287Ga 3:25; 253Ga 3:27; 209Ga 3:28; 161, 242, 300, 497Ga 3:29; 398, 438Ga 4:4–5; 286Ga 4:4; 337Ga 4:8; 282Ga 4:9; 250Ga 4:12–16; 67Ga 4:13–14; 241Ga 4:13; 462Ga 4:14; 400Ga 4:19; 151Ga 4:22–31; 161Ga 4:24; 160Ga 5:2–5; 10Ga 5:2; 391Ga 5:5–6; 248Ga 5:6; 11, 138, 226Ga 5:11; 440, 442Ga 5:13–26; 81Ga 5:13–14; 226Ga 5:13; 82, 237, 242Ga 5:14; 138Ga 5:15; 397Ga 5:16–26; 140, 217, 226, 413Ga 5:16–19; 82, 242Ga 5:17; 196Ga 5:20; 282Ga 5:22; 123, 226, 339Ga 5:24; 398Ga 6:1–2; 503Ga 6:2; 226Ga 6:4–5; 413Ga 6:4; 82, 337Ga 6:6; 433Ga 6:7–10; 216Ga 6:7–9; 366, 436Ga 6:9; 216Ga 6:10; 340Ga 6:14; 436Ga 6:16; 498Ga 6:17; 184Ga 6:18; 338, 498EphesiansEph 1:1; 43, 48, 128, 333–34Eph 1:3–8; 66Eph 1:4; 56Eph 1:5; 286Eph 1:9–11; 66Eph 1:15; 333Eph 1:17; 458Eph 1:18; 57, 333Eph 1:19; 371Eph 2:1–3; 81, 177Eph 2:2; 81, 302Eph 2:3; 82, 242Eph 2:4–10; 405Eph 2:7; 371Eph 2:8–10; 136, 139Eph 2:8–9; 226Eph 2:9; 82Eph 2:10; 226, 244, 368Eph 2:11; 242Eph 2:16; 245Eph 2:19–3:7; 128Eph 2:19; 57Eph 2:20; 48, 50Eph 2:21; 208Eph 3:1–6; 66Eph 3:3; 458Eph 3:5; 48, 50Eph 3:7; 128Eph 3:13; 62Eph 3:16; 189Eph 3:19; 371Eph 4:2; 392Eph 4:4–6; 51Eph 4:7; 402Eph 4:11; 48, 50, 360Eph 4:12; 208Eph 4:13; 151, 402Eph 4:15; 151Eph 4:16; 208, 402Eph 4:19; 364Eph 4:20–24; 189Eph 4:21; 184Eph 4:22–24; 209Eph 4:24; 312Eph 4:28; 431Eph 5:1; 90, 167, 343Eph 5:2; 110Eph 5:3; 365Eph 5:5; 138, 206, 224, 302Eph 5:6; 364Eph 5:10; 216Eph 5:11–14; 281, 435Eph 5:15; 397Eph 5:21; 295Eph 5:26–27; 56Eph 5:27; 57Eph 5:29; 242Eph 6:5; 81, 241, 295, 315, 332Eph 6:8; 161, 206, 216, 436Eph 6:10–17; 396Eph 6:12; 435Eph 6:14–17; 395Eph 6:19–20; 154Eph 6:21; 128Eph 6:24; 498PhilippiansPhp 1:1; 45, 57, 333Php 1:5; 333, 360Php 1:6; 56, 82, 112, 137, 140, 217, 368, 413Php 1:8; 212, 371Php 1:9–11; 225Php 1:10; 337Php 1:11; 123, 217, 226, 361, 368, 413Php 1:12–26; 66Php 1:12; 68Php 1:16; 206Php 1:17; 62Php 1:19; 206Php 1:20; 154Php 1:21; 200Php 1:22; 242Php 1:23; 216, 492Php 1:24; 242, 394Php 1:25; 503Php 1:27–30; 332Php 1:29; 68Php 1:30; 310, 396Php 2:1–18; 93Php 2:1–13; 178Php 2:1–3; 257Php 2:1–2; 96Php 2:2–5; 93Php 2:3–5; 69Php 2:3; 392Php 2:6–11; 93Php 2:6–8; 491Php 2:6; 337Php 2:7–8; 337, 491Php 2:7; 364Php 2:8; 392Php 2:10; 184Php 2:11; 361Php 2:12–13; 140, 253, 413, 503Php 2:12; 93, 259, 288, 295, 315Php 2:15–28; 197Php 2:16; 82, 364, 404Php 2:17; 370Php 2:19–23; 45Php 2:20; 441Php 2:22; 337, 362Php 2:25–30; 35Php 2:25; 48, 362, 396Php 2:26–27; 68Php 2:26; 212, 371Php 2:27; 76Php 2:28; 313Php 2:29–30; 330Php 2:30; 76, 362, 370Php 3:1–13; 216Php 3:2; 310, 397Php 3:3; 82, 436Php 3:4–6; 439Php 3:5; 438Php 3:10–11; 68Php 3:10; 62, 74Php 3:11; 190Php 3:18–19; 94, 436Php 3:20–21; 190Php 3:21; 211, 492Php 4:1; 288Php 4:2–3; 330Php 4:3; 360, 362Php 4:4–7; 197Php 4:4; 332Php 4:5; 393Php 4:6; 441Php 4:9; 498Php 4:11–12; 507Php 4:11; 367Php 4:12; 76, 392Php 4:14–15; 333Php 4:15; 433Php 4:17–18; 349Php 4:17; 368Php 4:18; 110, 216, 370Php 4:19; 76, 181Php 4:21; 57Php 4:23; 338, 498ColossiansCol 1:1; 43, 45, 48, 128, 334Col 1:7; 128Col 1:10; 503Col 1:12–13; 435Col 1:15; 177Col 1:16; 66Col 1:17; 66Col 1:19–20; 247Col 1:20, 22; 245Col 1:23; 128Col 1:24–29; 240Col 1:24; 62, 68, 111Col 1:25; 128Col 1:26; 57Col 1:27; 190Col 2:1; 242Col 2:5; 242Col 2:8; 364, 397Col 2:9–15; 241Col 2:11; 82, 242Col 2:13; 242Col 2:18; 462Col 3:3–4; 190Col 3:4; 492Col 3:5–14; 189Col 3:5; 138, 224, 282, 302, 365Col 3:9–10; 209Col 3:11; 161, 300Col 3:12; 57, 392Col 3:20; 216Col 3:22; 241, 332Col 3:24–25; 216Col 3:24; 206, 436Col 4:1; 206, 340Col 4:7; 128, 397Col 4:11; 362Col 4:14; 360Col 4:15; 28Col 4:17; 128Col 4:18; 4981 Thessalonians1Th 1:1; 451Th 1:3–10; 2161Th 1:3–6; 140, 4131Th 1:3; 224, 2261Th 1:4–5; 2261Th 1:4; 2061Th 1:5; 351Th 1:6; 68, 3321Th 1:9; 159, 2821Th 1:10; 1841Th 2:1; 206, 3641Th 2:2; 4401Th 2:3–8; 1281Th 2:3; 3351Th 2:4; 3371Th 2:5; 3651Th 2:6; 481Th 2:9; 431, 433, 4401Th 2:14–16; 4401Th 2:14; 3321Th 2:18; 4631Th 2:19; 82, 4361Th 3:2; 45, 360, 3621Th 3:3–4; 68, 3321Th 3:3; 2061Th 3:6–7; 3111Th 3:6; 45, 212, 3711Th 3:7; 68, 3321Th 3:11–13; 33, 1121Th 3:12–13; 4641Th 3:13; 571Th 4:1–8; 2161Th 4:1; 33, 5031Th 4:2; 2061Th 4:3–7; 561Th 4:6; 3081Th 4:9; 3631Th 4:14; 184, 4921Th 4:17; 4921Th 5:1; 3631Th 5:2; 82, 2061Th 5:4–5; 2811Th 5:5; 4351Th 5:8; 395–961Th 5:9; 1371Th 5:10; 4921Th 5:11; 3991Th 5:12–13; 3301Th 5:12; 4041Th 5:16; 4961Th 5:23; 4981Th 5:26; 4971Th 5:28; 338, 4982 Thessalonians2Th 1:1; 452Th 1:3–10; 2572Th 1:3–4; 4672Th 1:3; 5032Th 1:4–10; 3322Th 1:4–7; 682Th 1:5; 1532Th 1:7; 4572Th 1:11; 224, 3682Th 2:9; 4672Th 2:11; 452Th 2:14–15; 5032Th 3:7–8; 4312Th 3:7; 2062Th 3:8; 433, 4402Th 3:16; 4982Th 3:18; 338, 4981 Timothy1Ti 1:1; 48, 128, 334, 3361Ti 1:2; 451Ti 1:8; 2061Ti 1:9; 2061Ti 1:12–16; 1801Ti 1:12; 107, 1281Ti 1:15; 5031Ti 1:18; 45, 3961Ti 2:6; 4331Ti 2:7; 1281Ti 2:10; 3681Ti 2:13; 661Ti 2:14; 4271Ti 3:3; 3931Ti 3:16; 3371Ti 4:6; 1281Ti 4:16; 3271Ti 5:8; 3581Ti 5:10; 3681Ti 5:14; 2371Ti 5:17–18; 4331Ti 5:17; 3271Ti 5:19; 4901Ti 5:20; 2591Ti 5:23; 1971Ti 5:25; 3681Ti 6:3–10; 3761Ti 6:6; 3671Ti 6:11; 3921Ti 6:12–13; 3701Ti 6:12; 3701Ti 6:16; 4351Ti 6:17–19; 3761Ti 6:18; 3681Ti 6:20; 451Ti 6:21; 4982 Timothy2Ti 1:1; 43, 48, 1282Ti 1:2; 452Ti 1:3; 1072Ti 1:4; 212, 3712Ti 1:11–12; 1802Ti 1:11; 1282Ti 1:12; 2062Ti 1:17; 3132Ti 2:3; 3962Ti 2:6; 4332Ti 2:9; 682Ti 2:10; 352Ti 2:11; 4922Ti 2:21; 3682Ti 2:23; 206, 3102Ti 2:25; 3122Ti 3:10–11; 682Ti 3:11; 622Ti 3:12; 682Ti 3:14; 2062Ti 3:17; 3682Ti 4:5; 3602Ti 4:7–8; 1402Ti 4:11; 333, 3602Ti 4:12; 442Ti 4:14; 4362Ti 4:18; 1402Ti 4:20; 3452Ti 4:22; 498TitusTit 1:1; 48, 128Tit 1:3; 336Tit 1:9; 360Tit 1:16; 368, 370Tit 2:7; 368Tit 2:12; 81Tit 2:14; 368Tit 3:1; 368Tit 3:2; 393Tit 3:3–8; 248Tit 3:8; 368Tit 3:9; 310Tit 3:11; 206Tit 3:13; 313Tit 3:15; 498PhilemonPhm 1; 45, 362Phm 2; 28, 396Phm 8–9; 336Phm 9; 392Phm 17; 362Phm 21; 206Phm 24; 360, 362Phm 25; 338, 498HebrewsHeb 1:3; 364Heb 1:14; 44Heb 2:4; 467Heb 2:14; 147Heb 3:1; 45, 57Heb 3:14; 364Heb 4:1; 259Heb 5:8; 74Heb 9:21; 370Heb 10:32–34; 68Heb 11:1; 204, 364Heb 11:7; 259Heb 11:37; 440Heb 12:4–13; 68Heb 12:10; 81Heb 12:16–17; 319Heb 12:28; 259Heb 13:17; 330Heb 13:23; 45Heb 13:24; 57JamesJam 1:5; 332Jam 1:17; 201Jam 3:17; 393Jam 4:6, 10; 392Jam 5:12; 841 Peter1Pe 1:6–9; 681Pe 1:12; 441Pe 1:15–16; 571Pe 1:17; 216, 2591Pe 2:9; 4351Pe 2:18; 3931Pe 2:20; 4631Pe 2:25; 1591Pe 3:5; 571Pe 3:18; 1511Pe 4:12–19; 681Pe 5:5–6; 3921Pe 5:7; 4412 Peter2Pe 3:2; 48, 502Pe 3:8–10; 3932Pe 3:10; 2092Pe 3:16; 1641 John1Jn 1:4; 3881Jn 1:5; 4351Jn 2:8; 4351Jn 2:26–28; 1531Jn 3:2; 2011Jn 3:6; 1531Jn 3:7, 10, 17; 3681Jn 3:24; 1531Jn 4:1–6; 101Jn 4:9, 10, 14; 441Jn 4:16; 1531Jn 4:18; 2593 John3Jn 12; 330JudeJud 17; 48, 50RevelationRev 1:1; 44Rev 1:8; 286Rev 2:7; 459Rev 2:18–25; 216Rev 3:17; 209Rev 3:18; 441Rev 4:8; 286Rev 5:6; 44Rev 5:8; 57Rev 6:15–16; 112Rev 6:17; 112Rev 11:17; 286Rev 12:5; 459Rev 13:7; 57Rev 14:15–16; 366Rev 15:3; 286Rev 16:7, 14; 286Rev 16:15; 209Rev 17:16; 209Rev 18:20; 48Rev 19:6, 15; 286Rev 20:9; 57Rev 20:12; 216Rev 21:3–4; 201Rev 21:3; 286, 465Rev 21:5; 250Rev 21:7; 286Rev 21:12–14; 48Rev 21:14; 48, 50Rev 21:22; 286Rev 22:6; 44Rev 22:11; 368Rev 22:12; 216

Subject Index

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T V W

A

apostleship, authority of, 13, 19, 45, 49–50, 55–56, 87, 196, 391–92, 399, 403–4, 415; nature of, 43–45, 48, 50, 56, 69; role of Paul’s, 19, 22, 48–50, 60, 87, 111–15, 118, 128, 246–49, 312, 317–18, 361, 375, 394, 397–98, 418–20, 487, 489, 493, 499; sufficiency of Paul’s, 13, 82–83, 112–14, 118–19, 126, 398atonement, 247–48, 251

B

boasting, legitimate (i.e., “in the Lord”), 81–83, 237–38, 363, 399, 401–2, 404–6, 412, 424–25, 432–33, 436, 438, 439–44, 445, 453, 456–57, 461, 465–66, 473; illegitimate (i.e., “foolish”), 114, 402–3, 404–5, 423–24, 426, 436–39, 445–46, 457–58, 460, 461–62, 466, 474

C

call-narratives, prophetic, 126–28church, nature of (as people of the new covenant), 46, 95, 102, 121, 166, 198–99, 270, 282–83, 285–88, 291–93, 296–301, 379, 417–18, 427, 497; unity of, 496, 497–98church-growth movement, 415–16, 449–53collection for Jerusalem, 20–21, 61, 83–84, 316–17, 329–31, 433; as a “grace,” 331, 334, 342, 343, 360, 378; purpose of, 331, 340–41, 358, 361–62, 364, 371, 379–80, 387comfort, from God, 59–63, 73–74, 76commendation, self-, legitimate (i.e., by the Lord), 116, 176, 237, 269, 272, 274, 313, 400, 402, 404–5, 411–13, 417, 445, 457; illegitimate, 176, 395, 400, 402, 404, 406Corinth, 22–25; culture of, 25–27, 191–92, 194, 367, 372–73, 407, 446–47Corinthians, as saints (Christians), 27, 47, 51, 56–57, 117, 497; church in, 28–29, 344–45, 363–64; mixed nature of, 19, 20–21, 32–33, 80, 306–7, 310, 390, 425, 484–85covenant, new, 34, 46, 117–18, 129–37, 151–56, 159, 161, 163, 165, 175, 249, 278, 283–84, 341, 367, 378–79, 398–99, 400, 427, 428, 467, 494–95, 498, 499, 500–501; old, 34, 46, 117, 134–35, 144–46, 149–50, 161, 258, 435covetousness, as idolatry, 302culture, modern, analysis of, 14, 26–27, 35–36, 71, 98–99, 136, 192, 218–21, 227–28, 259, 264, 272, 274–75, 319, 321–22, 347–48, 373–76, 414, 502

D

death, of Christ, 62, 240, 242, 247–48, 252–54; of Christians; participation in death of Christ, 62–63, 64–65, 111–12, 183–86, 273, 308, 491; as a metonomy for suffering, 109–10; modern view of, 229–31

E

“easy believism” (“cheap grace”), 35, 97, 122, 165, 252, 413, 502–3endurance, in suffering as purpose of God, 30, 35, 63, 75–77, 175, 269, 271–72eschatology, 222–23; inaugurated, 29, 77, 85, 93–94, 164–65, 189, 196–97, 217–18, 243–44, 250, 286, 293–94, 366–67, 379, 427; over-realized, 28, 34, 77, 166, 181, 242–43, 429, 436, 490–91evil, problem of, 74–76

F

faith (trust), role of, 74, 101; nature of, 75–76, 97, 122–23, 195, 215–16, 223, 226–27, 232, 338–39, 365, 378, 384, 413, 501, 506First Corinthians, purpose of, 29

G

giving, necessity of, 344–45, 352–55, 362, 381; theological basis of, 341–43, 345, 348–50, 365–66, 375, 376–77; trends in contemporary practice of, 381–84glory (of God), as goal of ministry and life, 13–14, 19, 35, 63, 65, 66, 73–74, 85, 101, 188, 195, 359, 361, 370, 372, 377, 379–80, 387, 453, 477; transformative effect of, 124, 142, 144, 150–51, 161–63, 165–66, 176–77, 180–81, 188, 213, 244, 248, 251, 283, 304, 362, 371, 378, 427–28, 498, 500–502, 505–6, 507–8God, character of, 66, 71–72, 84, 91, 327, 505–7; mercy of, 87, 95–96; sovereignty of, 59, 61, 66, 71, 74–77, 115, 118, 286, 320–21, 416, 442, 462, 464gospel, nature of, 62, 77, 84–85, 93–94, 96, 162, 177, 239–41, 250, 252–53, 262–63, 317, 429, 470grace (mercy), of God, 331, 465, 506; future aspect of, 202–5; transforming nature of, 47, 81–82, 83–84, 91, 97, 101, 332–37, 339, 343–44, 350, 359, 365, 371–72, 465, 466, 474, 482, 497, 498, 501, 503; as goal of gospel, 88–90, 93, 98, 249gratitude, as improper motive for obedience, 385–86

H

health and wealth gospel, 383–84, 435, 448, 508; challenged by Paul’s suffering, 28, 77, 121–22, 182, 194, 199–200, 434heaven, 190–91, 200–201, 215, 217, 220; absence of longing for in contemporary church, 218–19hedonism, Christian, 73, 99–101, 194, 202–5, 313, 320, 322–24, 332, 337, 339, 343, 347, 351, 355–56, 367, 385, 387–88, 507–9Holy Spirit, 13, 86, 123–24, 149–51, 161–62, 187–88, 197, 214, 244, 294, 488, 498; mediated by Paul, 115–17, 119, 126, 145, 162–63, 175, 183, 309, 398, 410, 428, 494, 499honor, social virtue of, 407–8, 486hope, 65, 68, 74, 97, 197–98, 229, 232, 236–37, 287, 294

I

interpreting the Bible (hermeneutics), 51–52, 54–55, 164, 167–73Israel, 156–59, 165

J

Jesus Christ, as fulfillment of God’s promises, 85–86, 91–93, 435–36; as image (glory) of God, 177–78, 180–81, 435; as last Adam, 190, 210–11, 241, 244; as model, 90–93, 240, 337–38, 341–42, 393–94, 464, 468, 490; as object of prayer, 464judgment, of God (Christ), 87, 94–96, 115, 119–20, 139–40, 213, 216–17, 219, 223, 227. 235–36, 257, 258–62, 287–89, 303–4, 312, 393–94, 488–89, 492, 501; by works, 216–17, 225–26, 413, 436; modern conceptions of, 227–29

K

katargeo, meaning of, 147–48, 152–53

L

law (of Sinai), 117, 142–45law/gospel contrast, 130–31, 146letter/Spirit contrast, 130–33, 142love, nature of, 69, 87–88, 97, 100–101, 346–47, 362; necessity of, 500

M

ministry, Paul’s view of, 67–68, 128–30, 149–50, 178–79, 235, 245, 250–52, 494; true nature of, 102, 120–21, 130, 302–3, 317, 319, 325, 452–54modernism, 52–53, 55, 198, 220–21, 276Moses, 30, 118, 127–28; ministry of, 142–50, 154–55, 158–59, 401, 434–35mysticism, merkabah, 459–60; role of in Christian life and ministry, 468–72, 475, 500

N

“new creation,” motif of, 137, 162–63, 177, 180–81, 243–44, 248, 250, 254, 311, 500nominalism, 255–56

O

obedience, 74, 81, 131, 367; necessity of as expression of repentance and faith, 56, 89, 90, 97–99, 122–24, 137–40, 151, 161, 223–26, 281, 293–95, 315, 344, 370–71, 386, 408, 488, 496–97, 501, 504, 506offender, punishment of, 88; restoration of, 88–89opponents of Paul, 21, 28–30, 33–34, 45, 113–14, 215, 236–38, 242–43, 395–96, 406, 407–9, 412, 427–30, 433–35, 437, 453, 454, 490

P

painful visit, 20, 86pastor, proper identity and function of, 102, 120–22, 201–2, 257, 318, 325; suffering and mediatorial role of, 77–78, 122, 124–25, 476–78Paul, call of, 43–44, 49, 82, 112–13, 126–27, 175–76, 179–80, 499“pillar apostles,” 430–31, 466postmodernism, 53–55, 73, 168–69, 198, 275, 504power of positive thinking, 75, 472–73, 474, 477prayer, nature of, 70, 505–9preaching, centrality of, 120–21; 187–89, 235–36, 248–50, 258–59, 263, 327, 383, 395, 411, 417progress, modern conception of, 52–53, 220–22

R

reconciliation, with God, 47, 93, 243, 245–47, 253, 256–57, 258, 264–65, 268, 288, 391, 493, 496; with Paul, 268, 270–71, 273, 288, 391, 493, 496repentance, evidence of, 61, 364; goal of ministry, 21, 87–88, 90, 93–94, 311–14, 319, 324–27, 395, 396, 400, 425–26, 492–93, 500, 504resurrection, of Christ, 62, 187–88; of Christians, 198, 208, 211–13; of Paul, 187–88, 190–91, 207; participation in resurrection of Christ, 62, 64–65, 183–86, 308, 491–92revelation, nature of, 470–71righteousness, of God, 151, 153, 166–67, 225, 233, 248, 251, 254–56, 280–81, 368–71, 435

S

sanctification (see also obedience), 408, 503Satan, 90, 103, 177–78, 281, 427, 435, 461, 462Second Corinthians, purpose of, 19–22, 28–29, 32–33, 59, 60, 80, 329, 358, 390, 465, 484–85, 489, 494, 500; unity of, 31–33, 106–7, 277–78, 306, 329–30, 359, 363, 371, 390“Second Exodus,” motif of, 118, 179, 243, 250, 258, 284–85, 287, 310, 316, 341, 468self, cult of the, 54, 71, 376, 448–49, 472, 476–77self-support, Paul’s practice of as expression of his voluntary suffering, 113–15, 178, 432–33, 439, 440–41, 468, 485–86seminary, crisis in, 171–72signs of an apostle, 467–68, 469Sophist, rhetorical tradition of, 28, 266, 395, 409–10, 415, 423, 446–47; response to, 447–48, 450–51, 453–54, 478–79Stoicism, 75, 367–68, 376–77, 423, 472–73, 474, 477suffering, challenge to culture, 14, 27–28, 35–36; challenge to opponents, 30, 433–34, 437, 451–52, 455, 485–86; challenge to Paul’s legitimacy, 19, 30, 60–61, 67, 83, 105, 242–43, 391, 392, 399–400, 410–11, 425; nature of, 60, 62, 67, 189–90, 274; Paul’s, 60, 105–6, 240, 439–44; revelatory role in apostolic ministry, 19, 34–35, 61, 62–63, 65, 68, 78, 94, 106, 109–12, 115, 118–19, 126–27, 178, 182–86, 197, 268–70, 310–11, 396, 400, 415, 425, 432, 442, 465–66, 473, 477, 492, 494; role in life of the Christian, 35, 67–69, 118–19, 190, 193, 196–97, 473, 474, 476, 480–82synergism, 137, 293

T

“tearful letter,” 21, 31–32, 86–87, 100, 311, 314, 329, 399thorn in the flesh, 462–64Timothy, 20, 45–46Titus, 21, 105, 306, 309–10, 314–16, 334–35, 359–60, 362, 363, 486–87triumphal procession, 107–9

V

veil, of Moses, 147–48, 154–55; as a metonymy, 157–60, 176–78

W

worldliness, 96–99, 198–99, 448worship, character of, 70

Notes

1. Please note that in general, when the authors discuss words in the original biblical languages, the series uses a general rather than a scholarly method of transliteration.

1. C. K. Barrett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, vii.2. What follows is an adaptation of my “Corinthians, Letters to the,” DPHL, 164–79, which includes a summary of the contents of 1 and 2 Corinthians, section by section. See too the helpful introduction by Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 17–27.3. Peter T. O’Brien, Consumed by Passion, Paul and the Dynamic of the Gospel (Homebush West, NSW: Lancer Books, 1993), 62.4. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 19 (following the work of Donald Engels, Roman Corinth [Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1990], 84). This will become an important point when Paul uses the generosity of the much poorer Macedonians as an example for the Corinthians (cf. 8:1–7; 9:1–5)!5. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1983), 79. This text is the most accessible collection of the relevant material concerning the history and culture of Corinth in Paul’s day.6. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 4n.12.7. This was nothing new. As a wealthy hub for commerce and seafarers, Greek Corinth was renowned for its vice, especially its sexual corruption. In view of the city’s reputation, Aristophanes (ca. 450–385 B.C.) even coined the term korinthiazo (i.e., to act like a Corinthian, which meant to commit fornication), and Plato used the term “Corinthian girl” as an euphemism for a prostitute (Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, 56). Although its historical accuracy is disputed, Strabo’s account of a thousand prostitutes in the temple of Aphrodite does reflect the city’s image, in which the many temples played their own role in the immoral tenor of its life (cf. Geography 8.6.20, first written in 7 B.C. and revised slightly in A.D. 18). While the texts reflecting the widespread sexual immorality that characterized Greek Corinth cannot be taken to apply directly to the Corinth of Paul’s day, certainly such a problem also came to be prevalent in the new, Roman city.8. See his Power Through Weakness, 19–53.9. Ibid., 29.10. Ibid., 34.11. Ibid. The point of the cults was not the doctrine of the religion. As Savage puts it, “It mattered little who the gods were or what the cults taught. What was important was … whether everyday desires for health, wealth and safety and, more importantly, power and esteem, were being fulfilled” (52).12. Ibid., 34.13. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 20 (quoting Fee, First Corinthians, 1987, 3).14. Savage, Power Through Weakness, 52 (emphasis his).15. Cf. Paul’s use of pneumatikos (“spiritual”) 14 times in 1 Corinthians alone, over against only 4 times in the other undisputed Pauline letters, and the centrality of the new covenant “ministry of the Spirit,” as outlined in 2 Cor. 3:1–18, for the argument of the present letter.16. The Sophists were a movement that stressed philosophy for the masses and made much of the form and persuasive power of rhetoric as the expression of their “wisdom,” priding themselves on the public appeal, social status, influence, and acclaim to be garnered through the masterful display of rhetorical prowess. For two significant studies of this background and its impact on the problems in Corinth and on Paul’s response, see Duane Litfin, St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 1–4 and Greco-Roman Rhetoric (SNTSMS 79; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994), and Bruce W. Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists (SNTSMS 96; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997).17. Based on the excavation of the four houses in Corinth from the Roman period (one from Paul’s time) and the listing of the fourteen male members of the church in 1 and 2 Corinthians, Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, 158, estimates the base figure of the Corinthian church to be fifty members, though it may have been much larger, since larger villas certainly existed in the city.18. Contra Fee, whose excellent commentary represents a thoroughgoing presentation of the “apologetic” view of the problem behind 1 Corinthians. In this view, the historical situation behind 1 Corinthians, like that of 2 Corinthians, was also fundamentally one of conflict between Paul and the church as a whole. Hence, the heart of the problem is taken to be the Corinthians’ rejection of Paul’s authority as the founder of the church. The letter as a whole is therefore taken to be combative, and Paul’s references to his apostleship are seen to be apologetic (cf. esp. 1 Cor. 4:1–21; 9:1–27; 15:8–11).19. Paul’s argument seems to go like this: He is a true apostle; he preaches the cross of the resurrected Christ and suffers for the sake of others; therefore his experience makes it clear that the kingdom of God, though here in power, is not yet here in all its fullness, and that true spirituality involves the willingness to give up one’s own rights for the good of others. Hence, Paul’s most basic advice is to “imitate me” (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; cf. 1:17–19; 8:1–3, 11–13; 9:15–23; 10:23–24; 10:31–11:1; 13; 14:4–5, 18–19).20. Hence, because V. Furnish, II Corinthians, 397, views chapters 10–13 to be a response to subsequent events, he must conclude that Paul’s encouragement and Titus’s joy over the Corinthians in chapter 7 were “probably a false perception, whether due to Titus’s overly optimistic report or to Paul’s overly optimistic interpretation of that report.” According to Furnish, 7:16 could not have stood in the same letter as the “worried polemic of chaps. 10–13” (p. 398).21. Against the theory that chs. 10–13 were originally part of the tearful letter, this section contains no instruction to punish the offenders, nor do chapters 1–7 anticipate that the offenders have all been judged already, as chs. 10–13 anticipates. Against the theory that chs. 10–13 were written after 1–9, there is no mention in chs. 10–13 that Paul had received more information from Corinth, that there had been a significant period of time between chs. 1–9 and 10–13, or that the situation had worsened, which those who hold this view must assume. Thus, Scott, 2 Corinthians, 7, is right that, as a matter of principle, “a historical reconstruction that can operate with the unity of 2 Cor. has the advantage over partition theories, since it works with fewer unknowns.”22. Ibid., 208–9.23. In support of this reading, Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 430–32, offers a rhetorical argument for the unity of 2 Corinthians. Witherington points out that the issue of Paul’s opponents and their charges that is taken up directly in chs. 10–13 was already insinuated in chs. 1–9. Indeed, there are already nine such allusions to Paul’s opponents in chapters 1–9 (the charge of fickleness in chapter 1; 2:17; 3:1; the use of Moses by his opponents as reflected in 3:7–18; 4:2; 5:12; 6:3; 6:4–10; 7:2). Thus, the contention that the situation described in chs. 1–9 differs from that in chs. 10–13 fails (p. 431n.5). Moreover, the difference in tone between chs. 1–9 and 10–13 merely reflects a common rhetorical strategy in which one invokes strong emotion at the end in order to make a lasting impression on one’s audience. Finally, Witherington points to the work of Bjerkeland, who observed that those sections of Paul’s letters in which he exhorts his readers using the verb parakaleo regularly follow thanksgivings or doxologies (cf. Rom. 11:33–36 to 12:1; 1 Thess. 3:11–13 to 4:1). In accordance with this pattern, Paul’s exhortation in 10:1 follows naturally on the praise of 9:12–15.24. Jerry L. Sumney, Identifying Paul’s Opponents. When Sumney applies his own method to the text, he ends up agreeing in substance with the previous proposal of Käsemann that the opponents behind 2 Cor. 10–13 were pneumatics rather than Judaizers, gnostics, or self-styled “divine men.” Moreover, the short time span between the letter fragments of 1–9 and 10–13 leads one to “reasonably conclude” that the opponents in both cases are part of the same group (p. 183).25. For this thesis, with 2 Cor. 2:14 as its centerpiece, see my Suffering and the Spirit, An Exegetical Study of II Cor 2:14–3:3 Within the Context of the Corinthian Correspondence (WUNT 2.19; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1986), slightly abridged as Suffering and Ministry of the Spirit, Paul’s Defense of His Ministry in II Corinthians 2:14–3:3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990).26. Spoken in the author’s presence by Carl F. H. Henry on January 22, 1999, on the occasion of his eighty-sixth birthday, at the Inaugural Summit Conference of The Carl F. H. Henry Institute for Evangelical Engagement, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky. Henry’s work is now published by Crossway Books, Wheaton, 1998.

1. For examples of ancient letters and their forms and an analysis of this genre in the New Testament, see John L. White, Light From Ancient Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), and Stanley K. Stowers, Letter-Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986).2. The discussion that follows is indebted at several points to the helpful summary by P. W. Barnett, “Apostle,” DPHL, 45–51, and to the standard article by Karl H. Rengstorf, “ἀποστέλλω,” TDNT 1:398–447.3. See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 82n.30, 434n.79. This use of “by the will of God” (dia thelematos theou) to express the intermediate agency of an action, here the intermediate agent of the passive action implied in the noun “apostle,” occurs exclusively in Paul’s writings; cf. Rom. 15:32; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 8:5; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1.4. As Rengstorf observes (“ἀποστέλλω,” 400), the exceptions occur only when the Hebrew idiom will not allow it (cf. Gen. 3:22; 22:12). Rengstorf points out that the nuance of apostello, over against pempo (to send), is not in the nature of the sending as such, but in the fact that apostello “unites with the sender either the person or the object sent” (398). Hence, in both secular and religious contexts, apostello implies a commission and “associated authorization,” typically from either a king or a deity. “The men thus described are representatives of their monarch and his authority,” or carry divine authorization that grants them “full religious and ethical power” (399, cf. its use by Cynics and Stoics, e.g., Epictetus, Disc. 1.24.6; 3.22.23, 69; 3.23.46; 4.8.31).5. Ibid., 400–401.6. Ibid., 406.7. Cf. Rom. 10:15; 1 Cor. 1:17; 2 Cor. 12:17; 2 Tim. 4:12; Heb. 1:14; 1 Pet. 1:12; 1 John 4:9, 10, 14; Rev. 1:1; 5:6; 22:6.8. Cf. Rengstorf, “ἀποστέλλω,” 402, 404, for the points concerning the use of the two verbs. In John’s Gospel pempo occurs thirty-three times and takes on a theological significance in regard to the sending of Jesus by the Father that is unique to this Gospel.9. Cf. Matt. 10:2; Mark 3:14 [textually uncertain]; 6:30; Luke 6:13; 9:10; 11:49; 17:5; 22:14; 24:10; John 13:16.10. The fact that Timothy is identified as “our brother” (lit., “the brother”) indicates that he is considered a coworker alongside Paul, but not a fellow “apostle” of equal status with Paul. “On the contrary,” Ralph Martin suggests, “it is more probable that Timothy is mentioned in the letter’s prescript because he needed Paul’s endorsement of all he had sought to do as he undertook an intermediate mission between the visits of Acts 18:3 and 20:4” (2 Corinthians, 2). On Timothy, see Acts 16:1–3; 17:13–15; 18:5; 19:22; 20:4; Rom. 16:21; Phil. 1:1; 2:19–23; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 3:2, 6; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:2, 18; 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:2; Phlm. 1; Heb. 13:23.11. It was used exclusively to translate the Hebrew term qahal, which was also sometimes translated by the Greek term “synagogue” (synagoge). But unlike ekklesia, synagoge was also used to translate the Hebrew word ʿedah, which overlapped in meaning with qahal, but could also be used as a more general term to refer to non-Israelites or wicked Israelites. In contrast, qahal, with its Greek equivalent ekklesia, was the more specific term, always being used of Israel in a positive or neutral sense. The Jewish use of synagoge no doubt led the early Jewish Christians to use ekklesia as their designation of choice.12. 2 Corinthians, 17.13. This is confirmed by the five occurrences of “apostle” in the Pseudepigrapha. Cf. GrApEzra 2:1, where the Christian Apostles are referred to, together with Michael and Gabriel, as messengers of God; Apoc. Sedrach 14:10, where the Apostles, together with the Gospels, are seen as repositories of God’s Word, and 15:4, 7, where their conversion is paralleled to that of the Gospel writers; and Paraleipomena Jeremiou 9:18 (9:20), where the mission of the Son of God is summarized in terms of his death on the cross and his choosing of the twelve Apostles to proclaim the news among the nations.14. Rengstorf, “ἀποστέλλω,” 431.15. See his Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium (WUNT 2, Reihe Bd. 2; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1977), 285–314. Bühner argues for this both on the basis of postbiblical and rabbinic literature and in view of the LXX use of apostello to describe Moses’ being sent by God in Ex. 3:10, 12; 4:13, 28.16. Barnett, “Apostle,” 50.17. See Blomberg’s wise words on applying Paul’s opening in 1 Cor. 1:1–2 in 1 Corinthians, 37–39.18. For a critical look at these assumptions, see Neil Postman’s work, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (New York: Vintage, 1992).19. A. K. M. Adam, What Is Postmodern Biblical Criticism? (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 33.20. For recent responses to “postmodernism” from within the evangelical camp, see David S. Dockery, ed., The Challenge of Postmodernism: An Evangelical Engagement (Wheaton: Victor, 1995); Millard J. Erickson, The Evangelical Left: Encountering Postconservative Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997); and D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996). For a more technical assessment, see Brian D. Ingraffia, Postmodern Theory and Biblical Theology: Vanquishing God’s Shadow (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995) and Keven J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).21. See, for example, the discussion in Stanley Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology: A Fresh Agenda for the 21st. Century (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993).22. For a development of the philosophical roots of this cultural impulse, see Jeffrey Stout, The Flight From Authority: Religion, Morality, and the Quest for Autonomy (Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1981).23. See, e.g., Matt. 27:52; Acts 9:13; Rom. 1:7; 15:25–26; 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:1–2; 14:33; 2 Cor. 8:4; 13:12; Eph. 1:18; 2:19; 5:27; Phil. 1:1; 4:21; Col. 1:26; 3:12; 1 Thess. 3:13; Heb. 3:1; 13:24; 1 Peter 1:15–16; 3:5; Rev. 5:8; 13:7; 20:9.

1. Peter Thomas O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 263.2. This section and the commentary sections on 1:8–11 and 1:12–2:11 are based on the analysis presented in my “The Comfort and Power of the Gospel: The Argument of 2 Corinthians 1–3,” RevExp 86 (1989): 325–44.3. See O’Brien’s analysis of the form and function of Paul’s thanksgivings, Thanksgiving, 233–40.4. The verb parakaleo actually occurs 109 times in the NT, 54 of them in Paul’s writings, while the noun paraklesis occurs 29 times, 20 of which are found in Paul’s writings; see Kurt Aland, ed., Vollständige Konkordanz zum Griechischen Neuen Testament, Band II: Spezialübersichten (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1978), 208–11. But besides “to comfort” and “comfort,” the verb and noun have a wide range of meanings, including “to call to one’s side,” “to appeal to,” “to exhort,” “to request,” and “to conciliate,” and for the noun, “encouragement,” “exhortation,” “appeal, “request” (cf. BAGD, 617–18). I have therefore counted only those verbal and noun meanings judged by their contexts to mean “to comfort” and “comfort” respectively.5. Aland, Vollständige Konkordanz, 130–31, 206–7.6. Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 80.7. It is important to keep in mind that in the New Testament “hope” (elpis) and the related verb “to hope” (elpizo) do not refer to “wishful thinking,” but to a certainty and confidence concerning the future.8. Though many have suggested that this refers back to Paul’s suffering in Ephesus as recounted in 1 Cor. 15:32, the precise location within the Roman province of Asia and the exact nature of his “hardships” are no longer known to us, though they would have been to the Corinthians.9. See Margaret E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 1:118–19, who points out that apokrima (NIV “sentence”) means “official report” or “decision,” often in response to a petition. If this connotation of a response is to be emphasized here, then “one might suppose Paul to be saying that he had asked himself what his prospects were, and had received the inward reply … that he must die” (p. 119).10. Ibid., 119. Following Windisch, Barrett, Furnish, and Martin, Thrall points out that the description of God as the one who raises the dead “comes in all probability from the Jewish synagogue liturgy, since it occurs in the Eighteen Benedictions.” There, in the second blessing, we read: “Thou art mighty, strong, that livest for ever, that raisest the dead, that sustainest the living, that quickenest the dead. Blessed are thou, O Lord, who quickenest the dead!” (p. 119n.275; quoted from W. Förster, Palestinian Judaism in New Testament Times [London: Olives and Boyd, 1964], 228).11. It is my conviction that Paul’s views are consonant with the developing views of the biblical canon as a whole. As such, they can also be called “biblical views.” But our purpose here is to restrict ourselves to a development of Paul’s thought in particular.12. Cf. the desire of Ignatius (d. ca. A.D. 115) to be devoured by the wild beasts in Rome so that he might “truly be a disciple of Jesus Christ,” quoting 1 Cor. 15:32 in his Letter to the Romans, 4–5.13. John Piper, Future Grace: The Purifying Power of Living by Faith in Future Grace (Portland: Multnomah, 1995), 341–42.14. Originally found in Tertullian, Apologeticus 50, who was himself converted in A.D. 193 by witnessing the courage of Christians who were facing torture and death for their faith.15. For a concise look at the parallels between ancient Gnosticism and modern day “new age” religions, see Peter Jones, The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back: An Old Heresy for the New Age (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1992).16. D. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 27, 30.17. Eberhard Jüngel, Karl Barth: A Theological Legacy (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 21, from Jüngel’s lecture “A Tribute at His Death,” given at the University of Zurich on Dec. 11, 1968, the day after Barth died.18. John Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad! The Supremacy of God in Missions (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1993), 16–28.19. For a helpful application of the sovereignty of God to situations of suffering, see Jerry Bridges, Trusting God (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1988). For an excellent treatment of the biblical texts concerning suffering, see D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990).20. D. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers From Prison, ed., Eberhard Bethge, enlarged ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1972 [1953]), 11.21. Cf. his poem “Who Am I,” from July, 1944, found in Letters and Papers, 347–48.22. Quoted from Mark A. Noll, ed., Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 137 (following the 1962 translation of Miller and Osterhaven).23. See her Death, The Final Stage of Growth (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1975).24. Barnett, Second Corinthians, 80.

1. The NIV follows the textual variant that reads hagiotes (“holiness”), rather than those texts that read haplotes (“uprightness” or “simplicity”). The external evidence is evenly divided between the two possibilities, but the context favors the reading haplotes for two reasons. (1) Paul never uses hagiotes anywhere else (its only other New Testament use is found in Heb. 12:10), but he does use haplotes all seven of the times it occurs in the New Testament, five of them in 2 Cor. (1:12; 8:2; 9:11, 13; 11:3; see also Rom. 12:8; Eph. 6:5). Thus, the theme of “uprightness” or “honesty” is a key theme in this letter and is introduced here. This means that hagiotes is a more difficult reading, but too difficult for this context. (2) The contrast with “worldly wisdom” in v. 12b and Paul’s emphasis on openness in v. 13 favors the fact that he is stressing his honesty in v. 12a, not his holiness (see Martin, 2 Corinthians, 18).2. James Scott, 2 Corinthians, 54, rightly points out that in using the Old Testament prophetic expression, “the day of the Lord” (= Yahweh), which refers to that time in which God would judge Israel and the nations and establish his own kingdom of righteousness (cf. Joel 1–3; Zech. 12–14), to refer to “the day of the Lord Jesus,” Paul equates Christ’s work with God’s (cf. 1 Cor. 1:8; 5:5; Phil. 1:6; 1 Thess. 5:2).3. The NIV of 1:17, “so that in the same breath I say, ‘Yes, yes,’ and ‘No, no’ ” adds the idea of simultaneous action (i.e., “in the same breath”) to make sense of this difficult passage. But such an idea is not explicit in the text. It simply reads, “in order that from me it might be ‘yes, yes’ and ‘no, no.’ ” This was an oath formula commonly used among Jews, especially those who wanted to avoid swearing by the name of God. See L. L. Welborn, “The Dangerous Double Affirmation: Character and Truth in 2Cor 1:17,” ZNW 86 (1995): 34–52, 41–48.4. Ibid., 46.5. For an analysis of 1:17–18 against the backdrop of Matt. 5:37 and James 5:12 that illustrates how Jesus’ prohibition against oaths may have been wrongly used by Paul’s opponents against Paul, see David Wenham, “2 Corinthians 1:17, 18: Echo of a Dominical Logion,” NovT 28 (1986): 271–79.6. There is a wordplay in 1:21 based on the derivation of the title “Christ” (Christos, i.e., “anointed one”) from the verb “to anoint” (chrio) that is missed in translation. Verse 21 reads: God establishes them “in Christ” (eis Christon) and has “anointed” (chrisas) them.7. See again James Scott, 2 Corinthians, 55–56, for a development of the theme of God as a witness for and against the actions of people (cf. Gen. 31:44, 50; 1 Sam. 12:5–6; 20:23, 42; 1 Kings 17:12; Isa. 43:10, 12; Jer. 42:5).8. II Corinthians, 162. For the persuasive reasons against the traditional approach in which 2:5–11 is taken to refer to the offender from 1 Cor. 5:1–5, so that the “tearful letter” becomes identified with 1 Corinthians itself, see Furnish’s discussion on pp. 163–68. Of the nine arguments Furnish details, the most telling are: (1) In 1 Cor. 5 the mourning in view is for the offender’s sin; in 2 Cor. 2:5–11 and 7:7–8 it is for their own and leads to their own repentance as well as that of the offender; (2) in 1 Cor. 5:3–5 Satan’s role is to punish the offender; in 2 Cor. 2:5–11 it is to threaten the congregation itself; (3) in 1 Cor. 5 Christ is the authority behind Paul’s judgment; in 2 Cor. 2 Christ is the eschatological judge; and (4) in 1 Cor. 5 the concern is for the moral purity of the congregation; in 2 Cor. 2 the concern is for harmony within the congregation.9. See, too, Jan Lambrecht, Second Corinthians, 32, who comments on 2:10: “Through the rather strange wording of this verse one feels Paul’s sensitiveness, but also his Christian and apostolic passion: the minimalizing of the injustice he personally experienced, his forgiving, his concern for the Corinthians (they should follow his example), and his union with Christ (cf. ‘in the presence of Christ’).”10. For the problems of subjectivity and the inherent claims to power that reside in such an assumed “direct spiritual communion with a god or another person,” so that the reader begins with the words of the text but then transcends them based on an uncontrollable intuitive certainty, see E. D. Hirsch, The Aims of Interpretation (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1976), 20ff.11. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 67.12. David Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 29.13. Stephen Carter, The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion (New York: BasicBooks, 1993), 13.14. Ibid., 14–15.15. Ibid., 29.16. In this regard, see the evaluation, pro and con, of President Clinton’s understanding of “repentance” in Gabriel Fackre, ed., Judgment at the White House: A Critical Declaration Exploring Moral Issues and the Political Use and Abuse of Religion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).17. For example, 32 percent of Americans think that they have been lied to by a pastor; see James Patterson and Peter Kim, The Day America Told the Truth: What People Really Believe About Everything That Really Matters (New York: Prentice Hall, 1991), 48–49.18. There are, of course, situations in which it is right to remain silent in order to avoid the risk of violence or personal hurt to others or to avoid violating a confidence created for the good of others; for these and other helpful principles for evaluating when the truth must be told or not told, see Lewis B. Smedes, “On Being Truthful,” paper published by Center for Applied Christian Ethics, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Ill., 1991.19. Ibid., 17.20. John Piper, Desiring God, Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, 2d ed. (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1996), 105, 106, 105. I owe the insights of these surrounding paragraphs to Piper as well.21. John Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 25.22. Ibid., 52.23. Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 363–64n.10.24. Furnish, II Corinthians, 163.

1. The understanding of the original meaning of this section is based on my previous works, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit, and “Paul’s Argument From the Old Testament and Christology in 2 Cor. 1–9: The Salvation-History/Restoration Structure of Paul’s Apologetic,” in R. Bieringer, ed., The Corinthian Correspondence (BETL 125; Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1996), 277–303.2. This type of thanksgiving also occurs in a modified form in Rom. 7:25; 2 Cor. 9:15; 1 Tim. 1:12ff.; 2 Tim. 1:3ff. See Peter T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul, NovTSup 49 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 100–101, 233–240.3. See Scott, 2 Corinthians, 90–91.4. As recognized already by Calvin in his commentary on 2 Corinthians; this quote is taken from his The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, trans. T. A. Smail (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1964), 33.5. Ibid.6. See the note to 2 Cor. 2:14 in The NIV Study Bible, ed. Kenneth Barker, et al. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 1765, for an example of an interpretation of this passage in terms of Paul’s “triumphant faith”: “So the Christian, called to spiritual warfare, is triumphantly led by God in Christ.” Such an interpretation misses the point of the imagery here as well as the fact that the focus of the text is on Paul’s ministry as an apostle, not on Christian experience in spiritual warfare.7. For the history and significance of the triumphal procession, see H. S. Versnel, Triumphus: An Inquiry Into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph (Leiden: Brill, 1970).8. Not everyone has been convinced by this reading. There have been two substantial criticisms of it. Jens Schröter, Der versöhnte Versöhner: Paulus als unentbehrlicher Mittler im Heilsvorgang zwischen Gott und Gemeinde nach 2 Kor 2:14–7:4 (Tübingen: Francke Verlag, 1993), has argued that this view goes too far. He posits that in using the triumphal procession metaphorically Paul is referring only to the revelation of the victor’s glory and that he does not imply a reference to the death of those led in triumph. Paul only has in mind here his ministry as an apostolic mediator of the knowledge of God in a general sense. Schröter thus suggests translating 2:14a, “God triumphs in relation to Paul” (p. 21). James M. Scott, by contrast (2 Corinthians, 60–64, 90–92), criticizes this view for making too little of the metaphor. He argues that central to the metaphor is not Paul’s being led to death as a slave, but God’s riding in the chariot as a conquering general. As one being led in the procession, Paul is looking at the chariot in front of him. Scott then equates this with the mysticism of the throne chariot of God (e.g., Ezek. 1:4–28; possibly, Ps. 68:17–18; also Jewish merkabah mysticism). Hence, in 2 Cor. 2:14 Paul is not speaking primarily of his suffering. Rather, Paul is speaking of being led into mystical experiences of God’s glory. Thus, Paul’s statement here should be related to those texts that speak of his visions of Christ and God (e.g., 2 Cor. 12:1–5). But it makes far more sense, when one takes into view the immediate context and the more far-reaching content of several of Paul’s letters, to see 2:14 as a reference to his suffering as an apostle.9. Cf. Gen. 8:21; Ex. 29:25, 41; Lev. 1:13, 17; Num. 15:3; Ezek. 16:19; 20:40–41; Judith 16:16; esp. Sir. 24:15, where the two terms are split apart and used as synonyms as in 2:14–15. For the parallels in Paul, see Phil. 4:18; Eph. 5:2. Scott, 2 Corinthians, 64, extends the imagery of merkabah mysticism into the image of the aromas, but his explanation lacks convincing evidence.10. This view was made popular by the influential commentary of Hans Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief (KeK 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 100, who, based on the work of Loesner from 1777, suggested a parallel between 2:16b and Joel 2:11, and between this verse and Mark 10:26; Rom. 11:34; Rev. 6:17. But it is difficult to link Joel’s resignation in the face of God’s judgment to Paul’s confidence in his sufficiency as an apostle (cf. 2 Cor. 3:4–6, 12; 4:1) or his confident hope for the salvation of those in Christ in general (cf., e.g., Rom. 1:16–17; 8:1; 2 Cor. 4:13–17; 5:14–21; Phil. 1:6; 1 Thess. 3:11–13). In the same way, the resignation in Rev. 6:17 is not that of the faithful, but of those faced with “the wrath of the Lamb” (cf. 6:15–16). The same is true of Mark 10:26, while the parallel between Rom. 11:34 and 2 Cor. 2:16b is difficult to establish.11. Anticipating Paul’s counterargument, his opponents also alleged that, by providing a smokescreen to cover up his intention to skim money from the collection, Paul’s practice of self-support was part of his plan to defraud the Corinthians (cf. 2 Cor. 11:7–9; 12:14–18).12. For a survey of the evidence for these points, see my Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit, 106–25. Cf., e.g., Plato, Protagoras 313CD; Sophist 223D–235A; Isocrates, Against the Sophists 4, who criticize the Sophists not for “selling” their message per se, but for appearing with their rhetorical skill to sell what they do not have, namely true wisdom. Plato, Laws XI.915D–920C, cautions against the temptation to greed that surrounds retail business. Isaiah 1:22; Sir. 26:29; 27:1–3; Philo, On the Giants 39; Life of Moses II.212; Josephus, Ant. 3.276; Lucian, The Wisdom of Nigrinus 25; Hermotimus 59; and Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.13–14 all use “selling as a retailer” as a metaphor for casting into question someone’s motives, trading on the negative connotation surrounding merchants in the ancient world. Didache 12.5 warns the early church about those who wish to live off of her generosity without working, i.e., those who are “making traffic of Christ.”13. In 3:1 Paul frontloads the reflexive pronoun in the Gk. expression “to commend oneself” (heauton sunistano), thus emphasizing that he has in view a negative “self-commendation.” When Paul speaks of commending himself in a positive sense, he uses the normal word order, sunistano heauton (cf. 4:2; 6:4; 12:11). I owe this insight concerning the difference in emphasis between the two forms of the expression in 2 Corinthians to J. H. Bernard, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. 3, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979 reprint), 52. My rendering of 3:1 as a “self-commendation” rather than “to commend oneself” is an attempt to reflect this distinction. For the resolution of the apparent conflict between the fact that three times Paul denies that he in engaging in self-commendation (cf. 3:1; 5:12; 10:18), only to turn around and commend himself three times (cf. 4:2; 6:4; 12:11), see comments on 10:12–18.14. Paul’s use of the verb diakoneo (“to serve, minister”) in 3:3 to describe his activity of bringing Christ to the Corinthians indicates that he is much more than simply a courier delivering a letter (cf. 1 Cor. 4:15; 9:1–2; 2 Cor. 10:14; 11:2). Cf. Paul’s use of words from the same root to refer to the collection as an expression of the gospel in 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1, 12, 13; also Rom. 15:25, 31; to his “ministry” in general in 3:6, 7–9; 4:1; and to his ministry of the gospel among the Gentiles in Rom 11:13; 2 Cor. 5:18; 6:3; 11:8.15. This reading differs from the common attempt to read 3:3c as a single contrast between writing with ink on tablets of stone (!) verses the Spirit writing on the heart. To do so mixes Paul’s metaphors to the point of self-destruction.16. This becomes clear once we take our starting point from the Old Testament texts themselves rather than from our own views of the nature of the contrasts between “ink” and “Spirit,” “stone” and “flesh.” Paul’s contrast is not an abstract one between “outward” and “inward,” between “externality” and “internality,” between “ritualism” and “a living experience of the Spirit,” or between “rigidity” and “spontaneity,” etc., as is often suggested. Nor is Paul making a negative statement about the nature or content of the law by associating it with “stone,” which seems to be the common denominator undergirding these interpretations. The reference in 3:3 to the “tablets of stone” is part of a long tradition in which this designation is at the least a normal, neutral way of referring to the law, and more likely functions to emphasize its permanence, divine authority, honor, and glory (cf. 3:7, 9, 11!). See Ex. 24:12; 31:18; Deut. 9:10; 1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chron. 5:10, etc. and my discussion of this motif within postbiblical Judaism in Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit, 214–20. The fact that the law was engraved on stone is not associated in Ezekiel or anywhere else with “stone hearts” as something to be done away with under the new covenant.17. David Wells, No Place for Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 248–49, following Hauerwas and Willimon, “Ministry As More Than a Helping Profession,” Christian Century (March 15, 1989), 282.18. Ibid., 256.19. Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor, ed. William Brown (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974; from the 1862 ed.), 63.20. J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990), 75.21. Stanley Hauerwas, Character and the Christian Life: A Study in Theological Ethics (Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 2d. ed., 1994), 4; see esp. his new introduction, xiii–xxxiii.

1. The detailed support for the understanding of the original meaning of 3:4–18 presented here is found in my earlier work, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument From Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996).2. For confirmation of this fundamental point, see Karl Olav Sandnes, Paul—One of the Prophets? A Contribution to the Apostle’s Self-Understanding (WUNT 2, Reihe 43; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1991), 7–8, 16n.6, 64–65, 68–69. Sandnes demonstrates that in the central passages in which Paul presents his self-understanding as an apostle, he consistently does so in terms of common prophetic motifs (Rom. 1:1–5; 10:14–18; 1 Cor. 2:6–16; 9:15–18; 2 Cor. 4:6; Eph. 2:19–3:7; 1 Thess. 2:3–8). Hence, although Paul never refers to himself as a prophet, he understood his apostleship to be a continuation of the Old Testament prophetic calling, conducted under the same kind of compulsion and inspired speech that characterized the prophets (cf. pp. 2–3, 15, 18, 20, 115, 129, 152).3. Ibid., 18.4. When Paul wants to emphasize his office, he uses the word “apostle,” which points directly to the divinely granted authority of his ministry (cf. Rom. 1:1; 11:13; 1 Cor. 1:1; 9:1–2; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:1, 11; Titus 1:1).5. For Paul’s use of diakonos-terminology to describe his apostolic ministry in service to the gospel, cf. Rom. 11:13; 2 Cor. 3:3, 6, 8–9; 4:1; 5:18; 6:3–4; 11:8; Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23, 25; 1 Tim. 1:12. For a treatment of this terminology in the New Testament within its historical and linguistic environment, see John N. Collins, DIAKONIA: Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1990), esp. 195–215 on Pauline usage. Collins’ central thesis is that Paul’s terminology refers to the function of proclaiming the gospel (“spokesman”) and, specifically in 2 Cor. 2:14–6:13, to Paul’s role as a “medium” of God’s revelation and glory, rather than to a general Christian service undergone by the church as a whole or to the work of “deacons” (cf. 197–98, 203–5). Moreover, Paul can share this title more broadly with those who are preaching the gospel or representing a church: Rom. 16:1 (with Phoebe); 1 Cor. 3:5 (with Apollos); 16:15 (with the household of Stephanas); 2 Cor. 11:23 (ironically with his opponents); Col. 1:7 (with Epaphras); Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7 (with Tychicus); Col. 4:17 (with Archippus); 1 Tim. 4:6 (with Timothy). Indeed, in 2 Cor. 11:15 even Satan has his “servants” (diakonoi), while a pagan ruler used by God to accomplish his purposes can be called a “servant” (diakonos) of God in Rom. 13:4. Christ himself in the function of his earthly ministry is described as a diakonos to the circumcised in Rom. 15:8, and Moses’ ministry of the law is called a diakonia in 2 Cor. 3:7, 9.6. Much of this section and the Bridging Contexts section below are taken from my earlier attempt to summarize my work in “The ‘Temple of the Spirit’ As the Inaugural Fulfillment of the New Covenant Within the Corinthian Correspondence,” Ex Auditu 12 (1996): 29–42.7. William Lane, “Covenant: The Key to Paul’s Conflict with Corinth,” TynBul 33 (1982): 3–29, 6, 10. God’s “covenant lawsuit” against the Corinthians therefore provides a necessary key for understanding the character, content, and unity of 2 Corinthians.8. For the stubbornness of Israel’s evil heart and her perpetual disobedience as a people within Jeremiah, see, e.g., Jer. 2:21–22; 3:17; 5:20–25; 7:24–26; 8:7; 9:12–16; 11:14; 13:10, 23; 14:11, 22; 15:1; 16:12; 17:1, 23; 18:12–15a; 19:15; 23:17. For the corresponding point that the covenant people and their leaders have continued to break the covenant, see Jer. 2:8; 5:31; 6:13, 17; 10:21; 14:18; 23:13–14; 27:16; 28:2.9. This perspective has been insightfully set forth in Daniel P. Fuller’s important work, The Unity of the Bible: Unfolding God’s Plan for Humanity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).10. For this same argument from the evidence of God’s work in the lives of believers to the genuine nature of their faith, see Rom. 1:5; 8:3–4; 15:18; 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 5:16–26; Phil. 1:6; 2:12–13; 1 Thess. 1:3–6.

1. For the detailed support of the interpretation of Ex. 32–34 and 2 Cor. 3:7–11 presented here, see my Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel.2. Paul’s use of atenisai (to gaze intently, continually, or directly) in 3:7 reflects his careful, contextual reading of the Old Testament; for its meaning, cf. Luke 4:20; 22:56; Acts 3:4, 12; 6:15; 11:6; 13:9; 14:9; 23:1. In Acts 1:10 and 7:55 it is used with reference to the glory of God as well (now in the form of the glorified Christ), and in 10:4 in reference to an angel of God.3. This is my own definition. The verb occurs 27 times in the New Testament, 25 of which are in Paul’s writings (the exceptions are Luke 13:7 and Heb. 2:14). In contrast, there are less than 20 occurrences of the verb in all the literature prior to or outside of the New Testament and its circle of influence, including its four uses in 2 Esdras 4:21, 23; 5:5; 6:8. Katargeo is a rare word with a specific meaning that Paul introduced into the vocabulary of the early Christians (cf. its approximately 250 uses in the early church fathers, all of which derive from allusions to or quotes from Paul!). For a detailed study of this term, see my Paul and Moses, 301–9.4. Besides the four occurrences in 2 Cor. 3:7, 11, 13, 14; cf. esp. Rom. 3:3, 31; 7:6; 1 Cor. 1:28; 2:6; 6:13; 13:11; 15:24, 26; Gal. 3:17.5. The NIV translation of 3:8, 9, 11 is misleading, since it wrongly indicates that the point of comparison in each case is the qualitative or quantitative extent of the glory. But in each case the comparison modifies the verb “to be” (3:8, 11) and “abounds” (3:9; trans. “is” in the NIV), not the nature of the glory per se.6. This inextricable link between judicial and ethical righteousness in Paul’s thought, which undergirds this text, is well summarized by Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 104–5, in commenting on 3:9: “Christ is the believer’s righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30): first of all in justification, whereby Christ’s obedience is reckoned to the sinner on the ground that the penalty of the sinner’s disobedience has been borne by Christ, who suffered the Righteous for the unrighteous (1 Pet. 3:18); and then in sanctification, whereby the Holy Spirit causes the believer to grow more and more in obedience and likeness to Christ (Eph. 4:13, 15; Gal. 4:19). In accordance with the promises of the new covenant … God’s law is written on the believing heart and the power is granted … to fulfil it.”7. So A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 1109, who takes to dedoxasmenon in 3:10 to be an example of the use of the neuter participle as an abstract substantive (cf. also Luke 8:56; 9:7; John 16:13; Acts 24:25; 1 Cor. 1:28; 14:7).8. Cf. the chains of gar in Rom. 1:16–21; 2:11–14; 4:1–3, 13–15; 5:6–7; 7:14–15, 18–19; 8:1–6, 12–15, 18–24; 1 Cor. 1:18–21; 3:2–4; 9:16–17; 12:12–14; 2 Cor. 5:1–4; 13:4; etc.9. See F. Hauck, “μένω,” TDNT 4:574–88, esp. 574–76, for the use of the verb in Jewish and non-Jewish religious texts, where in both cases “μένειν is a mark of God and what is commensurate with Him” (574). Hauck also outlines the key Old Testament eschatological background of the word (cf. Ps. 102:12; Isa. 40:8; 66:22; Dan. 4:26; 11:6; Zech. 14:10; Wis. 7:27; Sir. 44:13; 4 Esdras 9:37). He then points out that in John’s Gospel the eschatological promise of that which remains is realized in that God “remains” in Christ, Christ “remains” in believers, and believers “remain” in Christ (cf. John 6:56; 8:35; 15:4–7, 9–10; 14:10; 1 John 2:26–28; 3:6, 24; 4:16).10. For the evidence for this meaning, see my Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 338–47, and texts such as Philo, On Sacrifices 35; On the Confusion of Tongues 165; Who Is the Heir 5–6; On Dreams II.83, 85; Plutarch, Demosthenes 12, 14; Cato 33, 35; Ep. Arist. 125; Joseph and Aseneth 17:9; 23:10; T. Reub. 4:2; Wis. 5:1; and Mark 8:32; John 7:13, 26; 10:24; 11:14; Acts 2:29; 4:13, 29, 31; 9:28; 13:46; 14:3; 26:26; 28:31; Eph. 6:19–20; Phil. 1:20.11. The well-established range of meaning for telos includes the idea of “end,” both in the sense of “abolishment” or “termination,” and in the sense of “outcome,” “consequence,” “goal,” or even “purpose.” Here the latter is more appropriate contextually. See BAGD, 811–812, and its confirmation in W. Bauer, K. Aland, and B. Aland, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1988⁶), 1617–18. The NIV translation “it” for the Greek to telos misses the point of the text. To telos is not a pronoun referring back to Moses’ face, but a noun best translated as “the goal.”12. There have been numerous attempts to get around this difficulty by suggesting novel readings for the conjunction itself or by supplying supposedly missing assertions between 3:13 and 3:14 (e.g., “not that Moses sought to deceive, but their minds were hardened”; or, “the glory should have impacted Israel positively, but their minds were hardened”).13. The verb translated “dull” in the NIV is better translated, “hardened,” alluding to Ex. 32–34 as picked up in Jer. 5:21 and Ezek. 12:2 in parallel to Isa. 6:9 and against the backdrop of Deut. 29:3–4. Cf. Rom. 11:7–10 and Acts 28:26–27, where the same verb is used against this same Old Testament background to explain the Jews’ rejection of Paul’s ministry, and the related passages in Matt. 13:15 and Mark 4:12.14. I.e., the use of the aorist to represent “an act which is valid for all time … because (originally at least) the author had a specific case in mind in which the act had been realized,” BDF, §333. The specific case in mind here is Israel’s sin with the golden calf.15. Metonymy is a figure of speech in which one thing is called by another thing associated with it; e.g., we can use “bottle” to refer to drunkenness, as in “he is off the bottle.”16. For a discussion of this use of metonymy, see G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 136–37, with many biblical examples.17. For the pattern of arguing from Israel’s current rebellion (and consequent judgment in the Exile) to her being hardened from the beginning, see Neh. 9:16–31; Ps. 78:5–8, 54–64; 106:6–39; Isa. 63:7–19; 65:2–7; Jer. 3:25; 7:18–26; 11:7–10; 15:1 (where not even Moses himself could prevent the ensuing judgment of God); 16:11–13; 17:23; 19:15; 44:9–10; Lam. 5:7; Ezek. 2:3; 20:8–36; Amos 2:4; Zech. 1:2–4; 7:11–14; Mal. 3:7. See too Paul’s own mixed citation of Deut. 29:3 and Isa. 29:10 in Rom. 11:8, where the latter prophetic text concerning Israel’s hardening in Isaiah’s day is explicated in terms of Israel’s hardening during the days of Moses.18. For the use of this motif see Jer. 3:25; 7:25; 11:7 (MT); 32:20–21 (MT); 44:10 (MT); Ezek. 2:3.19. Cf. the use of this same verb, epistrepho, to refer to “turning to the Lord” in the sense of conversion in Luke 1:16–17; Acts 3:19; 9:35; 11:21; 14:15; 15:19; 26:18 (in the context of Paul’s ministry to the Jews and Gentiles in fulfillment of Isa. 42:7, 16; cf. Isa. 35:5); 26:20; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 Peter 2:25.20. Following Furnish, II Corinthians, 211.21. See Rom. 4:8; 9:28, 29; 10:13; 11:34; 14:11; 15:11; 1 Cor. 2:16; 3:20; 10:26. To these may be added 2 Cor. 8:21, in which the LXX reads kyrios, but the MT reads elohim (“God”).22. For this same use of the verb “to be” in the sense of “means” or “implies” when referring to an interpretation of Scripture, see 1 Cor. 10:4; Rom. 10:6–8; Gal. 3:16; 4:24.23. For one’s social status as “free” over against being a slave, cf. 1 Cor. 7:21–22; 12:13; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 6:8; Col. 3:11. Cf. Gal. 4:22–31, where the social status of the “free woman” is loaded with theological significance as representing the “children of promise” down through Israel’s history and into the present.24. The NIV translates this simply as “we,” which misses Paul’s transition from speaking of his own apostolic role (apostolic we) to that of all believers. This switch in subject is indicated by his explicit use of “we all” (hemeis pantes) in 3:18a (which is the best attested reading), in contrast to the use of the first person plurals alone in the previous paragraphs.25. In the active voice, the verb used here (katoptrizo) means “to show as in a mirror or by reflection,” and in the passive, “to be mirrored,” while the middle means “behold (something) as in a mirror” (H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon [Oxford: Clarendon, 1940], 929). The middle voice is used here. As Furnish, II Corinthians, 214, has pointed out, to read this middle form to mean “reflecting as a mirror” clearly goes against the linguistic evidence.26. Cf. Isa. 2:2–3; 24:23; 25:6–9; 43:21; 56:6–8; 60:1–3; 65:19, 24; 66:18–21, 23, for the revelation of God’s glory in the midst of Israel and among the nations, and 43:19–20; 65:25 for its revelation among the animals and created order.27. For a helpful presentation of the various contemporary views on the nature of the use of the Old Testament in the New, including the idea that the Spirit led the apostles to read the Scriptures in ways illegitimate for us today, see G. K. Beale, ed., The Right Doctrine From the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994).28. For these points and one of the clearest expositions of the role of the Spirit in biblical interpretation, including Paul’s key statement in 1 Cor. 2:13–14 as a reference to “welcoming” or “accepting what the Bible teaches with pleasure,” see Daniel P. Fuller, “The Holy Spirit’s Role in Biblical Interpretation,” in Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation: Essays Presented to Everett F. Harrison by His Students and Colleagues in Honor of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, ed. W. Ward Gasque and William Sanford LaSor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 189–98. As Fuller observes (p. 190), the problem with relying on the illumination of the Spirit as the means to understanding the Bible “is that the words of the text can play no essential role in conveying its intended meaning, even though it is these very words which the writers were inspired to use in transmitting God’s message.”29. Ibid., 196–97.30. Note, e.g., the 1989 survey sponsored by the Lilly Endowment of 205 alumni/ae from Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, Massachusetts. Though the respondents ranked “proclamation of God’s Word” the number one “personal spiritual gift” needed for effectiveness in the ministry, they ranked “able to do Greek and Hebrew exegesis” eleventh in importance when it came to the “academic abilities” needed for the ministry! The only things deemed less important to know were “the major themes of adult life cycles” and the “major themes of Christian education.”31. For example, a 1994 survey sponsored by the Murdock Charitable Trust of more than 800 laypeople, pastors, and seminary professors revealed that the first priority for pastors, according to laypeople, was “spirituality,” while pastors responded that their first priority was “relational skills” (Christianity Today [Oct. 24, 1994], 75). For professors, in contrast, it was “theological knowledge.” Conversely, both laypeople and pastors ranked “theological knowledge” last among their five priorities, while professors listed “counseling skills” as their fifth priority. For the most part, seminaries have not been able to resist the pressure brought about by this mismatch concerning priorities in the pastorate.32. See, e.g., the perceptive essay by Dennis Johnson, “The Peril of Pastors Without the Biblical Languages,” Presbyterian Journal (Sept. 10, 1986), 23–24. As Johnson points out, Hebrew and Greek are in fact “practical subjects for pastors” (23). Indeed, given “the labyrinth of modern translations” and the false teaching that plagues the church, “this is one time when the church needs pastors who can study God’s Word in the languages in which he gave it” (ibid.).33. For these points and the practical and theological reasons why pastors should learn the biblical languages as the basis for preaching, see my “Why Use Biblical Languages in Preaching?” SBJT 3 (1999): 86–89.34. “The Holy Spirit’s Role in Biblical Interpretation,” 190. The work of the Holy Spirit is essential in reading the Bible because, as Fuller insightfully observes, our deep-seated desire to exult in ourselves and glory in our own abilities and achievements will otherwise keep us from the fundamental truth of the Bible that everything we have is a gift (cf. 1 Cor. 4:7).35. For an analysis of the crisis of authority caused by our culture of subjectivity and its implications for our lack of willingness to pursue a serious exegesis of the text, see my “Seminary, Subjectivity, and the Centrality of Scripture: Reflections on the Current Crisis in Evangelical Seminary Education,” JETS 31 (1988): 129–43.

1. Here too, as in 2:14–3:17, the use of the plurals in 4:1–18 refer to Paul in his apostolic office as a continuation of his apology for the validity of his ministry.2. The italics here are an attempt to bring out the difference in content between the negative self-commendation of 3:1 and the positive commendation of oneself in 4:2, which is clearly indicated in the Greek text by the position of the pronoun. In the former, negative case it precedes the verb (heautous synistanein), in the latter it follows it (synistanein heautous). See comments on 3:1 for more on this grammatical point.3. Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (WUNT 2.Reihe, Vol. 4; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1981), 219. Kim’s study is the most definitive study of 2 Cor. 4:4, 6 in view of Paul’s Damascus Road “Christophany” (see esp. 6–13, 137–268).4. Kim, Origin, 31. This is the central thesis of Kim’s work.5. I owe this point to Kim, Origin, 205–7, 212, 230. See too James Scott, 2 Corinthians, 82–83, 88–89, who takes this to indicate a mystical interpretation of Paul’s experience in 3:18 and 4:6 in line with the Jewish “merkabah” (= “chariot”) mysticism that used Ezek. 1 as its proof text. But Paul’s encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus does not fit the pattern of mystical experience.6. So already Anton Fridrichsen, The Apostle and His Message (Uppsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1947), 16, who in writing on 4:6, said that Paul “cannot find a stronger expression for his conviction that he has received a revelation of unique importance and of cosmic scope, a knowledge which is a main element in the development of the eschatological situation. It is very significant that Paul’s thought here goes back to creation in the beginning. He himself is with his gospel active in the new creation at the end of time.”7. Cf. the narratives of Paul’s conversion-call in Acts 9:1–19; 22:3–16; 26:9–18. Note esp. the play on Paul’s blindness versus his call to “see” the Righteous One in 22:14 (cf. 2 Cor. 3:16–18) and his call to open the eyes of others in Acts 26:17–18, turning them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4–6).8. Günther Bornkamm, Paul (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 161.9. Clearly seen by Philip Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 133, concerning 4:6: “At the dawn of creation the darkness was dispelled by the word of Almighty God (see Gen. 1:2–3); and it is the same God who, in the spiritual sphere, drives back the darkness of sin and unbelief from the hearts of men.” Hughes then equates the light of Acts 26:13 with 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 Jesus” from 4:4–6, taking 4:6 to be a reference to Paul’s conversion.10. For these parallels, see Timothy B. Savage, Power Through Weakness, 127, whose work offers an insightful analysis of 4:1–18 against its cultural background (see below).11. Ibid., 165–66 (quote from 166).12. Ibid.,166.13. I owe this insight to Savage, Power Through Weakness, 169.14. Paul uses “Jesus” by itself (i.e., apart from the common expression “Jesus Christ” or with the title “the Lord”) six times in this passage (4:5, 10, 11, 14). In all the rest of Paul’s writings combined, it is used by itself only nine times (Rom. 3:26; 1 Cor. 12:3; 2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 6:17; Eph. 4:21; Phil. 2:10; 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:14 [2x]).15. For a delineation of the similarities and differences between 1 Cor. 4:8–13 and 2 Cor. 4:7–12 as these reflect the essential difference between the situations behind the two letters, together with the parallels between 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 2:14 and 4:11 outlined above, see my Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit, 59–71.16. That Paul pictures his proclamation and suffering in 4:13 in terms of the biblical tradition of the suffering of the righteous is confirmed by his use of related OT passages concerning the suffering of the righteous in 1 Cor. 1:19, 31; 2:9; 3:19–20. For the OT sources of Paul’s understanding of his suffering, see Karl Theodor Kleinknecht, Der leidende Gerechtfertigte: Die alttestamentlich-jüdische Tradition vom ‘leidenden Gerechten’ und ihre Rezeption bei Paulus (WUNT 2.Reihe 13; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1984), 242–84. Kleinknecht points to the Old Testament tradition of the suffering righteous, now interpreted Christologically, as the backdrop to Paul’s thought in 2 Cor. 1:3–11 (cf. Ps. 71:20–21; 94:19; 23:4–5; 69:33–4; Jer. 16:7); 2 Cor. 4:7–18 (in addition to 116:10, cf. Jer. 19:11; Ps. 2:9; esp. 31:12; 37:28; 4 Ezra 4:11; 7:88–89; Test. Jos. 1:3–7; 2:3–7); 2 Cor. 6:1–10 (cf. 1 Enoch 66:6; Ps. 139; 118; Isa. 49:8a; in addition to Ps. 118:17–18); and 2 Cor. 8:9 (cf. Isa. 53:5).17. For the “inner”/“outer” distinction as parallel moral categories to the “old self”/“new self,” cf. Rom. 6:5–6; Eph. 3:16; 4:20–24; Col. 3:5–14. Most students of Paul no longer believe that he had a dualistic conception of the nature of humanity (for the texts usually adduced to support such a view, see Rom. 7:22–25; 1 Cor. 5:5; 7:34; 2 Cor. 7:1).18. For a concise presentation of this central, eschatological concept in the teaching of Jesus, see still George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom, Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959). For its application in Paul’s thought, see William J. Dumbrell, The Search for Order: Biblical Eschatology in Focus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 259–316, and C. Marvin Pate, The End of the Age Has Come: The Theology of Paul (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995). For inaugurated eschatology and the new creation as the unifying center of New Testament theology as a whole, see Greg K. Beale, “The Eschatological Conception of New Testament Theology,” in “The Reader Must Understand:” Eschatology in Bible and Theology, ed. K. E. Brower and M. W. Elliott (Leicester: Apollos, Inter-Varsity, 1997), 9–52.19. C. Marvin Pate, Adam Christology, 61, 106, 126. For the implications of Pate’s study for 5:1–10, see comments on these verses.20. Following Pate, ibid., 110, 112.21. The NIV obscures this link by not translating this noun separately in 4:17 or the verb in a related manner in 1:8.22. Timothy Savage, Power Through Weakness, 183.23. Ibid., 19–53. What follows in regard to Corinthian culture is a summary of his helpful study. The reflections on contemporary society and evangelical Christianity are my own, except where noted.24. Ibid., 34. As Savage points out (51), the cults did not offer a sacred perspective in a secular world, but formed the nucleus of that world itself. Society’s social, cultural, commercial, political, athletic, and medical values all came together in its religious experience.25. J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990), 15.26. 1 Cor. 12:12–13; 15:45; 2 Cor. 1:18–22; cf. Rom. 1:4; 8:11; compare Jesus as the “firstfruits” of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:20, 23 with believers who possess the Spirit as the “firstfruits” of the future restoration in Rom. 8:23.27. Savage, Power Through Weakness, 181.28. D. R. McConnell, A Different Gospel: A Historical and Biblical Analysis of the Modern Faith Movement (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988), xvii. McConnell (15–76) demonstrates that the origin of this movement can be traced back to the metaphysical teachings of E. W. Kenyon (1867–1948), esp. as derived from Christian Science and popularized by Kenneth E. Hagin (b. 1917). Central to this perversion of the gospel is a doctrine of God in which he “is not a personal god who sovereignly governs the universe,” but “an impersonal force” who rules through spiritual laws that can be operated through the “faith” or “mind” of the believer (cf. 136–37). Ultimately, this false gospel has substituted a faith in “faith,” redefined as the power of right thinking and a “power force” of words, for a humble dependence on the biblically defined promises and leading of God (140–41).29. Richard Sturch, “On Being Heavenly Minded,” in Anthony N. S. Lane, ed., The Unseen World: Christian Reflections on Angels, Demons and the Heavenly Realm (Carlisle, Eng.: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 65–74, 65–68. Sturch (66–70) unpacks the biblical images of “heaven” as indicating God’s superior power, omniscience, goodness (the positive associations of light; cf. James 1:17), bliss (cf. 2 Cor. 12:2), and the final state of the redeemed, including a state of mind attuned to God’s presence in awareness and fulfilled desire (see John 17:3; 1 Cor. 13:12; 1 John 3:2; Rev. 21:3–4).30. David Hansen, The Art of Pastoring: Ministry Without All the Answers (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994), 10, 11, 17, 20, 22–23, 27. Hansen (19) points out that academic theology itself is much to blame for the current crisis in the ministry because of its having separated “practical theology” from the other disciplines and then defining the ministerial task in terms of what pastors “do.” In his words, “professional theologians wonder why pastors don’t read theology. The fault lies with them. Since theologians describe pastors as people who do things in the church, pastors don’t have time to read theology. Since pastors are taught to be task doers, academic theology has sent pastors to the quick and lightweight how-to books. If theologians lament that pastors are not sufficiently interested in eschatology, it is because time management is the new eschatology. Theology’s venerable ‘already and not yet’ has become ‘what needs to be done today and what can be left until tomorrow’ ” (19–20).31. Ibid., 27–28.32. For a profound depiction of the “practical” implications of Paul’s future orientation in 4:16–18 in view of 4:7–12, see Piper’s important work, Future Grace: The Purifying Power of Living by Faith in Future Grace (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1995).33. Ibid., 9–13.34. Ibid., 359.35. Ibid., 359–60.

1. See BAGD, 151–52. This conjunction usually introduces a cause or reason (meaning “for”), but can also indicate a further interpretation (meaning “that is”), a conclusion (“therefore”), or merely a continuation of what is being said (“indeed,” “but then”).2. For Paul’s other uses of gar (“for”) plus something said to be known, see Rom. 7:14, 18; 8:26; 2 Cor. 9:2; Eph. 5:5; Phil. 1:19; 1 Thess. 2:1; 3:3; 4:2; 5:2; 2 Thess. 3:7; 2 Tim. 1:12; for Paul’s related use of the participle “knowing” in support of what has just been said, see Rom. 5:3; 6:9; 13:11; 1 Cor. 15:58; 2 Cor. 1:7; 4:14; 5:6, 11; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 6:8, 9; Phil. 1:16; Col. 3:24; 4:1; 1 Thess. 1:4; 1 Tim. 1:9; 2 Tim. 2:23; 3:14; Titus 3:11; Philem. 21; for the parallel use of “to know” (oida) with de (“but”) to introduce support, see Rom. 2:2; 3:19; 8:28; 1 Tim. 1:8; and for his use of “to know” rhetorically in support of what he has just said (i.e., “Do you not know … ?”), see Rom. 6:16; 1 Cor. 3:16; 5:6; 6:2–3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9:13, 24.3. For a helpful survey of the extensive literature on this passage, see C. Marvin Pate, Adam Christology, 1–31.4. See Earle E. Ellis, “The Structure of Pauline Eschatology (II Corinthians V:1–10),” NTS 6 (1959–1960): 211–24.5. For the related image of “putting on”/“being clothed” as a reference to putting on Christ, see Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27; Eph. 4:22–24; Col. 3:9–10.6. For the idea of “nakedness” as a reference to the shame of standing condemned before judgment, cf. Gen. 3:7, 10, 11; Isa. 20:2–5; 32:11; 47:3; Ezek. 16:36–39; 23:10, 26, 29; Hos. 2:3, 8–13; Amos 2:16; 4:3 (LXX); Micah 1:8, 11; for the idea of “being found” as a reference to standing before judgment, cf. 1 Cor. 4:2; 15:15; Gal. 2:17; 2 Peter 3:10. This same metaphorical use of nakedness to refer to being judged or condemned is used in Rev. 3:17; 16:15; 17:16. In this regard, it is important to see that the “nakedness” of Gen. 3:7, 10, 11 (Heb.ʿyrm), with its negative nuance of shame and judgment, is not equated in the biblical narrative with the “nakedness” of 2:25 (Heb. ʿrum), with its positive nuance of openness and unity.7. Pate, Adam Christology, 22. For a description and evaluation of Pate’s thesis, see my review of his work in JBL 113 (1994): 346–49. Cf. Adam Christology, 33–106, where Pate traces the tradition of the restoration of Adam’s glory throughout postbiblical Judaism and early rabbinic thought.8. Pate, Adam Christology, 115–16, in support of which Pate points to 3 Apoc. Bar. 6:16; 2 Enoch 22:8; 30:12; Gen. Rab. 20:12, where Adam’s nakedness as a result of losing his glory is interpreted in terms of a garment or “clothing” that was lost at the Fall. In 1 Enoch 90:28–36; 2 Bar. 4:2–7; 4 Ezra 10:22–55; 13:36, a future, glorious building/temple with Adamic overtones is used to describe the future glory of the righteous. For the general motif of Adam’s loss of glory at the Fall, see 1 Enoch 32:3–6; Apoc. Mos. 20:1. For the idea that the glory of the righteous in the age to come was already possessed by Adam before the Fall, see Sir. 49:16 (cf. Ps. 8:5; Ezek. 28:11–17); Dan. 12:3; 4 Ezra 8:51; 1 Enoch 39:9; 50:1; 58:2; 69:11, 13; 85:3; 103:2–3; 2 Bar. 15:8; 54:15, 21; 2 Enoch 30:10–11; Lev. R. 30:2.9. It is at this point that the “temple” imagery comes to the fore in this passage. As James M. Scott, 2 Corinthians, 110, points out, “the expression that Paul uses for his mortal body is not just the earthly tent (NIV) but rather ‘our earthly house of the tent.’ The language is drawn from 1 Chronicles 9:23 LXX, which refers to the tabernacle as ‘the house of the tent’ (cf. also 1 Chron. 6:17 LXX). Just as the tabernacle was the temporary dwelling of God from the time of the wilderness wanderings and until the building of a permanent temple in Jerusalem, so also Paul’s mortal body is merely temporary.” Scott (111) also points out that the word “house” (oikos) is frequently used of the temple of God (cf. 1 Kings 7:31; Matt. 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46; John 2:16; Acts 7:47, 49), while the designation “eternal house” is a common name for the Solomonic temple in Jerusalem (cf. Josephus, Ant. 8.107; Gen. Rab. 54:4; 99:1; Num. Rab. 9:26, 32, 42; b. Yoma 44a, 53a, 67b).10. See Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 261, who observes that this is not the groaning of fear or even of mortality, but of hopeful longing as in childbirth (cf. Rom. 8:23–25), since Paul uses the same verb in 5:2 that is used to express a longing for absent friends in Rom. 1:11; Phil. 1:8; 2:26; 1 Thess. 3:6; 2 Tim. 1:4.11. Note how Paul uses a string of gar-clauses here. For his pattern of using such a string to support his contentions, see 3:9–11 and the list of examples given on p. 152n.8.12. 2 Cor. 5:7 begins with the conjunction gar, here taken not as a ground clause, but as an inference, based on the structural parallel in the argument between vv. 6–7 and vv. 8–9, in which v. 9a begins with dio (“therefore”); the NIV omits translating the gar in 5:7.13. Timothy B. Savage, Power Through Weakness, 184.14. So Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 90, 295, on the irony and sarcasm of 1 Cor. 4:8: “Here is one of the key texts that discloses the prevailing ‘overly realized eschatology’ (the idea that all of the blessings of the messianic age had already arrived) that afflicted the church at Corinth”; and on 15:12: “In keeping with their overly realized eschatology … and like some later Gnostics, they may have applied the language of resurrection to the state of spiritual transformation they believed they had already achieved in this life.”15. Cf. Rom. 2:5–11; 1 Cor. 5:12–13; 6:9–10; Gal. 6:7–10; Eph. 6:8; Col. 3:24–25; 1 Thess. 4:1–8; 2 Thess. 1:3–10; etc., and Paul’s positive affirmation that our work in the Lord is not in vain (1 Cor. 15:58; Gal. 6:9). For this same emphasis in the teachings of Jesus, see Matt. 7:16–23; 12:33–37; 16:27; 25:31–46; Mark 4:13–20; Luke 6:43–45; 19:12–27; John 5:28–29; 15:2, 16; Rev. 2:18–25; 22:12; cf. also 1 Peter 1:17; Rev. 20:12.16. Time (March 24, 1997), 71–78 (p. 71).17. Ibid., 73.18. Ibid., 75, quoting McDannell and Lang from their social survey entitled, Heaven: A History.19. Quoted by Van Biema, “Does Heaven Exist?” 76.20. Cf. the summary of this point by Scot McKnight, “Eternal Consequences or Eternal Consciousness?” in Through No Fault of Their Own? The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard, ed. by William V. Crockett and James G. Sigountos (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 147–157: “The standard Greek lexicons divide the meaning of aiōnios into two major categories: (1) lasting for a long but definite period of time (aeonial), an age or lifetime, and (2) perpetual, immeasurable time (eternal), forever, or a temporally unlimited period. Context must decide …. But the matter is largely resolved when one recognizes that this present age is temporally limited … and the future age is temporally unlimited (because it shares in God’s immortality). The distinction between ‘this age’ (limited time) and ‘the age to come’ (unlimited time) is central to New Testament eschatology …. God’s time is essentially endless and eternal, and it follows that the final age is an eternal (endless) age. In the exegesis of New Testament texts, this distinction must be observed.” McKnight therefore argues that the final vindication of the righteous and judgment of the wicked are both “eternal” in the sense of being unending in their consciousness, not just in their consequences.21. Van Biema, “Does Heaven Exist?” 73.22. cf. esp. 44–46.23. Christopher Lasch, The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991), 47–48.24. Ibid., 13–14. In short, “the modern conception of progress depends on a positive assessment of the proliferation of wants” (45).25. Lasch argues that the signs are already evident, both economically and environmentally, that such a belief in progress is misplaced, unrealistic, and ultimately self-destructive (cf. his summary on ibid., 528–529). In his words, “The belated discovery that the earth’s ecology will no longer sustain an indefinite expansion of productive forces deals the final blow to the belief in progress” (529). Yet belief in progress persists, especially among the middle and upper classes. When reading dire predictions like those marshaled by Lasch, I find myself saying with unfounded optimism that “need is the mother of invention” and that “science will find a way.” Thus, Lasch observes, “as the twentieth century draws to a close, we find it more and more difficult to mount a compelling defense of the idea of progress; but we find it equally difficult to imagine life without it” (168). Still, for many, the disasters and calamities on every front have recast the future into a “vision of disaster” (169). Yet, as Lasch again observes, “the dystopian view of the world to come … holds out such an abundance of unavoidable calamities that it becomes all the more necessary for people to cling to the idea of progress for emotional support, in spite of the mounting evidence against it” (169). Biblically, this “curious state of mind” is explained by the fact that God created humanity for a future with him, a future that includes both a judgment and a redemption!26. In this regard, Lasch (ibid., 15, 226–295) points out that the Puritan and Calvinistic expressions of the faith, which Lasch calls “certain varieties of radical Protestantism,” worked against the American assumption of “progress.” He thus views Thomas Carlyle and Ralph Waldo Emerson as “latter-day Calvinists without a Calvinist theology” (15). The key point was that people, for all their growing belief in progress, did not control their own fate or destiny. In the end, Lasch argues for the recognition of true “limits” in life in order to counter the still prevailing notions of limitless progress so dominant today. Here we see that Paul is setting up the ultimate “limit,” the final day of judgment.27. For this threefold delineation of biblical faith and for one of the best expositions of its nature and implications, see Daniel P. Fuller, The Unity of the Bible, esp. 269–323.28. On the meaning of the “righteousness of God” as a dynamic concept referring to God’s sovereign, covenant commitment to his people, see Bruce W. Longenecker, “Defining the Faithful Character of the Covenant Community, Galatians 2:15–21 and Beyond,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. by James D. G. Dunn (WUNT 80; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996), 75–97: “The dikai-root is flexible enough to connote various nuances, but all of them cohere within the broader context of the covenant relationship between the creator God and his elect people. To be marked out by righteousness, or to be justified, is primarily about having membership within the covenant people of the just and sovereign God whose righteousness will be established once and for all in the eschatological in-breaking of his reign” (81). For Paul, this in-breaking of the righteousness of God’s reign has already begun with the first coming of Christ, but will be consummated only at the final judgment seat of Christ. Only then will the full-orbed nature of God’s righteousness, displayed in the vindication of his people as a result of the vindication of his Son, be manifest.29. According to the studies of George Barna, Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators (Dallas: Word, 1996), 9, 101.30. Ibid., 71–72.31. Newsweek (Nov. 3, 1997), 6.32. Barna, Index, 71–72.33. Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death (New York: Free Press, 1973), 11–15.34. Ibid., 259, 285.35. Carl, F. Henry, “Christianity and Resurgent Paganism,” Gods of This Age or God of the Ages? ed. R. Albert Mohler (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 1–10 (p. 1).36. Ibid., 4–5.37. Fuller, Unity of the Bible, 150–52 (emphasis mine).

1. Though Paul never uses the verb “to persuade” (peitho) to refer directly to preaching the gospel, it is used in reference to Paul’s evangelizing in Acts 17:4; 18:4; 19:8, 26; 26:28; 28:23. On this point, see Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 121: “Thus Paul’s use of peithomen [in 5:11] has a double flavor; he tries to persuade men and women that Christ is the means of salvation, and he attempts to persuade them of his purity of motive.” My point is that the latter is intimately bound up with the former.2. For a summary of this point, see Moyer Hubbard, “Was Paul Out of His Mind? Re-reading 2 Corinthians 5:13,” JSNT 70 (1998): 39–64 (p. 52), and esp. the works of Kennedy, P. Marshall, Buxton, Betz, Winter, and Litfin cited on pp. 50–52.3. Ibid., 50, following R. G. A. Buxton, Persuasion in Greek Tragedy: A Study of Peithō (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982), 31–48.4. In 5:11, the perfect tenses of the verb phaneroo, “to be manifest, revealed, made known,” which the NIV translates twice as “is plain,” indicate a continuing state of being as the consequence of a past action, with the emphasis here on the present state. This is the so-called “intensive perfect,” in which “the perfect emphasizes the present state of being, the continuing result, the finished product, the fact that a thing is …. This use approaches the meaning of the present tense” (James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek [Lanham, Md.: Univ. Press of America, 1979], 104).5. Cf. 10:12–18 for the difference between the negative practice of self-commendation and the positive practice of engaging in commending oneself.6. This explains why Paul prefers prophecy to speaking in tongues, esp. when the latter was uninterpreted. Craig Blomberg (1 Corinthians, 269) points out concerning 1 Cor. 14:3–4: “Unlike uninterpreted tongues, prophecy edifies the whole assembly, not just the individual speaker …. Paul thus isolates two reasons why prophecy is greater: people, not just God, are addressed, and they can be more positively affected.”7. For the meaning of this same verb as “to be amazed,” which would relate to the kind of impression made by such ecstatic experiences, see Matt. 12:23; Mark 2:12; Luke 8:56; Acts 2:7, 12; 8:13; 9:21; 10:45; 12:16. For a survey of these two dominant views, i.e., abnormality versus ecstatic experience, see Hubbard, “Was Paul Out of His Mind?” 40–42. For more on this view, see Appendix at the end of this chapter (p. 265).8. So Hubbard, ibid., 59, based on the lexical work of H. North, “The Concept of Sophrosyne in Greek Literary Criticism,” Classical Philology 43 (1948): 317.9. The interpretation of “all” in 5:14–15a has given rise to various views, all of which revolve around whether the statement is real (and hence limited to believers) or merely potential (and hence applied to all humanity). As expressed above, I take it to be “real” or “effective.” Christ’s death effectively initiates the new age for all those who participate in it (5:14b: Christ died for all), and his death causes the death of all those who are found in him (5:14c: “all died”). This means that the “all” in both cases must be limited to all those who “receive God’s grace” (6:1). The parallels between our text and Rom. 5:15–18 are instructive. There, “the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ,” that “overflow[s] to the many” in Rom. 5:15 is qualified in 5:17 by “those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace.” Hence, the statement of 5:18, “the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men,” is contextually limited to “those many who receive God’s … grace.”10. This difficulty derives from the fact that the word sarx has a wide field of meaning that encompasses the whole complex of what it means to be human. In Paul’s own use it can have a variety of nuances: the neutral sense of living in this world as a person with human descent (cf. Rom. 1:3; 3:20; 9:3, 5, 8; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22, etc.); our corresponding physical nature and ways of life (cf. Rom. 2:28; 1 Cor. 6:16; 2 Cor. 4:11; 7:1, 5; Gal. 4:13–14; Eph. 2:11; 5:29; Phil. 1:22, 24; Col. 2:5); one’s self or a person (1 Cor. 1:29; Col. 2:1); and the theologically loaded concept of life in the narrowly human sphere of existence apart from the power of the Spirit, i.e., the sinful nature (cf. Rom. 7:5, 18, 25; 8:3–12; 1 Cor. 5:5; Gal. 5:13, 16–19; Eph. 2:3; Col. 2:11, 13; etc.).11. G. K. Beale, “The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Cor 5–7 and Its Bearing on the Literary Problem of 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1,” NTS 35 (1989): 550–81 (p. 556). Beale argues that the second exodus/restoration perspective is the basis of Paul’s argument in chs. 5–7, so that the restoration motif is the foundation of his understanding of the new creation and reconciliation (5:17). For confirmation of this perspective, see W. J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1 (JSNTSup 85; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993). Webb too views the Old Testament traditions behind Paul’s argument in 2 Cor. 2:14–7:4 “under the broader rubric of ‘new covenant and second exodus/return theology.’ ”12. Seyoon Kim, “2 Cor. 5:11–21 and the Origin of Paul’s Concept of ‘Reconciliation,’ ” NovT 39 (1997): 360–84 (p. 380), based on Beale’s work (emphasis Kim’s).13. The key Old Testament texts concerning the eschatological “new creation” are Isa. 43:16–21; 65:16b–23 and 66:22–23. For the later postbiblical development of the expectation of a new creation, see esp. 1QH 5:1, 11–12; 7:13–17a; 11:19–23b; 19:9–14; 1QS 4:23b–26; 11QTemple 29:7b–10; 1 Enoch 72:1; 91:15f.; Jub. 1:29; 4:26; Lib. Ant. 3:10; 16:3; 32:17; 4 Ezra 7:75; 2 Bar. 32:6; 44:12; 57:2.14. For the development of this thesis, see Kim, “2 Cor. 5:11–21,” 368–71. As Kim points out (368), the first person plurals (“we/us”) in this passage, except for the general statement in v. 21, refer to Paul in his apostolic office.15. For the specific texts, see Rom 5:10, 11; 11:15; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19, 20; Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20, 22.16. For an extensive representation of this thesis, see Cilliers Breytenbach, Versöhnung: Eine Studie zur paulinischen Soteriologie (WMANT 60; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989).17. For a synopsis of the two views, the relevant supporting literature, and a critique of Breytenbach’s position, see Peter Stuhlmacher, “Cilliers Breytenbachs Sicht von Sühne und Versöhnung,” Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 6 (1991): 339–54. The adaptation of “reconciliation” language in a Hellenistic Jewish context, which Breytenbach did not take seriously enough, is seen in the use of the reconciliation terminology (katallage) to describe God’s being reconciled to his people in 2 Macc. 1:5; 5:20; 7:32–33; 8:29; Philo, Life of Moses 2.166; JosAs 11:18; Josephus, War 5.415; Ant. 7.153, as pointed out by I. H. Marshall, quoted by Kim, “2 Cor. 5:11–21,” 361.18. Margaret E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 436, following the work of Bachmann and M. Wolter.19. For these and other parallel references to the role of angels and even the high priest as “ambassadors,” see Stuhlmacher, “Sühne,” 346. My understanding of Paul as prophet and of 5:21 (see below) follows Stuhlmacher’s work.20. Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 314.21. 21. See Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, 315, who points out that the expression “Behold!” (idou) occurs frequently in the LXX to introduce solemn pronouncements, esp. where divine promises are given, and in apocalyptic traditions, where it often introduces visions and eschatological announcements concerning the “end.” As an example, he points to the same “new creation” affirmation in Rev. 21:5 against the backdrop of Isa. 42:9; 43:19; 65:17–18. Furnish (312) also points out that Paul’s use of “now” (nun) points back to 2 Cor. 5:16, which recalls Isa. 48:6 (“the from now on … new things”), and is used by Paul in 2 Cor. 6:2 and in Rom. 3:21; 5:9, 11; 8:1; 11:30; 13:11; Gal. 2:20; 4:9 to refer to the time of faith and salvation.22. Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 278–79, 285.23. Ibid., 285–86, emphasis mine.24. This understanding of the atoning death of Christ as effective and “limited” to God’s people has a long history in the church. For a study of this emphasis from Augustine to Calvin, see Jonathan H. Rainbow, The Will of God and the Cross: An Historical and Theological Study of John Calvin’s Doctrine of Limited Redemption (Princeton Theological Monograph Series 22; Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick, 1990). Rainbow’s central thesis is that “Calvin the predestinarian theologian inherited a thousand-year tradition that taught limited redemption” (p. 8). If in this text the consequences of Jesus’ death are not “limited” to God’s people, the only consistent conclusion would be to argue for a universal salvation, something Paul never does.25. J. I. Packer, “Introductory Essay” to John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1967, reprint of 1852), 1–25 (p. 5). Packer’s essay is a classic presentation of the central importance of affirming the biblical doctrine that Christ died for God’s people in particular, and not for the world in some general, potential sense. Owen’s work is an extensive development of this affirmation. Packer argues that the doctrine of a universal atonement (i.e., that Christ died for all people) is unscriptural and a denial of the gospel, since it denies the power of the cross, “reduces God’s love to an impotent wish and turns the whole economy of ‘saving’ grace … into a monumental failure … so far from magnifying the merit and worth of Christ’s death, it cheapens it, for it makes Christ die in vain” (p. 12).26. Ibid., 13–14. Packer’s essay may now be found in his A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990), 125–48.27. Robert W. Yarbrough, “Biblical Authority and the Ethics Gap: The Call to Faith in James and Schlatter,” Presbyterion 22 (1996): 67–75 (pp. 72–74). Yarbrough’s summary and quotes are drawn from Schlatter’s Romans: The Righteousness of God, trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995), 22–23.28. Kim, “2 Cor. 5:11–21,” 362–63.29. “Can We Be Good Without Hell?” Christianity Today (June 16, 1997), 22–26.30. Ibid., 22.31. Ibid., 22–23.32. “Sermon XXVII: Turn or Burn,” Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Spurgeon’s Sermons, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker, reprint of 1883 collection), 426–441 (pp. 426–27).33. From The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974 [reprint of 1834]), 7–12, 10. Edwards preached this sermon in Enfield, Connecticut, during the Great Awakening.34. Lesslie Newbigin, Truth to Tell: The Gospel as Public Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 72–73. For Newbigin’s understanding of the implications of the public nature of this gospel, see the Contemporary Significance of 6:3–13.35. Donald G. Bloesch, Theological Notebook. Vol. 1: 1960–1964 (Colorado Springs: Helmers & Howard, 1989), 164.36. George Barna, Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators (Dallas: Word, 1996), 3, based on a poll from January, 1993.37. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 281.38. Quoted from Lesslie Newbigin’s Word in Season as found in Tim Stafford’s profile of Newbigin’s life, “God’s Missionary to Us,” Christianity Today (December 9, 1996), 32.

1. The participles didontes (“presenting”/“giving”) and synistantes (“commending”) in 6:3–4 are best taken as relating back to parakaloumen (“we urge”) in 6:1.2. The Greek en medeni in 6:3 is ambiguous. Though it could read “among anyone” (cf. NIV: “in anyone’s path”), the parallel to “in every thing/way” in the next clause speaks against this rendering.3. For explicit statements that Paul intentionally and unintentionally took up suffering on behalf of the Corinthians, see 1:3–7; 1:12–14; 1:23–2:4; 3:2; 4:5, 12, 15; 5:12; 7:3; 12:14–16, 19.4. Scott J. Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit, 75.5. Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 318.6. K. Prümm, Diakonia Pneumatos: Der zweite Korintherbrief als Zugang zur Apostolischen Botschaft. II/I: Theologie des zweiten Korintherbriefes, Apostolat und christliche Wirklichkeit (Rome/Freiburg/Wien: Herder, 1960), 184.7. From Newbigin’s Unfinished Agenda, as quoted in the insightful profile of his life by Tim Stafford, “God’s Missionary to Us,” Christianity Today (Dec. 9, 1996), 25.8. Newbigin, Truth to Tell, 13.9. Ibid., 33–35.10. Ibid., 35.11. This is Newbigin’s central thesis in response to the contemporary challenges of postmodernism; cf. ibid., 32–33, 52–53, 56–57, 59.12. Ibid., 59.

1. Six of the fifty New Testament hapax legomenon found in 2 Corinthians occur in this passage: “to yoke together” (heterozygeo); “common” (metoche), “harmony” (symphonesis), “Belial” (belial), “agreement” (synkatathesis), and “that which contaminates” (molysmos). It is also often argued that Paul would not use the phrase “body and spirit” (7:1) in a purely nontheological way, meaning something like “outwardly and inwardly” or “the entire human person,” it as means here.2. That is, is it Pauline and written for this context, Pauline from another context but adapted by Paul for this letter, or non-Pauline, possibly from Qumran, having been interpolated by others?3. That is, is it integral to Paul’s argument, a digression from it, or misplaced and disruptive within it?4. That is, from whom should the Corinthians separate, why, and for what purpose? For one of the clearest presentations of these issues, see Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, 375–83. Furnish himself argues that 6:14–7:1 is of non-Pauline composition, but was incorporated by Paul himself as he wrote this letter (p. 383).5. In the LXX, the stem of the verb translated “to yoke together” (heterozygeo) occurs in its adjectival form (heterozygos) in Lev. 19:19, where it refers to a ban on crossbreeding animals. Though readers often point to the ban in Deut. 22:10 on yoking an ox and an ass together for plowing as the background to 6:14, the actual word does not occur there. James M. Scott, “The Use of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 6:16c–18 and Paul’s Restoration Theology,” JSNT 56 (1994): 73–99, finds only one other metaphorical use of the word outside of Paul, where it means “ally” (p. 75; see Plutarch, Cimon 16.10). I am indebted for much of what follows to Scott’s insightful analysis of the use of the Old Testament in this passage, which points to its Pauline authorship and integral place within the argument of 2 Corinthians.6. Based on a long-standing view of the difference between the present and aorist tenses when used in imperatives and prohibitions (i.e., the aorist was taken to indicate, “start/don’t start,” while the present tense meant, “keep doing/stop doing what you are presently doing”), it is often maintained that the present tense form of the prohibition in 6:14a indicates that the Corinthians were already engaged in such a “yoking together” with unbelievers. Recent study, however, has shown this distinction to be faulty. The force of the aorist in commands is simply to view the action as a whole, while the present views it as an ongoing process. Only context can introduce the ideas of not starting (i.e., an ingressive aorist; cf. Matt. 6:13; Luke 6:29) or stopping what one is already doing (i.e., a progressive present; cf. Matt. 19:14; John 2:16). In 2 Cor. 6:14 Paul is simply prohibiting the Corinthians from being yoked with unbelievers as a way of life, whether they have begun to do so or not. For a discussion of the Greek imperative and prohibition, see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 714–25.7. Thus, Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 342, interprets 6:14 to mean, “Let the Corinthians separate themselves from the local temple cults.” As Barnett understands it, “Withdrawal from the Gentile cults will be their way of responding to his call to them, demonstrating that they truly are an apostolic church” (p. 341). This interpretation supposes that Paul’s concern is that the Corinthian Christians are still involved in attending such idolatrous cults and that the “unbelievers” are the unconverted Gentiles who participated in them. This view owes its contemporary popularity to the influential work of Gordon D. Fee, “II Corinthians vi.14-vii.1 and Food Offered to Idols,” NTS 23 (1977): 140–67, who argued for the equation of 1 Cor. 8:1–11:1 and 6:14–7:1, based on their similar vocabulary.8. Cf. Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 194, 197: Paul is classing some of the Corinthians with unbelievers “to stab them awake to their condition and peril if they refuse to join him,” so that his call here is aimed at “a recalcitrant group at Corinth.” For a discussion of the other basic proposals concerning this passage, see Bridging Contexts.9. Cf. Rom. 6:19, where this same contrast between righteousness and lawlessness refers to two all-encompassing ways of life in which one’s faith in Christ and obedience to God cannot be separated. For the same contrast between “light” and “darkness” as moral categories of motives and behavior, see Rom. 2:19; 13:12; 1 Cor. 4:5; Eph. 5:11–14; 1 Thess. 5:4–5.10. The “dualistic” contrasts in vv. 14–15 are often associated with those found in Qumran, where “lawlessness” vs. “righteousness,” and “light” vs. “darkness” are frequently contrasted (for the former, see 1QH 9:26–27; 1QS 1:4–5; for the latter, see 1QS 1:9–11; 1QM 1:1–13; cf. too T. Naph. 2:10; T. Levi 19:1). Both the early church and the Qumran community used these biblical categories to indicate their demarcation from the world and from other Jews as the true people of God (cf. Isa. 9:2; 29:15). This similarity in self-understanding between the Qumran community and the early Church derives from the fact that the Qumran congregation and the early church are the only two Jewish communities ever to portray themselves explicitly as the people of the “new covenant.” This does not, however, prove dependence of one on the other.11. See, e.g., 1QM 13:1–4; 1QS 1:18, 24; 1QH 14:21; CD 4:12–15; Jub. 1:20; T. Reub. 4:11; T. Levi 8:12 (where Belial is likewise opposed to the Messiah); 18:4; 19:1, Syb. Or. 3:63–64.12. S. D. Sperling, “Belial,” Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden/New York: Brill, 1995), 322.13. The prohibition against idols is a common Old Testament theme, with a corresponding New Testament development (cf. Ex. 20:4; 23:24; Lev. 26:1; Deut. 4:16, 23; 5:7–10; 27:15; 32:16, 21; Josh. 23:7, etc.; for “idolatry” in Paul’s writings, see Rom. 1:22–25; 1 Cor. 5:10–11; 6:9; 10:7, 14, 19; 12:2; Gal. 4:8; 5:20; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 1:9). As we have seen in regard to 2 Cor. 3:7–14, Israel’s idolatry with the golden calf broke the covenant and initiated her history of hard-heartedness.14. So too Scott, “Use of Scripture,” 76, 83, who points to the same use of Scripture in Rom. 3:10–18, where Paul also combines six Old Testament texts into a single quotation introduced with “as it is written.” There too his use of Scripture has the same threefold structure found here: beginning and ending axiomatic statements with a “concretizing parenesis” in the middle. As Scott observes, the intermediate “says the Lord” in 2 Cor. 6:17 serves to divide the quotations into two halves, with three lines each.15. This is confirmed by the LXX rendering of Lev. 26:11, which reads “covenant” in place of the Hebrew “dwelling.” Moreover, Scott, “Use of Scripture,” 82, points out that Lev. 26:12 is often used typologically in Jewish tradition in the context of the return from exile and the restoration of the broken covenant (cf. Jub. 1:17, which combines Lev. 26:12 with Zech. 8:8 to refer to the new covenant).16. For the use of the verb “receive” (eisdechomai) in 6:17 as a promise of deliverance from exile, see Jer. 23:3; Ezek. 11:17; 20:34; 22:19; Hos. 8:10; Mic. 4:6; Zeph. 3:19, 20; Zech. 10:8, 10 (cf. Scott, “Use of Scripture,” 85n.51).17. Ibid., 88.18. Ibid., 87–88, where he points out that Jub. 1:24 applies the adoption formula of 2 Sam. 7:14 to Israel as an extension of the covenant formula used in Jub. 1:17. In the same way, the adoption formula in 2 Sam. 7:14 corresponds to the covenant formula used in 2 Sam. 7:24, and Jer. 31:1 (covenant formula) corresponds to 31:9 (adoption formula). In the New Testament, cf. Rev. 21:3 (covenant formula) with 21:7 (adoption formula).19. Formally, 7:1 is comprised of a conjunction that indicates that it functions as the conclusion of its paragraph (“therefore,” oun), two participial clauses, each of which summarizes a supporting point of the argument of its paragraph (“having these promises” and “perfecting” or “making complete holiness by means of the fear of God”), and a command that restates the main point of its paragraph (“Let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit” as a more general restatement of 6:14: “Do not be yoked or mismatched with unbelievers”). Moreover, this command is sandwiched between the two participles, one on each side, so that the relationship between what Paul has just said and how it relates to the command he draws from it is clear: “Therefore, since we have these promises on the one hand, let us cleanse ourselves, since in doing so, on the other hand, we will be making complete our holiness by means of the fear of God.”20. Cf. esp. Jer. 23:15; 2 Macc. 5:27, where the purification imagery appears to refer to cleansing from the defilement of idols.21. The NIV’s rendering of phobos in 7:1 as “reverence” is too weak and misses the connection to 5:11.22. The NIV’s rendering of this word as “dear friends” is too weak and nontheological, since it misses the implied reference to the covenant relationship from 6:17–18.23. Margaret E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 1:472.24. Furnish, II Corinthians, 373.25. Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon, Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony (Nashville: Abingdon, 1989) 12, 139–40. Written from the perspective of the declining mainline churches, this study is a wake-up call to the cultural accommodation that has crept into evangelicalism as well. Such compromise can be seen in the trend among evangelical seminaries to produce clergy who, like the products of their liberal counterparts, “are agents of modernity, experts in the art of congregational adaptation to the cultural status quo, enlightened facilitators whose years of education have trained them to enable believers to detach themselves from the insights, habits, stories, and structures that make the church the church …. The congregation watches in befuddlement as the pastor manages to do everything but plan worship, preach well, teach, and build up the congregation …. The new pastors are trained to help the individual be a bit less miserable within the social status quo—just like doctors and lawyers …” (116).26. Ibid., 140.27. Ibid., 131–132. Hauerwas and Willimon make these points on the basis of the Ananias and Sapphira narrative in Acts 5:1–11. As they conclude, “Here, in struggling to be truthful about possessions, the church experienced itself as a disciplined community of truthfulness” (132).28. Ibid., 138.29. Ibid., 30, 47, 83, 94.30. Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 90–91, referring to Hans Küng, The Church (London: Burns & Oates, 1968), and John Howard Yoder, “A People in the World: Theological Interpretation,” in James Leo Garrett Jr., The Concept of the Believers’ Church (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald, 1969).31. Ferguson, The Church of Christ, 90 (referring to Küng, The Church, 122).32. Ferguson, The Church of Christ, 90.33. Ibid., 91 (quoting Yoder, “People,” 274), emphasis mine.34. Hauerwas and Willimon, Resident Aliens, 36–37. As they put it, “The church does not exist to ask what needs doing to keep the world running smoothly and then to motivate our people to go do it. The church is not to be judged by how useful we are as a ‘supporting institution’ and our clergy as members of a ‘helping profession.’ The church has its own reason for being, hid within its own mandate and not found in the world. We are not chartered by the Emperor” (39).35. William A. Dyrness, How Does America Hear the Gospel? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 139.36. Hauerwas and Willimon, Resident Aliens, 138–39.37. Langdon Gilkey, How the Church Can Minister to the World Without Losing Itself (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 1.38. Ibid., 3.

1. The NIV translation, “make room for us in your hearts” is an unwarranted narrowing of the verb choreo, which simply means “to have room for, hold, contain” (cf. BAGD, 889). The only support given in BAGD, 890, for the suggestion that in 7:2 the verb has a figurative meaning, “open-heartedness,” is the parallel to 6:13. But in 6:13 the verb is different (cf. platuno, “make wide,” “enlarge”) and is defined by the references to Paul’s heart in 6:11 and their affections in 6:12, while here the verb is left undefined.2. Cf. “encouragement” or “(to) comfort” (paraklesis/parakaleo) in 7:4 and in 7:6, 7, and 13; “joy”/“to rejoice” (chara/chairo) in 7:4 and in 7:7, 9, 13b, and 16, which functions as an inclusio from v. 4 to v. 16; “afflictions”/“to afflict/oppress” (thlipsis/thlibo) in 7:4 and in 7:5; and “boast”/“to boast” (kauchesis/kauchaomai) in 7:4 and 7:14.3. See the use of this same verb, pleonekteo (“to take advantage of, outwit, cheat, exploit”), in 2:11 to describe Satan’s strategy of “outwitting” believers, and in 12:17–18 to describe Paul’s denial that he and Titus “exploited” them with the collection. For its only other use in the NT, cf. 1 Thess. 4:6.4. Victor Furnish, II Corinthians, 392–93. Furnish, however, sees 7:4 as the beginning of a new unit of thought, with the prior section extending from 6:11–7:3.5. In view of the use of this same term in 3:12, the NIV rendering of parresia as “confidence” is possible, but not probable. In Paul’s day, this semi-technical term was used to refer to a “boldness of speech” or “candor” that derived from the positive nature of one’s own message (Paul speaks the truth) and from a trust between speaker and audience (Paul’s relationship with the Corinthians is repaired).6. The development of this theme in 7:7, 13 is an extension of his thought in 1:3–7; 2:14; 4:7–14. Compare too its use in 8:4, 17 to describe others in whom God is at work.7. Cf. Isa. 49:13 LXX (tous tapeinous tou laou autou parekalesen) with 2 Cor. 7:6 (ho parakalon tous tapeinous).8. So Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 369–70. Thus, Paul’s vocabulary of comfort “calls to mind God’s comfort of his people through the prophet Isaiah (LXX Isa 40:1; 49:13; 51:3, 12, 19; 52:9; 61:2; 66:13); the ‘consolation [i.e., comforting] of Israel’ (Luke 2:25) described the long-awaited messianic age. Paul’s extensive use of such language within 2 Corinthians is taken to imply that this age has arrived, a view that is explicit elsewhere within the letter (see on 3:3, 6; 6:2). Thus the statement ‘God … comforts the downcast’ is not merely an edifying reflection on the gracious character of God expressed in this action; it also symbolizes God’s action toward his people under the new covenant.”9. It is frequently pointed out that Paul does not often use the term “repentance”/“to repent” (metanoia/metanoeo) (besides 7:9–10, cf. Rom. 2:4; 2 Cor. 12:21; 2 Tim. 2:25, and the cognate, “unrepentant,” in Rom. 2:5). Nevertheless, its content is everywhere present as the presupposition for the exercise of the “obedience of faith” that flows from the call of the gospel itself.10. Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 30.11. In the Greek syntax of verse 11, “earnestness” or “eagerness” (spoude) is set off from what follows as a matter of emphasis. The importance of the Corinthians’ earnestness as a sign of their genuine faith for Paul’s argument in 2 Cor. is confirmed by the fact that “earnestness” or “eagerness” (spoude) and its cognates are used eight times in chs. 7–8 (cf. 7:11, 12; 8:7, 8, 16, 17, 22[2x]), but only five times in all the other Pauline writings combined (Rom. 12:8, 11; Phil. 2:28; 2 Tim. 1:17; Titus 3:13).12. The opposite of this is a “self-commendation” (heauton synistemi), in which one is forced to substitute for such hard evidence of God’s approval one’s own unsubstantiated claims or those of others in letters of recommendation (cf. 3:1; 5:12; 10:12, 18; 12:11).13. Furnish, II Corinthians, 389.14. Contra Martin, 2 Corinthians, 215.15. The identity of the offender and the nature of his offense during Paul’s “painful visit” (cf. 2:1) are still not resolved. Attempts to identify the offender with the man of 1 Cor. 5:1–5 or 1 Cor. 6:1–11, or with an offense against Timothy in light of 1 Cor. 16:10–11, have not been found persuasive. There is also no consensus on whether the offender was one of Paul’s opponents from outside the church or a member of the church itself, though the call for reconciliation in 2:5–11 makes it highly likely that he was a member of the congregation.16. This expression (epi with a genitive) refers to speaking “before Titus” as the judge of Paul’s claim (cf. Mark 13:9; Acts 25:9; 1 Cor. 6:1 for this same expression). Moreover, given the mixed nature of the church at this time, the “all of you” of 7:13b and the “you” of 7:14–15 are not references to the entire church, but to the repentant majority that Paul is currently addressing (cf. 2:6).17. Barnett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 372, 375n.15, 377–78.18. Ibid., 375–76.19. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 232–33, quoting Strachan, emphasis mine. Martin points to the contrasts between Esau (Gen. 27:38; Heb. 12:16–17) and David (Ps. 51:12–19) or between Judas and Peter (Matt. 27:3; Luke 22:31–34) as illustrations of the two types of sorrow (233).20. Barnett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 384–385.21. “The Year Emotions Ruled,” Time Magazine (Dec. 22, 1997), 64–68 (p. 64).22. Ibid., 64.23. Ibid., 66 (emphasis mine).24. Ibid., 64. “Mass guilt, which used to be thought of as a convenient way out of individual responsibility, was in” (65).25. Quoted by John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1996), 96.26. Ibid., 120–121, emphasis mine. In short, “How can you keep from seeking your own joy in acts of love when your joy consists in being loving?” (Desiring God, 98). Piper discusses a variety of biblical passages in his analysis, including 2 Cor. 8:1–4, 8 and 9:6–7, to which we will return in our next chapters. Knowing this God-given reality of human nature, Jesus appealed to our desire to be happy as the motivating drive behind discipleship (cf. Mark 8:34–38).27. Piper, Desiring God, 100.28. Ibid., 111.29. Ibid., 110. For support of this point, Piper quotes Matt. 6:19–20 and Luke 12:33.30. Hauerwas and Willimon, Resident Aliens, 120–21.31. The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1922 ed.), 3.

1. Though we do not follow his view that chapters 8 and 9 were separate letters later inserted into the collage of fragments that make up “2 Corinthians,” Hans Dieter Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 132, rightly calls the rhetoric of 8:1–15 “advisory,” rather than being a letter of recommendation as such. According to Betz’s analysis, it is similar in form and content to ancient administrative letters of appointment that accompanied royal envoys (cf. Acts 9:12; 15:23–29; 22:5) (133). For our purpose, it is important to emphasize, with Betz, that the focus of 8:1–15 is not on recommending Titus, but on motivating the Corinthians. For other examples of passages of commendation embedded within letters of a different genre and purpose, cf. Rom. 16:1–2; 1 Cor. 16:15–16, 17–18; Phil. 2:29–30; 4:2–3; 1 Thess. 5:12–13a; Philem.; Heb. 13:17; 3 John 12 (according to Kim, as quoted by Betz, 135n.28).2. Though often argued, it is doubtful that Paul saw the collection to be a fulfillment of Isa. 2:2–3, 60:5–6, and Micah 4:1–2, in which in the last days the Gentiles stream to Jerusalem bringing gifts. Nor does it appear that Paul thought that the Gentiles’ offering would make the Jews jealous, thereby winning them to Christ and ushering in the Parousia (cf. Rom. 11:4, 25–26). For the classic presentation of these views, see Johannes Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (Atlanta: John Knox, 1959), 303–8. According to this view, Paul sees himself as the one on whom the consummation of the messianic age depends (cf. ibid., 33, 41, 49, 61, 66, 129–130, 247). Although a large group of Gentiles did accompany Paul (Acts 20:4, 16, 22 and 24:17 may be referring to delegates associated with the collection), there is no explicit connection made in any New Testament text between the collection and this Old Testament expectation. Paul himself expressed great concerns over whether his ministry would even be accepted, let alone be seen as the great pilgrimage of the Gentiles to Mount Zion, and his worst fears were realized (Rom. 15:30–32; cf. Acts 21:21, 27–36; 22:22–24). Finally, the order of redemption in the Old Testament is the opposite of that presented in this view: In Isa. 2:2–3; 60:5–6; Micah 4:1–2 the conversion of Israel as a people leads to the coming of the Gentiles, not vice versa. For Paul, the great conversion of Israel and the subsequent conversion of the nations pictured in these texts is still to come. At the present, only a remnant of both Jew and Gentile is being saved. For a concise exposition of this view, following the work of John Murray, see Daniel P. Fuller, The Unity of the Bible, 437–42.3. Formally, the expression is “wealth in regard to generosity” (NIV, “rich generosity”). For the meaning of haplotes as either “single-mindedness/sincerity” (2 Cor. 1:12; 11:3; cf. Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22) or “generosity” (2 Cor. 9:11, 13; cf. Rom. 12:8; James 1:5), see BAGD, 85–86, which suggests that the meaning “generosity” is disputed, suggesting as an alternative, “sincere concern.” But the meaning “generosity” is to be retained. For the use of perisseuo (NIV, “well up;” or better, “overflow”), see 2 Cor. 8:2, 7–8 (cf. 8:14; 9:1 for cognates); 9:8, 12.4. On the persecution of the Macedonians, cf. Phil. 1:27–30; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2:14; 3:3–4, 7; 2 Thess. 1:4–10. For the Macedonians in Acts, see Acts 16:9–17:15; 18:5; 19:21–22, 29; 20:1–4; 27:2.5. What Paul says here about the Macedonians he has already affirmed about his own afflictions (2 Cor. 1:4–6, 8; 2:4; 2:14 [metaphorically]; 4:8, 17; 6:4; 8:13), his God-based joy in their midst (1:3–7, 8–11, 12, 24; 2:3, 4, 7; 6:10; 7:4, 7, 9, 13, 16; 10:8; 12:9, 10; 13:9), and his own grace-inspired sincerity as a result (1:12). In 8:1–2 Paul is therefore also drawing an implicit parallel between the Macedonians and his own example: “Imitate the Macedonians as they imitate me as I imitate Christ” (cf. 8:9; cf. 1 Cor. 11:1).6. See Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 46. For this use of charis, cf. Acts 25:3. For koinonia as “partnership” or “fellowship,” see 2 Cor. 9:13; Gal. 2:9; Phil. 1:5; 4:14–15; for diakonia as “charity,” cf. Acts 6:1; 11:29; 12:25.7. Verse 5 is difficult to translate because of the elided verb in the first clause. Formally it reads, “and not just as we hoped, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and to us through the will of God.” The NIV rightly construes verse 5 to mean that their giving of themselves to the Lord and to Paul was not as expected. Cf. the NRSV: “and this [i.e., giving to the collection], not merely as we expected; they gave themselves first to the Lord and, by the will of God, to us.” In other words, the negation refers back to their giving in the collection, but in order to establish a positive comparison to what follows: “and not only did they give just as we expected, but they gave ….”8. For the use of parakaleo (“to urge, exhort”) to refer to an urgent request, see 2:8; 5:20; 6:1; 9:5; 12:18; for the noun, cf. 8:17 and 1 Cor. 16:12; 1 Thess. 2:3. Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 54, argues that the verb in 8:6 has a technical meaning “to appoint,” as used in administrative texts to refer to the appointment of legal or political representatives. Although the extent of the administrative tone in this passage may be debated, Betz’s observation that Titus is being appointed as Paul’s delegate, not entreated to be one, is a good one. For the “act of grace” as a reference to the collection see 1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:7, 19.9. This thematic connection between the Macedonians and the Corinthians is obscured by the NIV’s use of three different words in this context to represent the same stem (perisse): “overflowing” and “welled up” in 8:2 and “excel” in 8:7.10. For “faith” as the unique spiritual gift of miracle-working faith, see 1 Cor. 12:9–10; for “speech” as charismatic speech, see 1 Cor. 12:10, 28; 14:9, 19, 39; for the gift of knowledge as special spiritual insight, see 1 Cor. 1:5, 8; 8:1–7, 10; 12:8; 13:2, 8; 14:6.11. Contra the NIV and RSV, the textual variant “in our love for you” (cf. NRSV and NASB) is the more difficult reading and hence to be preferred over the variant “your love for us” (cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 2d ed., 1994], 512–13).12. For the use of dokimazo to refer to putting to the test or examining something, cf. Rom. 14:18; 16:10; 1 Cor. 11:19; 2 Cor. 10:18; 13:7; for the idea of testing something to show its genuine nature, cf. Rom. 2:18; 12:2; 14:22; 1 Cor. 11:28; 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 6:4.13. On test of faith, see 1 Cor. 3:13; 11:28; 16:3; Gal. 6:4; Phil. 1:10; 2:22; 1 Thess. 2:4; 5:21.14. See BAGD, 163.15. For this same verb (symphero, to help, confer a benefit, be advantageous or profitable) and its cognates, see 12:1; also 1 Cor. 6:12; 7:35; 10:23, 33; 12:7 (cf. BAGD, 780).16. The designation “from last year” (lit. trans.) refers to the last calendar year; it could be as little as a month or two to as much as twenty-three months ago.17. Contra Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 63.18. Victor Furnish, II Corinthians, 406, points to Prov. 3:27–28 for the same idea.19. Again, there are those who take 8:14 to refer not to sharing financial resources, but to the conversion of the Gentiles (i.e., their spiritual “plenty;” cf. 1 Cor. 1:7) as that which contributes to the conversion of the Jews (i.e., what the Jews need in the present is Christ), which in turn brings about the final salvation of the nations (i.e., their future need; see above, n. 2). For this view of 8:14, see Martin, 2 Corinthians, 261. However, it is difficult contextually to take v. 14 as a purely theological statement. Martin himself admits that “it has to be conceded that the turning of the Corinthians’ money gift designed to help famine-racked Jerusalem into the eschatological hope of spiritual bounties at the climax of the ages seems a vast shift of thought …” (261).20. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 251. This same thing is true of Phil. 4:16–20.21. For an example of this approach, see Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 388–89, 401, 404, 406, 409, 434 (on 9:5), 437 (on 9:7). Concerning 8:10, he concludes that although this is a “serious apostolic counsel” (following Furnish), “nonetheless, such ‘advice’ is not obligatory; otherwise their response could not be ‘of grace’ ” (409n.28). Hence, for Barnett, Paul’s emphasis on the priority of “willing” over “doing” in 8:10 reflects this same contrast (411).22. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 262.23. Ibid., 264, 265.24. See Origen, Contra Celsus 1.62; 3.44, 55, as discussed by Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1983), 51. In categorizing the Corinthians’ status, I am following Meeks’ discussion, 58–59, 64.25. Derek Tidball, The Social Context of the New Testament: A Sociological Analysis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 98. See, e.g., the presence in the church of the wealthy Gaius and prestigious Crispus (1 Cor. 1:14), Erastus, with his high civic status (Rom. 16:23; 2 Tim. 4:20), the independent artisans and homeowners Prisca and Aquila (Rom. 16:3–5; 1 Cor. 16:19), and the description of the majority of the people in 1 Cor. 1:26, some of whom must have been slaves (cf. 1 Cor. 7:20–24).26. Meeks, First Urban Christians, 65. Nevertheless, because of the fragmentary and opaque quality of our sources concerning the nature of social status and class in the ancient world in general and in the church in particular, Meeks’ caution is well taken: “We cannot draw up a statistical profile of the constituency of the Pauline communities nor fully describe the social level of a single Pauline Christian” (72).27. Ibid., 73.28. Furnish, II Corinthians, 418.29. Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 59.30. John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1996), 102–4.31. William Dyrness, How Does America Hear the Gospel? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 132–33.32. Ibid., 133.33. I have removed the name of my church to protect the innocent! The bulletin flyers were copyrighted by Willing Way, Inc., 1996, 1997.34. William Law, A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life: Adapted to the State and Condition of all Orders of Christians, Introduction by G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966). Though Law himself remained within the Church of England his entire life, J. H. Overton observed in the introduction to the 1898 edition that the great Evangelical Revival, beginning in 1738, “owed its first impetus to this book more than to any other” (ix). Law wrote his Serious Call to those who professed to be Christians but who showed little evidence of being Christian in the affairs of everyday life. As Overton points out, the purpose of Law’s call “to live more nearly as they prayed,” was “to convince their minds of the absurdity of believing one thing, and doing another” (xii). In what follows, all quotes are taken from this edition and cited first by original chapter number and then by page number in the Eerdmans edition. The emphases are mine.35. “If we are to be in Christ new creatures, we must show that we are so, by having new ways of living in the world. If we are to follow Christ, it must be in our common way of spending every day. Thus it is in all the virtues and holy tempers of Christianity, they are not ours unless they be the virtues and tempers of our ordinary life …. If our common life is not a common course of humility, self-denial, renunciation of the world, poverty of spirit, and heavenly affection, we do not live the lives of Christians” (ch. i, 7).

1. Hans Dieter Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 58nn.140–41, 70.2. As the background to Paul’s commitment to the collection and to his arrangement for Gentile envoys to accompany it to Jerusalem, commentators often point to the Old Testament expectation that, in conjunction with Israel’s final restoration, Gentiles will come to Mount Zion bearing gifts. But there are no allusions or references to these texts in chapters 8–9 and no mention of any eschatological expectations. Rather, the Gentiles accompany Paul simply to ensure the fiscal integrity of the collection. A more appropriate parallel is the practice of sending envoys of the highest repute with the yearly offerings of the Diaspora Jews for the temple treasury (cf. Philo, Embassy to Gaius 216; Special Laws 1.78; Josephus, Antiquities 16.172). For this point and the linguistic parallel to 8:20, see Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, 423; Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthian, 426n.65.3. John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (Sisters, Ore: Multnomah, 1996), 103. This was the climactic point in Bridging Contexts with regard to 8:1–15.4. Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 79–80.5. See 1:24; Rom. 16:3, 9, 21; 1 Cor. 3:9; 16:10, 16; Phil. 2:22, 25, 30; 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:2; Col. 4:11; Philem. 1, 17, 24.6. It is often pointed out that Paul uses the construction peri de (“now concerning”) to introduce a new subject or section in his letters (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12; 1 Thess. 4:9; 5:1). But here we have peri gar (“for concerning”), which introduces a subheading within the ongoing argument.7. Contra those who, like Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 52, argue that chapter 9 is addressed to a different group of churches than chapter 8. In his view, “Paul also seems to have had an exceptionally good relationship with the Christians of Achaia. So far as we can tell, the Corinthian crisis was limited to Corinth, while the other Achaian churches maintained an untroubled and loyal relationship to the apostle. For this reason, Paul turned to them when he needed assistance in bringing the collection for Jerusalem to a conclusion. He trusted that the Achaians would be wise enough to ensure that the collection would be not only a financial, but also a spiritual success ….”8. Ibid., 92.9. The NIV’s “I am sending” reflects Paul’s use of the aorist tense here (epempsa, “I sent”), to depict an event that is past by the time the letter is being read, since the brothers are now in Corinth with this letter. For this same use of the “epistolary aorist,” see 8:17 (Gk. “he came” = “he is coming”), 18 (Gk. “we sent” = “we are sending”), 22 (Gk. “we sent” = “we are sending”).10. Cf. Paul’s use of these same words in Rom. 4:14; 1 Cor. 1:17; 9:15; 15:10, 14, 58; Gal. 2:2; Eph. 5:6; Phil. 2:7, 16; Col. 2:8; 1 Thess. 2:1; 3:5.11. Following Furnish, II Corinthians, 427–28; Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 284–85, who, against the NIV, argue that the Greek in 9:4 should not be rendered “having been so confident,” but rather “in this project” or “undertaking” (cf. NRSV), or “eventuality.” Cf. this same terminology in 11:17; Heb. 1:3; 3:14; 11:1; Jer. 23:32 (LXX); Ezek. 19:5 (LXX), where it never means “confidence.”12. See Job 4:8; 31:8; Ps. 126:5; Prov. 11:21 (LXX); 22:8; Jer. 12:13; Mic. 6:15; Sir. 7:3; Matt. 6:26 par.; 25:24, 26; Luke 19:21; John 4:36–37; Gal. 6:7–9; Rev. 14:15–16.13. The NIV’s “all that you need” gives the false impression that God promises his people material blessings.14. Cf. 1 Cor. 15:58. For Pauline references to “good work” in the singular, see Rom. 2:7; 13:3; 2 Thess. 1:11; 2 Tim. 2:21; 3:17; Titus 1:16; 3:1. For the plural, “good works,” see Eph. 2:10; 1 Tim. 2:10; 5:10, 25; 6:18; Titus 2:7, 14; 3:8.15. Many commentators, such as Barnett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 440n.26, maintain that 9:9 is not referring to the righteous man of Ps. 112:9 but to God, since God is the subject of 2 Cor. 9:8a and 10 and since Ps. 111:3 speaks of the righteousness of God remaining forever. Hence, Barnett argues that Paul took the language of 2 Cor. 9:9 from Ps. 112:9, but the content from Ps. 111:3. But once 2 Cor. 9:9 is seen to support 9:8c, there is no reason to violate the original context of Ps. 112:9.16. Others take this “harvest” to refer to the final redemption of the Jews in response to the Gentiles’ participation in the collection (see 8:14 and n.2 above; cf. Rom. 11:12, 15). But in 2 Cor. 9:11–14 Paul explicitly says that the consequence of the collection will be thanksgiving and prayers to God among Jews who are already believers, not the large-scale conversion of Israel that will mark the return of Christ.17. This trans. takes tes homologias hymon (“of your confession”) to be a subjective genitive; but cf. NRSV, which renders it an objective genitive, “obedience to the confession.” The NIV rendering, “accompanies your confession,” is ambiguous. For Paul’s other uses of “confession,” see 1 Tim. 6:12–13; for the verb, see Rom. 10:9–10; 1 Tim. 6:12; Titus 1:16.18. Cf. Paul’s use of this same terminology of “longing” in Rom. 1:11; Phil. 1:8; 2:26; 1 Thess. 3:6; 2 Tim 1:4 to describe his own desire and that of Epaphroditus for those in whom Christ is being formed.19. For Paul’s other descriptions of God’s “surpassing” gifts toward his people, see Eph. 1:19 (his power); 2:7 (the riches of his grace); 3:19 (his love that surpasses knowledge).20. On Moral Obligation 2.21.75, quoted in Furnish, II Corinthians, 434.21. Works 357–60, quoted by Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 105n.122.22. This statement and those that follow from Seneca derive from his work, On Benefits 2.1.1–2, as quoted by Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 107; the last quote comes from Furnish, II Corinthians, 441.23. Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 109, including n.150.24. For an insightful summary of the cultural and religious consequences of this self-understanding, granted to us by the effects of modernity, see David Wells, Losing Our Virtue: Why the Church Must Recover Its Moral Vision (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).25. Ibid., 26.26. Ibid., 107.27. Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 107.28. Ibid., 110.29. Ibid., 111.30. John Piper, Future Grace (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1995), 9, quoting Charles Spurgeon.31. Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 134.32. Ibid.33. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 450.34. Tim Stafford, “Anatomy of a Giver,” Christianity Today (May 19, 1997), 20–24 (pp. 22, 24). The following information is taken from Stafford’s article.35. Stafford (ibid., 21) points out that after adjusting for inflation and taxes, the average American in 1997 earns almost four times what the average American earned in 1921, while real incomes have nearly doubled since the late 1950s.36. Ibid., 24.37. This is not a denial of the essential, future-focused nature of faith (faith as banking our hope on God’s promises), nor that faith in the present is based on God’s actions in the past (we trust God today because of what he had done for us in the past, esp. in the cross and pouring out of the Spirit). It merely recognizes that a focus on the future can take place only in the present and that faith is not wishful thinking, since its confidence for the future is based on what God has already done for us in the past. Cf. 2 Cor. 1:8–11: Paul hopes in the present for deliverance in the future because God has delivered in him the past. As the future unfolds, Paul’s trust in God will continue to be based on what has happened in the past as this now encompasses what is happening in the present.38. John Piper, Future Grace, 11 (italics in original). See Piper’s biblical defense on pp. 31–49 for rejecting a “debtor’s ethic” that tries to pay God back for what was received as a matter of grace.39. Ibid., 31.40. Ibid., 33.41. Ibid., 43.42. Piper, Desiring God, 104–7 (emphasis mine).

1. James M. Scott, 2 Corinthians, 208–9.2. For the arguments in favor of this reading, see Abraham J. Malherbe, “Antisthenes and Odysseus, and Paul at War,” HTR 76 (1983): 143–73.3. Following Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 302, based on Bjerkelund’s study of parakaleo in Paul’s writings.4. For representative expressions of Christ’s meekness and humility, see Matt. 5:5; 11:29; 18:4; Mark 9:35–37; Luke 18:14; John 13:14–17; Phil. 2:8.5. For Paul’s positive use of humility (tapeinos, tapeinoo) as a virtue, cf. 7:6; 11:7; 12:21; Rom. 12:16; Phil. 2:8; 4:12. Cf. too James 4:6, 10; 1 Peter 5:5–6; and related concepts in Eph. 4:2; Phil. 2:3; Col. 3:12; 1 Tim. 6:11.6. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 303.7. Though helpful in terms of interpretation, the NIV translation of sarx as “world” in 10:3–4 rather than “flesh,” obscures the typical Pauline flesh/Spirit contrast implied in vv. 2–4. In Paul’s conception, to act or be in the flesh is, by definition, to be devoid of the Spirit (cf. 1:18–22; 3:2–3; 5:14–6:2).8. The phrase rendered by the NIV “they have divine power” is lit., “powerful to God,” which is best taken with the NIV as a Semitism meaning “divinely powerful.” For this view, see Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 464n.46. The other options are to render it as a dative of advantage (“powerful for God’s cause”) or as a dative of subjective judgment (“powerful in the eyes of God”). But the contrast to “fleshly” in verse 4a best supports the idea of two kinds of weapons: those devoid of the Spirit and those possessing divine power.9. The warfare/siege metaphor in vv. 3–6 is the most extensive use of military imagery in Paul’s letters. For other uses of this sort of imagery, see 2:14; 6:7; Rom. 13:12–13; 1 Cor. 9:7; Phil. 1:30; 2:25; Eph. 6:10–17; 1 Thess. 5:8; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:3; Philem. 2.10. Following Victor P. Furnish, II Corinthians, 465. The strongest argument against this reading is that when blepete is used as an imperative elsewhere, it always stands first in its clause, whereas when it is an indicative statement it is placed elsewhere (as in 10:7; cf. Matt. 11:4; 13:17; 24:2). For this argument in favor of taking it to be a statement, see Timothy B. Savage, Power Through Weakness, 184n.109. But the unusual word order here may simply reflect Paul’s emphasis on the fact that they must examine things as they appear. The phrase rendered by the NIV “on the surface of things” (lit., “according to the face”) is the same phrase rendered “face to face” in 10:1, both of which refer to what is clearly evident.11. For the expression “[to be] of Christ” as a reference to belonging to Christ as a believer, see Rom. 14:8; 1 Cor. 3:23; 15:23; Gal. 3:29; 5:24; cf. Mark 9:41.12. Taking the conjunction gar in 10:8 not to introduce a ground or causal clause, with the meaning “for” (as in the NIV), but to be inferential, with the meaning “therefore” (cf. the NRSV’s rendering, “now”); cf. BAGD, 152. Paul’s confidence before God does not logically support his confidence in belonging to Christ, but is derived from it.13. For explicit references to “boasting” in chs. 10–13, cf. 10:8, 13, 15, 16, 17; 11:10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 30; 12:1, 5, 6, 9; see also in chaps. 1–9, 1:12, 14; 5:12; 7:4, 14; 8:24; 9:2, 3, 12.14. The following analysis of the theme of “self-commendation” in 2 Corinthians closely follows and often reproduces my earlier work, “ ‘Self-Commendation’ and Apostolic Legitimacy in 2 Corinthians: A Pauline Dialectic?” NTS 36 (1990): 66–88.15. This interpretation is reflected in the RSV rendering, in which both words are taken together and translated by the one word “limits”: “But we will not boast beyond limit, but will keep to the limits God has apportioned to us.”16. This interpretation is reflected in the NIV and NRSV rendering, in which both words are taken together and translated by the one word “field”: We will “confine our boasting to the field God has assigned to us.”17. K. Deissner, “μέτρον,” TDNT, 4:632–34 (p. 632). See too H. W. Beyer, “κανών,” TDNT, 3:596–602 (p. 599n.12). For its use elsewhere in Paul, see Rom. 12:3; Eph. 4:7, 13, 16, where it also carries this meaning.18. 18. The NIV obscures the point of v. 15b by translating kanon as “our area of activity” and making it the subject of the sentence. It is actually part of an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying the verb “to be increased” or “expanded.” The subject of the infinitive “to be magnified” or “increased” is Paul himself. The formal translation of 10:15 is as follows: “not boasting beyond measure in other’s labors, but having hope, as your faith grows, to be increased/magnified to a vast extent among you according to our canon.”19. For Paul’s ministry as his “labor,” cf. Rom. 16:6, 12; 1 Cor. 3:8; 15:10, 58; 16:16; Phil. 2:16; 1 Thess. 5:12.20. For more on this and on the relationship some scholars see here to Gen. 10, see the Appendix to this chapter (p. 418).21. This meaning of Jer. 9:23–24 and its significance as the “key text” for Paul’s boasting in 2 Cor. 10–12, esp. his boasting in his weakness in 11:1–12:10, has been presented in detail by Ulrich Heckel, Kraft in Schwachheit: Untersuchungen zu 2.Kor 10–13 (WUNT 2.Reihe 56; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), 162–214. For the point made above, see esp. his 165–67.22. Hafemann, “Self-Commendation,” 83–84.23. Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), 27–29.24. Arthur J. Dewey, “A Matter of Honor: A Social-Historical Analysis of 2 Corinthians 10,” HTR 78 (1985): 209–17 (p. 210).25. Ibid., 212–13.26. Barnett, Second Corinthians, 462.27. See now Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 431, relying on work of Danker, and Young and Ford.28. Ibid., 431.29. Ibid.30. Ibid., 434.31. See the summary of Savage’s cultural analysis in the Bridging Contexts section of 4:1–18.32. For a helpful summary and critique of the method of analyzing Paul’s letters according to the ancient rules of rhetoric, see Jeffrey A. D. Weima, “What Does Aristotle Have to Do with Paul? An Evaluation of Rhetorical Criticism,” CTJ 32 (1997): 458–68. As Weima concludes, “There is no concrete evidence that Paul knew or was ever trained in ancient rhetoric” (464).33. Ibid., 465. For the textual support for this assertion, see again 1 Cor. 1:17; 2:1–5, 13.34. Weima (ibid., 463–64) points out that neither the relevant epistolary handbooks nor the rhetorical handbooks of Paul’s day advocate applying the rules of oral discourse to written discourse. In fact, in the rhetorical handbooks, letters are “virtually always” contrasted to oratory; to interpret Paul’s letters as if they were speeches is therefore to mix genres. Weima thus concludes (464) that “the evidence of both the epistolary handbooks and the rhetorical handbooks seriously calls into question the common practice of using the ancient Greco-Roman rules of rhetoric as a key to interpret Paul’s letters. As Traugott Holtz observes, ‘The application of rhetorical theory to epistolary literature stands methodologically on uncertain feet.’ ”35. For the demonstration of this principle in regard to the Corinthians, see 7:9–12, where the Corinthians have rightly commended themselves by virtue of their divinely enabled repentance and punishment of the offender (cf. 2:5–11).36. As reported in Viewpoint 2 (1988): 9.37. Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon, Resident Aliens, Life in the Christian Colony, 94–95.38. Scott, 2 Corinthians, 8–9, 206–7, based on his extensive work, Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of Paul’s Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995). For a similar view, see Martin, 2 Corinthians, 316–17.39. Scott, 2 Corinthians, 206.

1. On the question of Paul’s use of formal rhetoric, see again Jeffrey A. D. Weima, “What Does Aristotle Have to Do with Paul?” 458–68. See too Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 494, who rightly argues that this passage is an ironic parody of the self-praise of Paul’s opponents, though Paul is not consciously following the specific forms of parody or the catalogues of suffering found in the Cynic-Stoic tradition. Indeed, as Barnett, 495, observes, boasting in weakness “appears to be without literary precedent.”2. For the “fool” in the wisdom tradition, see Job 1:22; 2:10; Ps. 14:1; 53:1–2; 74:18, 22; 92:6; 94:8; Prov. 9:13–18; 19:3; 27:1; Isa. 32:5–6; Sir. 9:16; 11:4; Wisd. Sol. 1:16–2:20. For the false boasting of the arrogant, cf. Jer. 9:23–24 with 2 Cor. 10:17–18; also 1 Sam. 2:3, 10; Ps. 74:4; Judith 7:2. For the development of this backdrop to Paul’s argument, see Ulrich Heckel, Kraft in Schwachheit: Untersuchungen zu 2.Kor 10–13, 144–214. Heckel demonstrates that the Hellenistic backdrop merely illuminates the general rejection of self-praise in the ancient world that is also common in the Scriptures and Judaism. But it cannot explain Paul’s positive boasting in God’s glory in response to the inappropriate boasting of his opponents (cf. Deut. 10:21; 1 Chron. 16:35; 29:13; Ps. 5:12; 32:11; 106:47; 149:5; Jer. 17:14).3. The importance of 11:17–18 to Paul’s argument is highlighted by Heckel, Kraft, 195, 198–202. But like many commentators, Heckel fails to make a clear distinction between Paul’s foolish boast in his Jewish distinctives and his legitimate boast in his weakness. Heckel therefore concludes that all of Paul’s boasting in 11:21–12:10 is both not according to the Lord and at the same time according to the Lord. Thus in the end, Paul is really not a fool when he boasts, even in his Jewish distinctives, which is the opposite of what Paul himself says.4. This is contrary to those who, like Jan Lambrecht, S. J., “Strength in Weakness: A Reply to Scott B. Andrews’ Exegesis of 2 Cor 11.23b–33,” NTS 43 (1997): 285–90, argue (289) that “although all boasting is foolish and dangerous, there are degrees.” According to Lambrecht’s view, boasting in one’s Jewish and Christian titles in 11:22–23 is acting “according to the flesh” and is the most dangerous, boasting in one’s “utter weakness,” as in 11:32–33, is less foolish and dangerous, while boasting in one’s hardships and labors is in the middle. But there is no indication of such a gradation in Paul’s catalogues, only the distinction between weakness and strength. Moreover, since Paul’s boast in his weakness reveals the power of Christ, there can be nothing foolish or dangerous in this, since it fulfills the principle of 10:18.5. Contra those who, like Barnett, Second Corinthians, 534, see Paul’s boasting itself to be his “madness” or “foolishness,” “which is the ‘foolishness’ and ‘madness’ of Christ himself;” and James M. Scott, 2 Corinthians, 214: “These boasts are doubly foolish, since boasting itself is foolish, and, by the opponents’ standards, suffering and weakness do not count as meritorious qualities.”6. So too Barnett, Second Corinthians, 534, who rightly argues that Paul’s boasting in weakness “must be read with the antitriumphalism of the striking prisoner-of-war image at the beginning of the excursus on new covenant ministry.”7. The Corinthians are addressed directly in 11:4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 19, 20; 12:11, 13; Paul’s opponents are addressed indirectly in 11:4–5, 12–15, 20–23a, 26; 12:1, 11.8. In 11:1, the first pronoun (mou) is better taken as the object of the verb (“put up with me”), as indicated by its position in the sentence and in accord with this same usage in the next sentence, than as modifying “foolishness” (see the NRSV, contra the NIV). The next sentence is better rendered as a command than as a statement of fact (see the NRSV, contra the NIV). The Corinthians are not bearing with Paul but with the false apostles (cf. 11:4, 20).9. So too Ernst Baasland, “Christus und das Verlorene Paradies: noēma ein Schlüsselbegriff im 2.Korintherbrief?” Text and Theology: FS Magne Sæbø, ed. Arvid Tångberg (Oslo: Verbum, 1994), 67–94 (p. 73).10. Following Baasland, “Christus,” 74. The focus of Paul’s argument is thus on Satan’s cunning as it is being replicated in his servants in Corinth. For a comparison of Paul’s use of Gen. 3 with its development in post-biblical Judaism, see his pp. 82–86.11. Though there have been many suggested variations, the basic proposals have identified Paul’s opponents either as Judaizers or as some kind of pseudo-charismatic pneumatics, whether they be Gnostics, self-styled divine men, or simply a group that emphasized spiritual experiences. For the problems inherent in attempting to reconstruct the identity of Paul’s opponents and a solid proposal concerning the method for doing so (i.e., one that is text-based in its starting point and minimalist in its extrapolations), see Jerry L. Sumney, Identifying Paul’s Opponents, and my review of his work in JBL 111 (1992): 347–50. Sumney himself concludes, with Käsemann, that Paul’s opponents are some type of pneumatics.12. Charles H. Cosgrove, The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians (Macon, Ga.: Mercer Univ. Press, 1988), has shown most clearly that the argument with the Judaizers in Galatians revolved around the basis for the reception and continuing experience of the Spirit.13. The inclusion of “Spirit” between “Jesus” and the “gospel” suggests what is at stake is the faithful witness to the message of salvation; cf. Linda L. Belleville, “Paul’s Polemic and Theology of the Spirit in Second Corinthians,” CBQ 58 (1996): 281–304 (294n.43).14. Belleville, “Paul’s Polemic,” 297, emphasis mine. In contrast to the position taken here, Belleville identifies the “super-apostles” of 11:5 with the false apostles of 11:13. She also rejects the hypothesis that Paul’s opponents were “Judaizers,” because of the traditional polarity that is assumed to exist between a call for obedience to the law and experiences of the Spirit on the one hand, and because of the lack of explicit references in this letter to circumcision and the law on the other (cf. 296–97).15. I owe this insight to Timothy B. Savage, Power Through Weakness, 156.16. Sumney, Paul’s Opponents, 162. Though Sumney believes chapters 1–9 and 10–13 to be separate letters, he argues that the issue facing Paul in both was essentially the same, namely, the dispute over the “proper criteria for identifying legitimate apostles” (182).17. Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 446.18. This objection, first pushed forcibly home by Ernst Käsemann, “Die Legitimität des Apostels: Eine Untersuchung zu II Korinther 10–13,” ZNW 41 (1942): 33–71, esp. 38–39, 41–43, 45–49, has not been satisfactorily met by those who read 11:5 as a comparison to Paul’s opponents. For the major supporter of the position taken here in the English-speaking world, see the various works of C. K. Barrett, esp. his “Paul’s Opponents in II Corinthians” NTS 17 (1971): 233–54, and his A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 30–35.19. So Martin, Corinthians, 342.20. For Paul’s hard labor for the gospel, cf. Acts 18:3; 20:34–35; 1 Cor. 4:12; 9:18; 15:10; 2 Cor. 6:5; 11:23, 27; Eph. 4:28; 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:7–8. The suffering incurred by Paul’s practice of self-support included experiencing the cultural disdain that the upper classes had for manual labor.21. The exact nature of the “sin” attributed to Paul by his opponents is not clear. His refusal to demand money for his ministry could have been seen as cheapening the gospel itself (i.e., a sin against the gospel), or as an expression of his shame concerning what he preached (i.e., a sin against the Corinthians by falsely representing himself).22. For a survey of the attitudes toward charging fees for one’s teaching from Plato through Lucian (ca. 125–180 A.D.), see my Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit, 106–25. The main lines of my understanding of 11:6–12 have been developed in Suffering, 145–54.23. The money needed to supplement Paul’s wages was most likely brought by Silas and Timothy (Acts 18:5; 1 Cor. 4:12; 1 Thess. 2:9). Barnett, Second Corinthians, 515nn.16, 18, points out that the verb “to rob” (in the sense of plundering a defeated enemy) and the noun “wage” (in the sense of a soldier’s rations or provisions; cf. 1 Cor. 9:7; Luke 3:14) are both military metaphors. This underscores Paul’s earlier portrayal of his ministry as warfare in 10:3–6. Phil. 4:15 implies that Paul accepted no support from the Macedonians while still with them, but only after he had left. The money from the Macedonians was therefore a gift in support of ministry elsewhere, not a wage for services rendered to them. For Paul’s desire was not to be a burden in the ministry (see 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8; 1 Tim. 5:16); for the practice of paying pastors, see 1 Cor. 9:3–14; Gal. 6:6; 1 Tim. 5:17–18; 2 Tim. 2:6.24. For other examples of oaths in Paul’s writings, see 1:18, 23; 2:10; 11:11, 31; cf. Rom. 9:1; Gal. 1:20.25. BAGD, 513.26. Scott, 2 Corinthians, 205–9, 237, argues that, in view of the parallels between Moses and Paul established in 2:16 and 3:4–18, Korah’s rebellion recounted in Num. 16–17 (cf. Ex. 19:6; 29:45; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:19; 28:9) should be the framework for understanding Paul’s view of his opponents here and throughout the letter (cf. 1:24; 2:6–7, 15, 17; 3:1). Just as Korah and his followers were called “outsiders” in Num. 16:40, and just as Jewish tradition accuses Korah of rejecting the revealed Torah (cf. Ps-Philo 16; Num. Rab. 18:12; b. Sanh. 110a), so too Paul’s opponents come from outside the congregation and preach a different gospel. Conversely, in order to resist his opponents, Paul, like Moses, has to demonstrate that he is the one whom the Lord has called and sent (cf. Num. 16:11, 28, 30). Moreover, when charged with lording his authority over the Israelites, Moses declares that he has never taken tribute from anyone (Num. 16:15). In the same way, Paul refuses to accept financial support from the Corinthians (11:7). Just as Korah and his followers were jealous of Moses, claiming an equal holiness and priesthood (Num. 16:3, 8–11), so too Paul refuses to allow his opponents to compare themselves favorably with him (11:12). Scott even suggests that Paul’s reference in 11:12 to “cutting the ground from under” his opponents “may recall” Korah’s followers being swallowed up by the ground in Num. 16:31–35, though this seems an improbable parallel given the military connotation of 11:12. Finally, Scott suggests that if Korah’s rebellion attempted to eliminate Moses and Aaron as mediators of divine revelation, since Israel had received a direct revelation at Sinai, then Paul’s opponents may have maintained that he is that much more superfluous under the new covenant. Scott’s observations are interesting, though in the absence of any direct verbal parallels between the two passages, the certainty of this backdrop cannot be established.27. For “light” as a metaphor for God, the gospel, and the realm of the kingdom, cf. 6:14; Job 33:28–30; Ps. 18:28; 27:1; 119:105; Isa. 9:2; 60:1, 19–20; Acts 26:18; Eph. 5:11–14; 6:12; Col. 1:12–13; 1 Thess. 5:5; 1 Tim. 6:16; 1 Pet. 2:9; 1 John 1:5; 2:8. The designation may also recall Jesus’ own claim to be the light of the world (John 1:7–9; 3:19–21; 8:12; 9:5; 12:36, 46).28. Contra Martin, 2 Corinthians, 360, who takes 11:1 to mean, “Bear with me in my folly,” while 11:16 is interpreted as, “Do not think me to be a fool” (since Paul knows that the Corinthians already consider him to be one). But there is no evidence that they already view Paul to be a fool, only that they have rejected his weakness, persecution, suffering, self-support, and theology of the cross as the means for experiencing the Spirit. It is Paul, not his opponents, who introduces the theme of foolishness into the debate.29. Contra Witherington, Conflict and Community, 444. Witherington argues that although Paul engages in a “little foolishness” beginning in 11:1, he does not assume “the full mantle of the ‘fool’ until 11:21b,” since his catalog of suffering is meant to be an ironic comparison to the Emperor Augustus’s res gestae, rather than Paul’s real, genuine boast.30. I owe this insight to Martin, 2 Corinthians, 369. See too Barnett, Second Corinthians, 541, who points out that the four general categories of suffering listed in v. 23b summarize in advance the specifics to come: the physical and Christian labors in v. 27, the imprisonments and floggings in vv. 24–25a, and the experiences of death in vv. 25b–26.31. Of the three most probable crimes worthy of such a lashing (doctrinal heresy, blasphemy, and serious offenses against Jewish customs), Harvey argues that most likely Paul was whipped for either profaning the Sabbath, working on the Day of Atonement, or committing offenses against food and ritual purity regulations (cf. m. Makk. 3:2; 3:15; m. Ker. 1:1). These are the kind of Jewish crimes that would have come about because of his ministry among the Gentiles; see A. E. Harvey, “Forty Strokes Save One: Social Aspects of Judaizing and Apostasy,” Alternative Approaches to New Testament Study, ed. A. E. Harvey (London: SPCK, 1985), 79–96 (p. 84).32. Ibid., 93.33. I owe this observation to Scott, 2 Corinthians, 218. Scott points out that stoning was used for apostasy (Lev. 20:2; Deut. 13:10–11; 17:2–7), blasphemy (Lev. 24:14, 16, 23; 1 Kings 21:10), sorcery (Lev. 20:27), Sabbath violations (Num. 15:35–36), misuse of the devoted things (Josh. 7:25), a disobedient son (Deut. 21:21), and adultery (Deut. 22:21–24). Cf. John 8:5; 10:31–33; 11:8; Acts 5:26; 7:58; Heb. 11:37.34. For references to these various “dangers,” see Acts 9:23–25, 29; 13:8, 45, 50; 17:5, 13; 18:6, 12; 19:9, 23–41; 20:3, 19; 21:11, 27, 30–31; Rom. 15:31; 1 Cor. 15:32; 2 Cor. 1:8; Gal. 2:4; 5:11; 1 Thess. 2:14–16, not to mention the dangers inherent simply in traveling during Paul’s day. Paul suffered at the hands of Jews and/or Gentiles in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Thessalonica, Corinth, and Ephesus, plus, no doubt, other places not mentioned in his writings or in Acts.35. Barnett, Second Corinthians, 545.36. A. Plummer, Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978 [1915]), 328, points to the prologue to Sirach and to 2 Macc. 2:26, where the word for “without sleep” in 11:27 (agrypnia) is used of sitting up at night writing, while Sir. 38:26–30 uses it to refer to laborers working at night. In Sir. 36(31):1, 2, 20; 42:9 it is used of sleeplessness caused by anxiety or discomfort.37. Pointed out by Martin, 2 Corinthians, 380.38. Ibid., 381. Martin renders v. 28a: “the remainder, which I have omitted as too incidental,” suggesting that what he goes on to say “stands at the high point of the ‘list of trials.’ ”39. Barnett, Second Corinthians, 548n.41.40. The “sin” in view in v. 29 is that of “being caused to stumble” or “fall” (skandalizo) over the cross of Christ (cf. the use of this vb. in Matt. 5:29–30; 11:6; Mark 9:42–47; Rom. 14:21; 1 Cor. 8:13; etc., and the corresponding noun, “stumbling block” (skandalon), in Rom. 9:33; 14:13; 16:17; 1 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 5:11.41. This corresponds with dating the crucifixion around A.D. 33 and Paul’s conversion between 34–39. Paul was in Damascus twice, at his conversion and after his return from Arabia (cf. Acts 9; 22; 26:12–21; Gal. 1:17).42. Mark Harding, “On the Historicity of Acts: Comparing Acts 9:23–5 with 2 Corinthians 11:32–3,” NTS 39 (1993): 518–38 (p. 531). Harding points out that this is the consensus among present scholarship, as seen in Knauf’s conclusion that the governor (Gk. ethnarches), like a consul, represented the Nabatean interests in Damascus that likely centered around a Nabatean trading colony (531n.41).43. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 385, writes: “They scaled the city walls of the mighty; he only managed to be let down in a fish-basket.” In other words, they were victorious; Paul suffered defeat.44. Witherington, Conflict and Community, 444, 459, following the work of Judge.45. Heckel, Kraft, 39.46. So already A. Schlatter, Paulus, der Bote Jesu: Eine Deutung seiner Briefe an die Korinther (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1969⁴ [1934]), 657: Paul gave this memory in more detail than all the others “because it was an especially clear illustration of the way in which weakness and strength, danger and deliverance were bound together in his work from the very beginning.”47. These views are surveyed by C. K. Barrett, “Boasting (kauchasthai, ktl.) in the Pauline Epistles,” L’apôtre Paul: Personnalité, style et sonception du ministère, ed. A. Vanhoye (BETL 73; Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1986), 363–68.48. This summary is taken from my previous work, “ ‘Self-Commendation’ and Apostolic Legitimacy in 2 Corinthians: A Pauline Dialectic?” 86–87.49. See Scott B. Andrews, “Too Weak Not to Lead: The Form and Function of 2 Cor 11.23b–33,” NTS 41 (1995): 263–276 (p. 266), who points out that according to the ancient rhetoricians, catalogs of hardship contained three elements: the items of hardship, the reaction to the hardships, and the resulting implications for one’s status. Those who endure suffering were considered noble and worthy of praise. For in ancient philosophical literature, endurance of hardships revealed one to be a wise man or sage, since the sage was marked by his “self-sufficiency” and “freedom from passion” (p. 267). But in contrast to the view presented here, Andrews argues that Paul inverted this ancient perspective. Rather than enduring or overcoming hardships, which would provide one with a noble social status, he suggests that Paul willingly submits to weakness in order to lower himself socially to the level of a populist leader, thereby claiming authority in Corinth (pp. 275–76).50. Duane Litfin, “An Analysis of the Church Growth Movement,” Reformation and Revival 7 (1998) 57–77 (p. 59). Litfin’s analysis in this article is built on his extensive comparison of ancient Greek rhetoric to the style and purpose of Paul’s preaching (cf. his St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation [SNTSMS 79; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994]). In what follows, the page numbers of the quotes from Litfin’s article are indicated in the body of the text.51. Savage, Power Through Weakness, 168.52. David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 40.53. See Thomas N. Smith, “A Shepherd’s Heart: So You Pastor a Small Church. Congratulations!” Viewpoint 4/1 (2000): 7.54. Ibid.55. Litfin, “An Analysis of the Church Growth Movement,” 66 (the next quotes have page numbers in text).56. Wells, God in the Wasteland, 74.57. Ibid., 75–76.58. Ron Man, “Soli Deo Gloria. To Him Be Glory in the Church!,” Viewpoint 4/1 (2000), 5.59. Savage, Power Through Weakness, 157.

1. Elsewhere, “revelation” (apokalypsis) refers to the coming of Christ (Rom. 16:25), to the return of Christ and final redemption (Rom. 2:5; 8:19; 1 Cor. 1:7; 2 Thess. 1:7), to knowledge given for the sake of others (1 Cor. 14:6, 26), to Paul’s public experience of Christ on the road to Damascus (Gal. 1:12; Eph. 3:3; cf. Acts 9:3–9; 22:6–11; 26:12–19; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8), to his instruction to go to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:2), and to the knowledge of God’s power in our redemption, past and future (Eph. 1:17). For Paul’s other recorded visions and revelations prior to the writing of 2 Corinthians, see Acts 16:9–10; 18:9–10 (given at the founding of the church in Corinth, instructing him to continue preaching in that city!); 22:17–21; for those after, see 23:11; 27:23–24. All of these recorded visions and revelations have to do not with Paul’s private illumination, but with revealing his missionary itinerary.2. Contra those who argue that Paul uses the third person simply to follow contemporary rhetorical conventions surrounding self-praise or in accordance with the conventions associated with visions in Jewish pseudepigraphical writings. Nor do I follow C. R. A. Morray-Jones, “Paradise Revisited (2 Cor. 12:1–12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate, Part 2: Paul’s Heavenly Ascent and its Significance,” HTR 86 (1993): 265–92, who interprets Paul’s use of the third person as possessing a “deeper mystical significance” (273).3. Ulrich Heckel, Kraft in Schwachheit, 59.4. For the New Testament and other Jewish conceptions of the levels in heaven, see Luke 23:43; Rev. 2:7; 1 Enoch 14:8–25; 2 Enoch 8:1–3; Apoc. Moses 35:2; 37:5; 40:1; T. Levi 3:4; 18:10; T. Abra. 10 B; Asc. of Isa. 3:13; 4 Ezra 4:7–8. The idea of a threefold heaven (i.e., the atmosphere; the place of the stars; and the abode of God) is apparently built on 1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chron. 2:6; 6:18; Neh. 9:6; Ps. 148:4.5. Based on the use of the plural in 12:1 (“visions and revelations”) and the use of “and” in 12:3, some commentators suggest that 12:1–4 reports two distinct experiences, one of the third heaven and one of paradise. But the parallel between 12:1 and 4 and the single time reference in 12:2 speak against this view. The description of heaven as a “paradise” is based on the use of the Persian loan word “paradise” (paradeisos) in the LXX to refer to the garden of Eden (cf. Gen. 2:8–10; 13:10; Isa. 51:3; Ezek. 28:13; 31:8–9). The word originally meant an enclosure or nobleman’s walled-in park and comes to mean simply a “park”; for a helpful discussion of this theme, cf. J. Jeremias, “παράδεισος,” TDNT, 5:765–73.6. In Jewish tradition, pardes is used for the abode of God within the heavenly temple, which is parallel to the Most Holy Place in the earthly temple as an extension of the Garden of Eden. For the primary sources, see t. Hag. 2.1; y. Hag. 77b; b. Hag. 14b–15b; Cant. R. 1.28; Hekhalot Zutarti §§338–46; and Merkabah Rabbah §§ 671–73. For an application of this tradition to 2 Cor. 12:1–4, see James M. Scott, 2 Corinthians, 221–25. The view taken here, however, is that although their roots may have something in common (e.g., a basic apocalyptic experience of God in visions and dreams and a common reference to heaven in terms of a garden paradise), beyond such basic elements the two traditions diverge greatly. What the merkabah mystical texts discuss at length (e.g., the manner, purpose, technique, divine names, divine language, legitimating function, and character of the heavenly temple and glory, not to mention the chariot imagery itself), Paul is silent about. Conceptual parallels to Paul, if any, must therefore be suggested with the greatest caution. Moreover, the earliest forms of the Jewish mystical tradition are very late, being attested only in talmudic and early medieval texts. Whether they preserve traditions that extend as far back as the first century remains a contested question. For a non-mystical interpretation of the earliest form of the tradition concerning the parable of the four individuals who entered into paradise, see Alon Goshen Gottstein, “Four Entered Paradise Revisited,” HTR 88 (1995): 69–133. Indeed, Gottstein argues that the point of the Tosefta version of this parable is that a spiritual gluttony for mystical experiences will cause one to fall away from the Torah (p. 116)! In this sense, the rabbinic parable is teaching exactly the same point as Paul.7. I owe this point to Heckel, Kraft, 60.8. That is, 12:6b–7 should read as follows: “I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say and [kai] because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore [dio], in order to keep me from becoming conceited, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me, to keep me from becoming conceited.” This reading follows the punctuation represented in the NA²⁷, which rightly takes the beginning of v. 7 (“and because of these surpassingly great revelations”) with v. 6 and begins a new sentence with dio. In contrast, the NIV connects the beginning of v. 7 with what follows. But to do so, it must ignore the “and” (kai) of v. 7a and rearrange the order of the clauses in v. 7ab so that the sentence begins with the “therefore” (dio) of v. 7b. Moreover, the NIV does not render the second purpose (hina) clause of v. 7, which repeats word for word the first for the sake of emphasis. Keeping Paul from being conceited is derived directly from the granting of the thorn and the tormenting of Satan, which in turn are derived from the magnitude of Paul’s revelations.9. Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 416.10. Ulrich Heckel, “Der Dorn im Fleisch: Die Krankheit des Paulus in 2Kor 12,7 and Gal 4,13f.,” ZNW 84 (1993): 65–92. Heckel (84) points out that Paul could have already been suffering under the same illness mentioned in 12:7 at the time of his original preaching in Galatia, referred to in Gal. 4:13. For if Paul received the “thorn in the flesh” at the same time he had his vision, then according to 2 Cor. 12:2 it was present fourteen years earlier than the writing of this letter, ca. 42 A.D. For the image of the thorn as something physical, cf. Ps. 32:4, which is a psalm Paul quotes in Rom. 4:7–8 (the LXX of this verse trans. lit.: “I was tormented when the thorn pricked me”). Luke 13:10–17 (cf. Mark 3:22–30) refers to a “spirit of weakness” (NIV “crippled by a spirit”), which would correspond to Paul’s reference here to a demon that causes sickness.11. The text reads, skolops te sarki, a dative of disadvantage; the locative would be en + dative. For this point, see Martin, 2 Corinthians, 412–413, following Plummer.12. Against the view that the thorn was Paul’s sickness, Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 569–70, points as well to the following arguments: (1) angelos is generally personal in Paul’s other uses; (2) “to buffet” or “to beat with a fist” (12:7) is an act generally performed by a person (Matt. 26:67; Mark 14:65; 1 Peter 2:20; but see 1 Cor. 4:11, which he himself points to as an exception); (3) the New Testament elsewhere uses the verb in 12:8 “to take away” (aphistemi) of persons; and (4) the difficulty of imagining how Paul’s exhausting missionary endeavors could have been carried out under such continual sickness.13. See Heckel, “Dorn,” 70, 74–75.14. For this view see Scott, 2 Corinthians, 228.15. I owe this point to Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 461.16. Heckel, “Dorn,” 80. In view of Paul’s silence in 12:7 and elsewhere, all attempts to determine the nature of Paul’s sickness remain purely speculative. The main suggestions have been: epilepsy, an eye sickness, a speech impediment, malaria, leprosy, hysteria, or depression (cf. “Dorn,” 80–92). Heckel’s own best guess is that Paul suffered from debilitating migraine headaches, given the link between the verb used in 12:7, kolophizo (“to strike [the head]”), and the related noun kolaphos (“a buffet”). This was also Tertullian’s understanding (160–220), who says he inherited it from earlier oral tradition (Heckel, 76).17. That “the Lord” of v. 8 is equal to Christ in v. 9 is seen in the parallel in v. 9 between “my grace,” “my power,” and “Christ’s power.” For other examples of prayer to the resurrected Lord, see Acts 7:59–60; 1 Cor. 1:2; 16:22; 1 Thess. 3:12–13.18. So Scott, 2 Corinthians, 229.19. I owe this insight to Heckel, Kraft, 84.20. Paul’s argument in 12:9–10 shows the difficulty in maintaining that his boasting in his suffering is also part of his “fool’s speech.”21. The NIV obscures the difference between the (lit.) “signs [semeia] of the apostle” and the subsequent reference to the attending, but distinct “signs [semeia], wonders and miracles.” The NIV rendering gives the impression that the “signs of the apostle” are these “signs, wonders and miracles” themselves. But the change to the dative case in the second instance and the second use of “signs” together with “wonders and miracles” indicates that Paul has two different realities in view.22. Barnett, Second Corinthians, 581. For the phrase “signs and wonders” in connection with the Exodus, see Ex. 3:20; 7:3; 8:23; 10:1–2; 15:11; Num. 14:22; Deut. 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 26:8; 29:3; 34:11; Josh. 3:5; 24:17; Neh. 9:10; Ps. 78:43; 105:27–36; 135:9; Jer. 32:21 (581n.18). For this link in the New Testament, see Acts 7:36.23. Morray-Jones, “Paradise Revisited, Part 2,” 274.24. Ibid., 276–77.25. Ibid., 283.26. Ibid., 284 (cf. n65, following Tabor).27. As quoted and commented on by Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority. Vol. III: God Who Speaks and Shows, Fifteen Theses, Part Two (Wheaton: Crossway, 1999 [1979]), 48, from Brunner’s work, The Mediator (1947), 30, 40, 456.28. Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority. Vol. VI: God Who Stands and Stays, Part Two (Wheaton: Crossway, 1999 [1983]), 33, quoting Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind, 67ff.29. This section is based primarily on the work of Heckel, Kraft, 279–88.30. Heckel, Kraft, 96, 99n.226–27, points to the lament Psalms as the key backdrop to Paul’s cry to the Lord for deliverance (e.g., Ps. 6:4–5; Jer. 15:10–21; Lam. 3:55–57; esp. Ps. 6:2; 32:11; 106:47, in which the lament leads to a boasting in God). Paul’s complaint is therefore itself an expression of his faith.31. See Timothy B. Savage, Power Through Weakness, 167: “It is axiomatic in the OT that God ‘dwells with the contrite and lowly of spirit’ (Isa. 57:15), ‘looks to the humble’ (66:2) and ‘is near the broken hearted’ (Ps. 34:18). Where there is humility there, too, will be the power of God.”32. A. T. Lincoln, “ ‘Paul the Visionary’: The Setting and Significance of the Rapture to Paradise in II Corinthians XII.1–10,” NTS 25 (1979): 204–20.33. Arturo G. Azurdia, Spirit Empowered Preaching: The Vitality of the Holy Spirit in Preaching (Geanies House, Fearn, Rosshire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 1998), 49.34. George Gardiner, The Corinthian Catastrophe, 55; quoted by Azurdia, Spirit Empowered Preaching, 49.35. Azurdia, Spirit Empowered Preaching, 50.36. Ibid., 66–67.37. Ibid., 143, commenting on 1 Cor. 2:3–5; 2 Cor. 4:7; 12:7–10.38. From Spurgeon’s Lectures to my Students, quoted by Azurdia, Spirit Empowered Preaching, 145–46, from whom I also learned of the amount of time Spurgeon was sick.39. Thomas a Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, ed. Harold C. Gardiner (Garden City: Image Books, 1955) 43–44.40. John Piper, Desiring God, 50.41. C. H. Spurgeon, “Posture, Action, Gesture, etc.,” Lectures to My Students (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 272–304 (p. 272). The page numbers for the quotes from his lectures are given in the body of the text.42. C. H. Spurgeon, “Earnestness: Its Marring and Maintenance,” Lectures to My Students (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 305–20 (p. 305).43. Ibid., 308.44. John Bunyan, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners (Hertfordshire: Evangelical Press, 1978), 123.45. Ibid., 123.46. Martin Luther, What Luther Says, Vol. 3 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1959), 1360.47. John Piper, The Bethlehem Star (Minneapolis: Bethlehem Baptist Church, January 19, 1999), 4.48. C. H. Spurgeon, “Strengthening Words from the Saviour’s Lips,” a sermon on 2 Cor. 12:9 delivered on April 2, 1876, now in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 22 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1877), 193–204 (pp. 196–97).

1. Paul’s first visit was his founding visit (described in Acts 18); his second was the “painful” visit recounted in 2 Cor. 2:1.2. James M. Scott, 2 Corinthians, 243–44.3. Following the emphasis of Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 585–86: “Let the Corinthians understand that his self-support by manual labor is not motivated by a lack of love, as if to demean them. To the contrary, his sacrifice expresses the depth of his love (cf. 2:4; 8:7; 11:11)…. In his ministry Paul replicates the sufferings of Christ as he gives himself for the people.”4. Paul’s failure to mention the second brother sent with Titus is probably due to the famous nature of the first unnamed brother, whose presence is of most importance (cf. 8:17–19). There is no need to see a distinction between 12:18 and chapter 8, with chapter 12 taken to be part of a later letter. The past tense of the verbs in both passages are best taken as epistolary aorists—a use of the aorist that portrays Paul’s current action at the time of writing as in the past when it is read (cf. “I urged,” “I sent” in 12:18 with “we urged” and “we sent” in 8:6, 18). For this reason, the NIV renders 8:18 in the present tense.5. Some commentators take the sexual sins of 12:21 together with the various sins against the community described in 12:20 as examples of the continuing problems within the church. Others argue that they describe two separate problems, the latter aimed at Paul during his second visit and feared to reoccur when he comes again, and the former problem endemic to the church herself. Solving this issue need not detain us. In either case, the sins described in these verses, whether their source was the Corinthians themselves or the influence of the false apostles, would reveal the unrepentant hearts of those so engaged, to which Paul will have to respond in judgment.6. Scott, 2 Corinthians, 247, suggests that as part of “Paul’s portrayal of himself as a Moses figure who confronts a Korah-like rebellion in Corinth,” the sins listed in 12:20 all find parallels in or apply to the rebellion of Numbers 16–17. On the association of quarreling and jealousy with the rebellion of Korah, see Ps. 106:16–18; Sir. 45:18; Josephus, Ant. 4.14; on “outbursts of anger,” see Sir. 45:18; on slander, see Num. 16:3, 13–14; Josephus, Ant. 4.15; on pride or arrogance as Korah’s “fundamental fault,” see Num. 16:8–11; Josephus, Ant. 4.14–19, 23 (pp. 247–48). Since such attitudes and actions can be characteristic of any insurrection and rebellion, Scott’s suggestion, though tempting, remains speculative, since there are no direct verbal parallels between 2 Cor. 12:20–21 and Num. 16–17.7. Contra Victor P. Furnish, II Corinthians, 575, who, with Calvin, Windisch, Bruce, Barrett, etc., rejects the idea that Paul has such a formal hearing in view. Furnish takes the reference to Deut. 19:15 to be merely “ ‘a sort of proverb,’ ” with Paul’s impending visit the third of the three witnesses. In this view, the first two witnesses are either his first two visits, which is difficult since the first visit was Paul’s founding visit, not a time of accusation and warning, or his second sorrowful visit (2:1) and his present letter. Furnish himself points out, however, that such a view does not “strictly speaking, satisfy the requirement (Paul) himself quotes. They still represent the testimony of just one witness, Paul” (p. 575). Nevertheless, Furnish still opts for this view, taking the point to be simply that Paul has warned the Corinthians two or three times before. But Paul’s direct quotation of Deut. 19:15, its reference to distinct witnesses, its use in the early church elsewhere in this regard, and the prior references to such formal proceedings in Corinth itself (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1–5; 6:1–6; 2 Cor. 2:5–11) speak against such a view.8. kai. The NIV translation “or” in 13:2 is not to be preferred.9. Following Ulrich Heckel, Kraft in Schwachheit, 124–30. Heckel shows how the history of interpretation has tried to soften this text, so that Christ himself is not identified with weakness. Some have interpreted v. 4 as a reference to our sins/weakness, so that Paul’s point is taken to mean that Christ dies representatively because of our weakness (already Ambrosiaster, Origen). In the light of 1 Cor. 1:18–25; 2:14, others take “weakness” to refer to unbelievers who view the cross as folly (Chrysostom). Still others read it to mean that Christ was crucified “in weakness” rather than “from weakness” (so Furnish, Käsemann, Bultmann; but cf. “from [the] power of God” in the same verse). Finally, others take it to refer to the freewill and obedience of Christ, so that Christ’s weakness is that which comes from his obedience to God, reading 2 Cor. 8:9 and Phil. 2:6–8 in this way as well (Black; but Heckel points out that this view cannot do justice to 10:10 and 12:7).10. The movement of Paul’s thought from 13:4a to 4b is at first puzzling, since 4b cannot serve as the basis of 4a, as if Paul’s suffering and experience of God’s power grounded Christ’s death and resurrection. I prefer to take Paul’s statement in 13:4b concerning his own weakness and God’s power in his life as deriving from 13:4a (reading the gar of 13:4b as an inference), which then together with 13:4a supports Paul’s statement in 13:2 concerning why Paul will finally not spare the Corinthians. Paul’s argument thus runs like this: Christ was crucified and lives from the power of God among the Corinthians (13:4a); therefore Paul too is weak and will live with him from the power of God toward the Corinthians (13:4b), so that he will give them the proof they are seeking (13:3a) by not sparing them (13:2). Read in this way, 13:2 and 13:4b say essentially the same thing in different terms.11. Following Heckel, Kraft, 133 and n.70, pointing to Rom. 6:8; 8:17, 29; 2 Cor. 4:14; Phil. 1:23; 3:21; Col. 3:4; 1 Thess. 4:14, 17; 5:10; 2 Tim. 2:11.12. Note Paul’s use of the apostolic plural in 13:6–9. For his confidence as an apostle, cf. 1:1, 12–14; 2:17; 3:4–5; 4:1; 5:18–6:2; 6:4; 7:2; 10:7, 14–18; 11:5, 23; 12:11–12, 19.13. Contra those who, like Scott, 2 Corinthians, 254, argue that “the Corinthians are in a position to unravel Paul’s whole mission in the east (to say nothing of the lost prospects for the west), if they consider that he has failed the test of apostleship …. In this dire situation, in which the legitimacy of Paul’s apostleship depends on the Corinthians’ reaction to him, Paul resorts to prayer.” In contrast to this view, Paul’s legitimacy and missionary success depend ultimately on God’s call, not the Corinthians’ acceptance; hence, Paul’s concern is their welfare, not what outsiders may think of him, since what the Corinthians think about Paul is paramount to their welfare, not his! Moreover, the situation is no longer dire. The repentance of the majority has already reestablished Paul’s authority in Corinth; now it is a matter of dealing with the rebellious minority.14. Cf. BAGD, 417–18. The NIV rendering, “perfection,” does not adequately communicate that Paul is referring here to the repentance of those still in rebellion and to the restoration of the unity of the church.15. Jeffrey A. D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings (JSNTSup 101; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 55. These elements included a farewell wish, a health wish, secondary greetings, an autograph, an illiteracy formula, the date, and a postscript. Of these, only the farewell wish was considered essential. For the literary features of Paul’s closing, I am following Weima’s work closely, who demonstrates these points throughout Paul’s letters; cf. his treatment of 2 Cor. 13:11–13 (pp. 208–15).16. Ibid., 238.17. chairete. This reading goes against the NIV and RSV and other commentaries, which take it to mean “good-by” or “farewell.” Weima, ibid., 210–11n.2, argues convincingly that here the verb is an imperative, meaning “to rejoice,” because it is part of a string of commands, its use in 13:9 clearly means “rejoice,” and its parallel use as an imperative in 1 Thess. 5:16 also carries this meaning.18. katartizesthe. My translation again follows Weima, ibid., 210n.1, who takes it as a middle rather than passive. As a middle it can mean, “aim for restoration” (so too Ralph Martin), “mend your ways” (RSV), or “pull yourselves together” (so Barrett). The NIV rendering, “aim for perfection,” misses the reference of this verb to the situation in Corinth.19. parakaleisthe. The NIV’s “listen to my appeal” takes it as a passive (so too the RSV and other commentators such as Plummer and Furnish). We are taking it as a middle; so too Barrett, Martin, Bruce, et al., including Weima, Neglected Endings, 211n.2.20. See William Klassen, “Kiss,” ABD, 4:89–92, who points out that “nothing analogous to it is to be found among any Greco-Roman societies, nor indeed at Qumran …. In the Second Temple period it is quite probable that among Jews the public kiss was not generally practiced …. Greco-Roman society treated the public kiss, both hetero- and homosexual, with considerable reticence,” except in times of reunion of loved ones after times of separation, or to signal special occasions of acceptance or joy or honor, or as a formal greeting (p. 91). Paul “was the first popular ethical teacher known to instruct members of a mixed social group to greet each other with a kiss” (p. 92). Thus, “the ‘holy kiss’ is a public declaration of the affirmation of faith: ‘In Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free’ (Gal. 3:28)” (p. 92).21. Weima, Neglected Endings, 212.22. Following the comparison of the structure and content of the various benedictions provided by Weima, ibid., 80, 89, 209–10. For the other “peace benedictions,” see Rom. 15:33; 16:20a; Gal. 6:16; Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 5:23; 2 Thess. 3:16. For the other “grace benedictions,” see Rom. 16:20b; 1 Cor. 16:23; Gal. 6:18; Eph. 6:24; Phil. 4:23; Col. 4:18; 1 Thess. 5:28; 2 Thess. 3:18; 1 Tim. 6:21; 2 Tim. 4:22; Titus 3:15; Philem. 25.23. I owe this insight to Weima, ibid., 214. For Paul’s earlier references to “love,” see 2:4, 8; 5:14; 6:6; 8:7, 8, 24; but see the verbal forms in 9:7; 11:11; 12:15. For the references to “fellowship,” see 1:7; 6:14; 8:4, 23; 9:13.24. As Weima, ibid., 214–15, observes, “every one of the closing conventions of this letter has been written and/or adopted in such a way that it relates directly to Paul’s preoccupation in the letter for his Corinthian converts to reject the divisive influence of his opponents and to restore peace and harmony both within the church and with him.”25. Jonathan Edwards, “Five Discourses on Important Subjects, Nearly Concerning the Great Affair of The Soul’s Eternal Salvation: Discourse I. Justification by Faith Alone,” The Works of Jonathan Edwards: Vol. One, revised and corrected by Edward Hickman (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974 [1834]), 622–54 (pp. 640, 642).26. According to surveys taken in the mid-1990s and reported by George Barna, Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators (Dallas: Word, 1996), 4, 5, 8, 9.27. Concerning church discipline, Barnett, Second Corinthians, 596–97, deduces from 1 and 2 Corinthians that there was “some kind of congregational procedure” involved in this discipline (cf. 1 Cor. 5:4; 2 Cor. 2:5–6, 10). “Evidence would be heard, with no fewer than two or three witnesses (13:1), perhaps preceding a congregational vote (cf. 2:5 [sic]—‘the majority’). A judgment would be passed (1 Cor. 5:3), followed by ‘punishment’ (cf. 2:5 [sic]), apparently some kind of separation or exclusion of the erring member (cf. 1 Cor. 5:11, 13). Such a procedure, as best we are able to reconstruct it from fragmentary data scattered through 1 and 2 Corinthians, was to provoke the sinner’s repentance with a view to his restoration to the community of faith (1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:10–11; Gal. 6:1–2).”28. This section is adapted from my essay “Paul’s Understanding of Perseverance,” SBJT 2 (1998): 68–71.29. David F. Wells, Losing Our Virtue: Why the Church Must Recover Its Moral Vision (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 179–80.30. David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 30.31. St. Augustine, Confessions, trans. Henry Chadwick (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1991), 10.29–31 (pp. 202–6).32. Note Augustine’s summary of his conversion in Confessions, 10.27 (p. 201), a passage that Chadwick says summarizes the central themes of the Confessions: “The lovely things kept me from you, though if they did not have their existence in you, they had no existence at all. You called and cried out loud and shattered my deafness. You were radiant and resplendent, you put to flight my blindness. You were fragrant, and I drew in my breath and now pant after you. I tasted you, and I feel but hunger and thirst for you. You touched me, and I am set on fire to attain the peace which is yours.” This is a poetic expansion of the same thought expressed by Paul about his own conversion in 2 Cor. 4:6. The negative flipside of this insight is that those who reject the gospel do so because they are blind to Christ’s glory (2 Cor. 4:3).33. Ibid., 13.38 (pp. 304–5), emphasis mine. I am indebted to John Piper for calling my attention to this theme in Augustine’s thought. For a moving and insightful analysis of Augustine’s understanding of the role of desire and joy in God in the Christian life, see Piper’s “The Swan Is Not Silent: Sovereign Joy in the Life and Thought of St. Augustine,” unpublished paper from The Bethlehem Conference for Pastors (Feb. 3, 1998), 10–11, 15, available on tape or in print from Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota.34. “A Disciple’s Renewal,” The Valley of Vision: A Collection of Puritan Prayers and Devotions, ed. Arthur Bennett (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1975), 184.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Copyright Page

Contents

How to Use This Commentary

Series Introduction

General Editor’s Preface

Author’s Preface

Abbreviations

Introduction

Outline

Annotated Bibliography of Selected Commentaries and Monographs

Text and Commentary on 2 Corinthians

2 Corinthians 1:1–22 Corinthians 1:3–112 Corinthians 1:12–2:112 Corinthians 2:12–3:32 Corinthians 3:4–62 Corinthians 3:7–182 Corinthians 4:1–182 Corinthians 5:1–102 Corinthians 5:11–6:22 Corinthians 6:3–132 Corinthians 6:14–7:12 Corinthians 7:2–162 Corinthians 8:1–152 Corinthians 8:16–9:152 Corinthians 10:1–182 Corinthians 11:1–332 Corinthians 12:1–132 Corinthians 12:14–13:14

Scripture Index

Subject Index

Notes