2 Corinthians 11

CHAPTER XI

Paul Does some Foolish Boasting about His Own Person, 11:1 to 12:13

I. Paul Asks the Privilege of Playing the Role of a Foolish Boaster because of His great Personal Concern for the Corinthians

This section is unique in all Paul’s writing. It has been well called the most magnificent and destructive thing that Paul has done in the way of ironical polemics. Like an actor on the ancient stage he puts on a mask in order to act a part, and the part which he acts is that of a fool, of a fellow who has no sense. But it is only he himself who feels that he is acting a fool. He asks his readers for once to allow him to do this. He feels that he is inflicting something on them. He asks them to tolerate it for a little while.

What makes Paul feel that he is acting the role of a fool is the fact that he boasts about his own person. This is what he dislikes. But the Corinthians themselves crowd him into assuming so unpleasant a role. He takes this role because of his great concern for them, because of the attacks made upon his person in order to injure not merely him but, most of all, the Corinthians themselves, their faith and their entire spiritual life. Paul’s whole motive and aim are not self-aggrandizement but complete frustration of the attempts of the false apostles who have already done much to hurt the Corinthians. The assumption of this role while he is telling the Corinthians that he takes it only as a role, is the best means for completely overthrowing these ugly invaders and all the evil they have done or may yet attempt to do. A deadly seriousness thus underlies the mask which Paul assumes for a little while.

He feels like a fool also because he seems to descend to the level of the false apostles whose great asset was self-recommendation and boasting about themselves. Is Paul now not advertising himself in the same way, and that the more after he has exposed these men’s folly as being senseless (οὑσυνιοῦσιν, 10:12)? Ah, but these men are not playing a role after informing the Corinthians that it is only a role; their whole life and activity are this very folly. Paul only apparently stoops to their level by now boasting about himself. Their boasts are entirely hollow. Behind the great show which they make is not only nothing, mere empty air; behind that show and pretense of great excellence and power is, in stark reality, only secret viciousness which they would not dare to let the Corinthians see.

When Paul now takes the boaster’s role, it is a role, just a role, because all that he will say in boast of himself is not sham, not pretense, not false and lying, but the straight fact and the simple reality from beginning to end, something which the false apostles would not dare to reveal about themselves. The Corinthians cannot verify a single boast of the false apostles; they have nothing but the simple word of these boasters, whose greatness lies in comparing themselves with themselves (10:12). Every word of Paul’s boasting the Corinthians can verify, yea, most of what he will say they have long ago verified. Truth does not like to boast, lies must boast. Truth can truly boast, lies can boast only by lying.

All of this shows why Paul put on this mask, allowed himself for once to be driven into personal boasting. It shows what a deadly thing for his false, boastful enemies his true boasting was. In parts one and two of his letter Paul has prepared the Corinthians to be the audience of what he now does at the climax of part three. Since they are so prepared, there is no question about the effect of this section of part three. It will sink in as nothing else would do.

2 Corinthians 11:1

1 Would that you would bear with me as to a little something of folly! This wish and this assurance are the signature for the entire section (11:1–12:13). The sense is: “I hope you will bear with me.” “Bear with me” implies that Paul is imposing a little on the patience of his readers by now offering them something that he himself admits to be “folly” or “foolishness.” Yet he minimizes: it is only “a little something” of this kind, it will thus not be hard to bear with Paul. Assured that his wish, which is a kindly and an earnest request, will be granted, Paul adds as if expressing his thanks: But, of course (καί), you bear with me! You are gracious to do that. An imperative seems out of place after a wish: “Yea, even do bear with we!” Thus B.-D. 448, 6; Robertson is undecided, see his remarks 1186 on ἀλλά, also W.

P. Opinions differ.

While ὄφελον is really a second aorist verbal form, the Koine uses it as a conjunction with a verb in the imperfect tense to express a wish regarding the present (thus in Rev. 3:15). We have the genitive μου to indicate the person: “bear with me,” and the adverbial accusative to indicate the thing: “as to a little something.”

2 Corinthians 11:2

2 Before proceeding with the foolishness which he desires to inflict upon them Paul tells what prompts his peculiar wish. It is his grave concern for the Corinthians. Back of the proposed foolishness lies the deepest seriousness. Paul reveals his motive and his aim at once and thus excludes all wrong ideas about “a little something of foolishness” that is now to be employed. When the purpose is so serious, any folly or foolishness which serves that purpose will certainly not be frivolous, superficial, or objectionable in any way.

Three parties are most deeply concerned: Paul, the Corinthians, and Christ. What unites them is Paul’s great and holy office. The figurative language in which Paul brings these three and his office together in one brief sentence is certainly admirable and highly effective. For I am jealous over you with God’s jealousy, for I espoused you to One as husband to present (you) as a pure virgin to Christ.

Here we have Paul’s blessed and glorious office in a new and most lovely light. Here there are the three that are concerned in that office, all in their actual relation. Here are the motives, here the purposes, all intertwined, so supreme for all concerned. I confess that I marvel at this expression of Paul’s thought.

The picture is that of a father who has betrothed his daughter to the noblest of bridegrooms. Soon the nuptials will be celebrated. Soon the father is to lead his daughter to the altar (we use our modern language). This father can lead her there only as a pure virgin. The point and pivot of the whole imagery lies in this term: “a virgin pure.” Hence we have the preamble: “I am jealous over you with God’s jealousy.” I watch over you with jealous eyes and see that you ever remain pure for that great day of presentation to Christ.

As far as we are able to say, this imagery is borrowed from the Oriental style of betrothal in which the bride was pledged to the groom by the parents, which made the two man and wife, yet so that a longer or a shorter interval intervened before the groom came to claim his bride, to carry her to his own home in grand state, there to consummate his marriage.

This way of entering marriage is much different from ours. The binding pledges were made at the time of the espousal or betrothal, none followed when the marriage was consummated; only the festivities and the feast took place then. In our day the marriage pledges are made on the wedding day. Today an engagement is only an advance promise to enter marriage and to take the marriage pledges at some future date. The ancient Oriental and the present Occidental customs have at times been confused. Engagements have been regarded as already constituting actual marriages.

This was said to be a following of the Word of God. But the Scriptures know nothing about our present custom in this matter; they lay down no law, they only describe the custom that was anciently in vogue. It is well to note all of this.

The verb and the noun mean not only to be full of zeal but especially in this context to be jealous. “With God’s jealousy” is certainly not “with godly jealousy” (our versions), merely a holy jealousy. It is much more. It is the very jealousy of God himself, about which the Old Testament has so much to say in reference to God’s relation to Israel because this people was betrothed to him. The wifehood of Israel is not drawn into Paul’s imagery, but there is merely a reference to the bridal state before the consummation of the marriage, the period between the solemn betrothal and the consummation to follow. “With God’s jealousy” recalls all of the Old Testament statements about God and Israel. It fits so well because the Corinthians, too, were a congregation, a mass of people. God’s jealousy has come to fill and to activate Paul who was acting for God in the betrothal of the congregation. The same feeling that filled God fills Paul.

The bride did not betroth herself. Her parents, her father, or whoever was the head of the house did that. Paul acts this part. He had founded the Corinthian congregation, he was its father. He had pledged this church in betrothal “to One as husband,” namely “to Christ.” Whereas in the Old Testament Yahweh is the bridegroom or the husband, in the New Testament it is Christ.

The verb is in the middle voice to indicate the personal interest which Paul has in this act: “I espoused you for myself.” I as father, you as bride. Why translate: “to one husband” (our versions)? The noun is predicative to the numeral: “to One as husband.” This “One” is emphatic and significant; it matches the other predicative noun “as a virgin pure.” The idea is: to be faithful to this one as husband, to have not even a thought of another, and thus to come as a virgin pure to this One when the great festive marriage day comes and Paul as the father presents this his daughter to Christ.

Many think that the presentation takes place at Christ’s Parousia; they also mix the presentation with the imagery of judgment. Paul has no special time in mind when the presentation will take place, for he is not writing allegory. He uses aorists as befits his figurative language: “did espouse”—“to present” once, definitely, completely. But this does not refer to single and momentary actions in the reality. Paul dedicated the Corinthians to Christ all along when he founded their church during the one and one-half years he labored in their city, when he presented them ever and ever as a pure, truly Christian church to One, to Christ alone.

By expressing it figuratively all the emotions and the motivations become manifest. The love of the father for his daughter; his great concern about her; the manner in which his honor is involved, etc. The love of the One for his bride; he has had himself espoused to this virgin; this pure and holy bond binds the two together. He is Christ, the Lord himself; the Corinthians are his holy bride. See what Paul thus stirred up in their hearts when he writes: “to One as husband—as a virgin pure.” Dare the Corinthians befoul themselves with spiritual adultery? Do they ever intend to risk breaking their espousal to Christ? Could Paul have stirred up so many thoughts by means of so few words if he had not used this imagery?

2 Corinthians 11:3

3 Paul has cause for this parental jealousy regarding the Corinthians: the Corinthians themselves have made him uneasy. Paul says: I espoused you to Christ. But I am afraid lest in some way, as the serpent deceived Eve in his craftiness, your thoughts be corrupted from your single-mindedness and your purity in regard to Christ.

ΙΙανουργία is the ability to do anything, and this word is used in the evil sense of stooping to use the basest means, any and all such means, to gain one’s evil ends—“craftiness.” The outstanding example is the serpent and his deception of Eve in the Garden of Eden; ἐκ in the verb intensifies: “completely deceived.” Jesus used the same example in John 8:44. It is so effective because it is the first deception that entered our world, and because its results were so terrible. All other deceptions are the repetitions of this original, most fatal one, are the outcome of this radical deception.

Paul says “Eve” and not “Adam” in this connection because he wants to designate “the serpent” as the deceiver, and he dealt with Eve. He says “the serpent” and not “Satan” because he wants to bring out the full baseness of the act in its similarity to what the false prophets were doing in Corinth. They crawled into Corinth as Satan did into Eden, they were like serpents. They used the same “craftiness,” they, too, intended to slay the innocent. These deceivers in Corinth were doing the devil’s serpent work. Paul wants to arouse all the horror of the serpent in the Corinthians. Like a flash this word “the serpent” reveals all the deadly danger from which the Corinthians should flee.

Late Jewish fiction and speculation regarded the fall of Eve as a sexual sin. Some of the commentators collect all the Jewish statements on this subject on the supposition that they cast light on Paul’s reference to Eve, that Paul might at least have had them in mind since he pictures the Corinthians as a pure virgin who may not be found pure at her presentation to her bridegroom. We decline to follow them. We decline also when pagan references are added regarding serpents’ misleading women. There is nothing sexy in Paul’s words. Eve was a married woman and not a virgin.

The notion of the devil and of devils and evil angels having sexual intercourse with women is monstrous and found its ugliest form in the fiction of the incubus and the succubus in the days of the witchcraft craze. We mention this aberration only because it still appears in books.

In 2:11 νοήματα is used in an evil sense: “devices” or schemes; the singular occurs in 10:5. Here the word means simply “thoughts,” the products of the νοῦς or mind. To corrupt them means to fill them with evil; the verb is the second aorist passive subjunctive, an effective aorist: “be actually corrupted.” A phrase is added for the sake of precision: “from the (your) single-mindedness and the (your) purity in regard to Christ.” The Greek articles emphasize: “that single-mindedness and that purity, that pertaining to your relation to Christ.”

Here we have the literalness for what is stated figuratively in v. 3. Ἁπλότης is exactly the proper word, and it is used in the same sense as it was in 8:2; 9:11, 13: “single-mindedness.” Despite our versions and others it does not mean “liberality” in these or in any other passages. Its opposite is duplicity. The picture is that of a cloth that is smoothly laid out so that no fold hides anything under it. Here single-mindedness refers to Christ; the mind and all its thoughts are set solely and singly upon him in love, loyalty, devotion, and there is no duplicity which secretly turns to another.

The addition of “purity” aids the thought by referring back to the figure of “a virgin pure.” The thoughts are to be without a stain or a smudge of disloyalty of any kind. In his craftiness the serpent aims to introduce duplicity into our thoughts which are directed to Christ and thereby to defile our thoughts regarding him. We are no longer to be Christ’s alone in our thoughts; secretly, in our hidden thoughts, we are to hanker after someone else. Figuratively we should thus no longer be a bride loyal and pure in heart for our blessed marriage presentation to Christ. An admonition underlies Paul’s words which urges the Corinthians to flee any contact with the false apostles. What a shame to pretend to be loyal to Christ while disloyalty has crept into the heart through the serpent’s agency which used the false apostles.

2 Corinthians 11:4

4 Γάρ states the ground for Paul’s fear regarding the Corinthians. For if he who comes (to you) preaches another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or you get a different Spirit, whom you did not get (from us), or a different gospel, which you did not receive (from us), you bore it well.

This is a simple condition of reality and nothing more. If we prefer the reading ἀνέχεσθε, the present tense, all is exceedingly simple. If we accept the reading that has the imperfect tense ἀνέχεσθε, all is still simple, for this tense would say only that at different times the Corinthians bore this sort of thing well without rising up in arms, and it would imply that such complacent bearing is not yet ended. Worthwhile textual, criticism is undecided. The view that the apodosis is one of unreality with ἀν omitted is not acceptable. If we have unreality we have in Corinth, namely no false gospel; if we have reality we have another situation, namely false gospel.

All the other evidence is in favor of the latter’s being true; v. 2, 3 are sufficient; v. 13 is more than that. Who ever heard of ψευδαπόστολοι preaching the true gospel? Men who preach the true gospel do not use the serpent’s craftiness, do not produce the fear that the thoughts of Christians will be corrupted and turned into secret disloyalty to Christ, do not force a man like Paul to say to the Corinthians: “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith!” (13:13).

Why does Paul then not attack these false apostles on what would thus be the chief issue, their false gospel? Why does Paul fight about the issue of his own person, as he does in these chapters, as if this were the chief issue? Paul tells us throughout. These false apostles made Paul’s person the supreme issue. Unlike the Judaizers in Galatia, they used “craftiness” in this. They intended to establish themselves as the genuine apostles of Christ (v. 13).

That is no marvel, says Paul, for Satan tries to appear as an angel of light (v. 14). They held their real teaching in abeyance until they should have destroyed Paul’s standing in Corinth and have fully established themselves; this accomplished, they planned to come out into the open with their false gospel. For this reason Paul compares them to the serpent and to Satan. The Corinthians were still in the dark as to what these liars really taught in regard to the gospel. Paul rightly joins the issue which they drew on his own person. This alone stood in the open, the other was concealed, could thus be evaded if it were attacked by Paul.

Yet Paul introduces it. The supposition that v. 4 decides the situation in Corinth in one way or in another is unacceptable. It would be strange for Paul to show in only one sentence—one that is put into a conditional form at that—how things really stood in Corinth.

We have μέν solitarium, the force of which is concessive or restrictive (R. 1151); there is no equivalent for it in English. The condition of reality speaks of an individual case as a real one, yet by means of the conditional form generalizes so as to include any such case. Ὁἑρχόμενος = “the man who comes” and visualizes that specific man. Several such have actually come to Corinth, and any others who may yet come are included in Paul’s indictment. He comes and preaches to you “another Jesus, whom we did not preach” to you, “we,” Paul and his assistants. You Corinthians know that it is not the same Jesus. What do you do?

Avoid that man (Rom. 16:17, 18)? Nothing of the kind; you tolerate him, “well do you bear him!” You have done it already, and you thus show that you are this kind of people. Let another, let others come and do the same, and you will, no doubt, treat them well also. That is the reason, Paul says, that I am afraid that you may be corrupted from single-mindedness and purity of heart toward Christ.

“Another Jesus”—as if there were another! You Corinthians know there is but one, the “One” to whom “as husband” I did espouse you, the “One” to whom you know that you belong as a bride to her betrothed. Paul does not say “another Christ” although another Jesus would also be a different Christ. These false apostles were offering a different picture of Jesus as he lived and walked on earth, a Judaistic picture which stressed the Judaism of Jesus in a false way. Since Jesus lived as a Jew, so they preached, all his followers ought also to live as Jews. This is what the foolish Corinthians bear so well instead of rising up against it in indignation.

By means of this Jewish Jesus these false apostles played themselves up as “the superlative apostles” (v. 5) who were vastly superior to Paul and to his assistants, whom they then vilified in all manner of ways. Astounding—the Corinthians “bear it well!”

The two “or” are conjunctive and not disjunctive. “Or” fixes attention upon each separate item; “and” would merely combine them. From “Jesus” Paul advances to the “Spirit” and then to the “gospel” because it is the Spirit through whom Jesus works among men, and because it is the gospel by means of which the Spirit does this work. The three occur in their natural and proper order. The false apostle, whom Paul describes, preaches “another Jesus” (ἄλλος); he speaks of the same person and uses the same name but makes him altogether “other” than Paul does. Thus “another” is in place. Such a Jesus would send “a different Spirit,” who would also employ “a different gospel” (both times ἕτερος).

These two are not just “other” with a different look and complexion as was the case in regard to Jesus but actually “different” from the Holy Spirit and the Christian gospel, namely a Spirit who is only called so, a gospel that is such only in name, each being nothing but a fiction. Indeed “another” Jesus could not send the Holy Spirit with the real, saving, divine gospel; what he would send, if he could send anything at all, would be “different,” as different as fiction would be from reality. Note that λαμβάνειν has more of a passive sense, bekommen, “to get” (B.-P. 730); δέχομαι suggests the idea of acknowledging the gospel proclamation and hence means “to receive” so as to be governed by this gospel (C.-K. 379).

Note the careful wording: the false apostle comes and preaches another Jesus—you thus get a different Spirit, one that you did not get from us—and a different gospel (you get), which you did not receive from us. The Greek needs no object in the apodosis, but we supply one: “well are you (were you) bearing it!” Because in v. 1 we have “bear with me,” our versions supply “him” in v. 4. Both of our versions do not seem to understand what Paul is saying, for the A. V. margin has: “ye might well bear with me,” as though Paul is referring to the request he made in v. 1. The R. V. has: “ye do well to bear with him,” but where is “ye do well” in the text?

No; Paul registers the sad fact: You Corinthians stand this thing well, oh, so well, to have a man come and preach another Jesus, to get from him a different Spirit, a different gospel! For this reason Paul fears for the purity of the Corinthians.

2 Corinthians 11:5

5 “He who comes” in v. 4 is what Robertson calls a representative singular, one that is used to represent all who are like him. The condition of reality in v. 4 refers to the men who had actually come to Corinth and had preached another Jesus, etc.; it includes any others of this type who may yet come. Sorrowfully and with fear for the Corinthians Paul says to them: “you bear well” such men although you yourselves see that they bring you a Jesus we never brought, a Spirit and a gospel that are different from those you got from us. You evidently think these men superior to me and to my assistants who work under me. How can you otherwise treat such men so well after receiving what you did from us? You must think them superior because of their logos or because they make you pay for preaching their grand logos.

An issue had been drawn on both points regarding Paul’s great inferiority. Paul thus answers both points, the latter quite fully.

This is not a digression: Paul announcing his foolish boasting in v. 1 and then inserting so much before he starts that boast. Paul is stating the reasons which call forth the foolish boasting which he asks the Corinthians to “bear”: 1) their attitude toward the false apostles whom they “bear so well”; 2) the attitude of the false apostles who give the Corinthians a plenty to “bear.” This supposed digression in reality fortifies the succeeding boasting on the part of Paul. The Corinthians should not have forced Paul into this boasting, a thing that makes him feel like a fool. They should certainly not have pitted such men as these false apostles against him and thereby forced this boasting from Paul, a thing that was so disagreeable to him.

The connection is both true and close. First we have the general statement. Well, I reckon that in regard to nothing have I come behind the superfine apostles! Γάρ simply refers to all that v. 4 states. It is our introductory “well” or “well now.” The very idea of treating these fellows who have come to Corinth and have brought what they did (v. 4) as “superfine apostles” after what the Corinthians have received from Paul! Well, if a comparison is, indeed, to be made where none can really be made, Paul for one reckons that he has had to take no back seat as far as these men are concerned. The perfect infinitive reaches from the past to the present: “have come behind so as still to be behind.”

He ironically calls these interlopers who bring “another Jesus,” etc., “superfine apostles”; verbs of excelling and their opposites take the genitive (R. 519). The compound adverb ὑπερλίαν is used as an adjective; see 12:11. “Superfine” hits the nail on the head. They came as grand fellows, indeed, who were vastly superior to any of the true apostles of Jesus, either the Twelve or Paul. Did they not bring “another Jesus” who was far superior to the one whom all other apostles brought? That alone was enough although we shall see that there is more to make them “superfine” as there naturally would be.

Our versions translate “the very chiefest apostles” as though Paul means that he is not inferior to the best among the Twelve, Peter and John and, perhaps, the Jerusalem James. Some have held this view. The next verse bars it out. Nobody could rate Paul as being inferior to Peter, etc., on the score of his logos, training in dialectics and rhetorical skill. Paul had sat at Gamaliel’s feet. He had all the rabbinical schooling of the Jews; Peter, John, etc., had none of it.

They were the ἰδιῶται, “laymen,” Paul the expert or specialist. Throughout this discussion there is nowhere a reason for comparison between Paul and any of the Twelve, least of all here and in 12:11. The whole clash is limited to Paul and the false apostles in Corinth. In no case would Paul fling an epithet like ὑπερλίαν at the Twelve, his honored fellow apostles, and then say no more about himself in relation to them. Softening the word when translating it does not change matters. It means “the excessive apostle,” excessive as one who is trying to outdo all the real apostles.

We have them right here in these chapters.

Paul calls these interlopers ἀπόστολοι, but only in the sense in which he calls them ψευδαπόστολοι in v. 13, “emissaries.” The latter term brings out the fact that they had no commission from anyone. They were in the full sense “false apostles” who came with a sham commission, one which they themselves invented, by which to deceive people like the Corinthians. The supposition that they came from Jerusalem and that they bore credentials from any of the Twelve is unwarranted. We know of no men who were sent out by any of the Twelve to run around in the Christian congregations anywhere. That very idea is untenable. Any helpers of any apostle worked as did the assistants of Paul, under the eyes of that apostle.

These excessive apostles were not Jews from Jerusalem for the reason that such men could not boast about their logos as being vastly superior to Paul’s. Paul had the best that Jerusalem could afford. They were Hellenistic Jews who had been trained in pagan schools and could thus boast about something that Paul did not have. Here the view goes on the rocks that Paul had attended the university at Tarsus, his home city. If that had been the case, no one would have looked down on him because of lack of Greek logos.

2 Corinthians 11:6

6 The first point on which Paul’s standing is attacked he settles in short order. But if, indeed (καί), I am a nonprofessional in regard to the (matter of) speech, nevertheless not in regard to the (matter of) knowledge. This is the point of the slander referred to in 10:10: “His speech is of no account” (contemptible), it shows nothing of the rhetorician’s dialectical skill and training. Some conclude that Paul admits this allegation. In view of the letters which he wrote, of the highest skill which he displays in their composition, of the rhetoric which he uses, the niceties of language which are of the highest order, the perfect word for each perfect thought, such a blanket admission on Paul’s part would be strange. No; this is not such an admission, it is refutation.

What Paul says is this: “What if I actually am what they say on the score of the logos, what does that amount to when I am decidedly not that on the score of the gnosis or knowledge?” We have two datives of relation. What a silly thing to quibble about a man’s speech while disregarding what that speech contains in the way of knowledge!

This is an old trick: draw attention to the surface in order to withdraw attention from the golden things underneath the surface; fuss about the wrapping so that nobody will look at what is wrapped up. The Jews tried this trick on Jesus in John 7:15 in order to turn the people away from him because he was not graduated from the schools of their rabbis, but Jesus exploded their cunning; see the author’s exposition. The same thing was tried against Paul. He uses only a slight blow or two to render the trick innocuous.

From his various addresses recorded in Acts we know what kind of speaker Paul was. Those addresses show the same ability which his letters reveal. Only in one sense was Paul an ἰδιώτηςτῷλόγῳ—he was not a graduate of a pagan university. The art which he employs is not the artificial technique of the Greek orators and rhetoricians. Their canons of art and their practice ill accorded with what Paul had to convey as an apostle. It contained too much artificiality.

Paul’s art was the native expression of the genuine gnosis or knowledge. In regard to that “knowledge” he admits no inexpertness: “nevertheless (ἀλλά) not in regard to the (matter of) knowledge.” Both datives are specific, hence we have the article in the Greek. Nor is this mere assertion on Paul’s part. With a continuative, confirmatory ἀλλά (R. 1185) he adds: yea, (we) having in every way publicly shown it in all respects in regard to you. In other words: You Corinthians know it! We prefer the reading φανερώσαντες to the passive φανερωθέντες, “having manifested” and not “having been manifested.”

Follow this public manifestation through: 2:14; 3:3; 4:2; 7:12; and here. It has been said that Paul scorns the use of a special finite verb and just appends the participle. In the Greek the participle has number and case and is thus perfectly plain as a reference to all of Paul’s assistants as well as to himself, for he operated to a considerable extent through them. All of them showed the gnosis which they had, showed it publicly. All of them dealt in public with their knowledge of divine truth: “in regard to you,” ἐνπᾶντί, “in every way,” ἐνπᾶσιν, “in all respects.” This is a telling paronomasia, one phrase being on each side of the participle, which is itself a proof that Paul was no ἰδιώτης when it came to expressing himself effectively. Our word “idiot” is derived from this term which meant “layman” in distinction from an expert.

The R. V. renders ἐνπᾶσιν as a masculine: “among all men”; the A. V. is correct: “in all things,” still better, “in all respects.” That is that. No more need be added. Anybody who still wants to disparage Paul in regard to his logos is welcome to do so.

2 Corinthians 11:7

7 Now the next point. Or did I commit sin in lowering myself in order that you might be exalted, in that I preached God’s gospel to you gratis? Other churches I robbed by taking sustenance for my ministry to you. It is merely misfortune when a man lacks dialectical skill, at least if somebody thinks he does; it is a different matter when he deliberately chooses an unusual course of conduct like this of Paul’s. This might be doing somebody a “wrong” (ἀδικία, 12:13), committing a “sin,” namely one against love (v. 11). The question about not taking pay for his preaching is treated at length in 1 Cor. 9:4–19, where Paul states that he has the fullest right to take pay and shows why he, nevertheless, makes no use of this right.

But that, it seems, did not end the matter. When the false apostles came to Corinth they very likely utilized also this matter in order to injure Paul. They certainly took all that they could from the Corinthians—of course, just because they loved the Corinthians so much while Paul, who took nothing, showed that he did not love the Corinthians! This is the angle from which Paul now treats the matter.

He plunges right into it without the least preamble: “Did I commit sin,” etc.? If there is any fault about this matter it could be only a moral one, the commission of a sin. Paul does not tone down this expression but at once formulates this “sin” so that the folly of calling it a sin is made strikingly apparent: “lowering myself in order that you might be exalted.” This is what Jesus did with regard to the sin charged against him, that by healing on the Sabbath he desecrated the Sabbath. He asked: “It is lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?” Matt. 12:10. That question answers itself. To lower oneself in order to exalt others would be a saintly sin indeed.

The sin is committed when one does the reverse. Paul lowered himself by taking no pay, by earning his own support, by thus risking disparagement on the part of the very people whom he served. Yet the Corinthians were exalted by his labors, were lifted to be children of the Highest.

ʼ′Οτι is epexegetical: “in that.” Note the impact of the Greek—great crime indeed: “gratis the God’s gospel I gospeled to you.” A sin to give you God’s gift for nothing? By placing τοῦΘεοῦ in the attributive position it receives the emphasis. So also the use of the cognate object produces both beauty and emphasis: “I gospeled the gospel to you.” Are you Corinthians, to whom I gave so much in order to exalt you so highly, going to call me a sinner for doing this for you for nothing? Many a truth need only be put into the right words in order to rip away delusion and perversion. Paul has the gnosis for that. Here there is another case where he demonstrates it.

2 Corinthians 11:8

8 Paul causes this truth to smart: “Other churches I robbed by taking support for my ministry to you!” The Corinthians deserved this mortification in order to drive out their mean ingratitude. For what is meaner than to slander a benefactor for bestowing his benefaction gratis? But note, Paul says that he “robbed” other churches, he took from them what he should really not have taken, namely ὀψώνιον, “sustenance.” “Wages” is too liable to be misunderstood as meaning regular pay, which Paul never took from any church, 1 Cor. 9:15, 18. This was a fixed principle with him.

The noun has no article and means “some sustenance.” It denotes a gift that was sent to him after he had left those churches, which he could, therefore, not refuse. Yet even then he felt that he was robbing those churches, letting them press something upon him which he would not let the Corinthians press upon him. What made him feel thus the more was the fact that the other churches gave him this present by means of which he could come to Corinth and minister to the Corinthians. Thus, in a way, these Corinthians had the benefit.

2 Corinthians 11:9

9 Paul tells about it; καί is explicative: namely, while present with you and having gotten behind, I was a dead weight on no one; for the brethren who came from Macedonia filled up my shortage; and in every way I kept myself nonburdensome for you, and I shall keep (myself so). At one time, Paul says, during his stay of eighteen months in Corinth he really got behind (aorist participle), he did not really have enough; but even then he was a dead weight on no one. Vincent regards the verb as a transitive: “Paul did not benumb the Corinthians by his demand for pecuniary aid.” The verb is intransitive: as one who is benumbed and helpless Paul was a dead weight on no one. The verb is derived from νάρκη, a fish that, like the torpedo or the electric ray, shocks its victim into numbness, the noun thus also means numbness. Paul did not become benumbed so that he fell a burden to a single person in Corinth. The verb is construed with the genitive.

The brethren from Macedonia came and filled up the shortage. These brethren had funds and came to Paul’s assistance. This is sometimes taken to mean that they brought Paul a collection from Philippi or from Macedonia, but the words contain no hint of a collection. Windish finds in them a collection that Paul ordered in the Macedonian churches; in fact, when he first came to Corinth he brought a tidy sum with him but, needing a good deal of money for his travels, etc., his funds gave out, and he thus had more money collected for him mit Nachdruck. This contradicts what Paul says in 1 Cor. 9:9–14 and overlooks what Paul says here. Paul, of course, registers only the fact that he in every way guarded himself and kept himself “nonburdensome” for the Corinthians.

Robbing other churches refers to the two gifts which the Philippians sent to Paul while he was at Thessalonica (Phil. 4:15, 16). The plural “other churches” generalizes, the Philippian church alone had sent the gifts. Later, when Paul was a prisoner in Rome, the Philippians sent him a third gift. We can easily surmise how Paul came to be out of funds during his stay in Corinth although he earned his living in Aquila’s shop. We shall scarcely go wrong in saying that he had used up his funds, not only to pay for his own necessities, but also to provide for the necessities of his assistants, whom he sent here and there. That left him wholly destitute at one time while he was working in Corinth.

But even under those circumstances he followed his principle: “I kept myself non-burdensome to you ἐνπαντί, in every way” (or case), the same phrase that occurs in v. 6. He permitted the brethren from Macedonia to assist him. Paul adds significantly: “and I will keep (myself so).” Let the Corinthians mark it. Slander is the last thing to which Paul would yield.

2 Corinthians 11:10

10 There is (indeed) a truth of Christ in my case so that this boasting shall not be dammed up in regard to me in the regions of Achaia. Paul’s case was different from that of any other apostle, totally different. He came into the church as an abortion, was not fit to be called an apostle (see the exegesis of 1 Cor. 15:8, 9). All the others were believers and Christians and as such were finally called as apostles. Not so Paul. Dead foetus that he was, fit only to be buried quickly out of sight, on the road to Damascus Christ called him to be an apostle even before he was converted to faith.

This is the truth of Christ “in my case.” This imposed on him the obligation, which he felt so keenly, never to take pay for his work. This “truth of Christ,” i.e., what Christ did by calling him into the apostle-ship while he was still such a hideous thing, Paul accepted as the stamp upon his entire apostleship. No church ever owed him, anything, a man such as he had been, a persecutor of Christ and of the church. He felt that he could never make use of the right that they who preach the gospel should live by the gospel. He, too, had this right, but how could he ever think of using it? See the exegesis of 1 Cor. 9:16–18.

Ἔστιν, accented and placed forward = “there exists.” “A truth of Christ” has the genitive of origin: a great fact which Christ himself produced in Paul’s case. Ἔνἐμοί = “in my case” (it is well explained by R. 587). Ὄτι is consecutive and states the consequence of this truth of Christ. The existence of this great fact in Paul’s case involves “that this boasting shall not be dammed up in regard to me,” etc. These slanders that were being circulated in Corinth about Paul amounting to nothing because he felt he was worth nothing and showed it by taking no pay should not dam up the boasting of the Christians in Achaia regarding Paul, that Christ had marked him in a most astonishing way.

His enemies might try to dam up and to stop this flow of boasting in Corinth. They shall fail there and shall certainly not succeed in the province generally. What these enemies consider so derogatory to Paul, Paul will advertise, and all Christians will continue to make it a boast regarding him even in all Achaia, Corinth included. Since in 1 Cor. 15:8, 9; 9:9, etc., Paul has stated what this “truth” or fact is, and since the Corinthians know it from other sources (the whole story of Paul’s conversion being for a long time known to them), Paul does not need to expound what this “truth of Christ” is. Φράσσω means to fence in, dam up, barricade, or stop: “shall not dam up in the regions of Achaia,” silence it so that this glory about Paul shall no longer be heard there.

This passage has been variously interpreted. We see this in our versions. R. 1034 regards the first clause as a “solemn oath”; B.-D. 397, 3, and C.-K. 123 as Beteuerung, just a little less than an actual oath, and Wohlenberg speaks of “a strong expression of assurance.” But such ideas are evidently incorrect. What is there that Paul should swear to? He says that in his case there exists a peculiar fact that is due to Christ. Paul’s case is entirely exceptional; he has told the Corinthians so.

Next, Paul does not say: “stop me in this glorying (boasting).” Εἰςἐμέ = “in regard to me”; see “in regard to you” in v. 6 and elsewhere. Paul is not running around in Achaia and boasting. He does not say: “I shall not be stopped,” or, “my glorying shall not be stopped”; “no man shall stop me” (our versions) is not in the text. “This glorying about me,” Paul says, “shall not be stopped,” it shall be continued in all Achaia by those who appreciate what I am doing.

Some commentators interpret this passage contrary to 1 Cor. 9:18, where Paul says in so many words that he does all of his preaching “without charge.” Nor was this done only in Achaia. The question as to why Paul should make such an exception of Achaia does not seem to occur to these commentators. Paul preached everywhere without charge; read 1 Cor. 9. Everywhere for the same reason. Everywhere he gloried in doing so; Christians likewise gloried “in regard to him.” He had told them this “truth of Christ in his case.” They appreciated it and what Paul did in consequence of it. Only in Corinth these invaders from the outside turned the whole thing into slander. Therefore Paul tells the Corinthians: “This glorifying shall not be stopped in the regions of Achaia.”

2 Corinthians 11:11

11 For what reason? Because I do not love you? God knows (I do)! Διατί = “for what reason?” Ἱνατί would mean “for what purpose?” Does this insistence on the part of Paul that Christ made his case peculiar so that he will take nothing for his sustenance from anybody and will have this as his own boast and as the boast of others also “in regard to him,” does this mean that he disregards the feelings of the Corinthians in the whole matter, that he does not love them? “God knows!” knows that I, indeed, love you with my whole heart. This is not: “God alone knows, I do not”; but the very opposite, the strongest assurance of love as God knows that it is. Regarding ἀγαπῶ see the noun in 2:4. This is not mere affection and liking but the love of full intelligence with purpose and actions according.

Although Paul’s case was peculiar it was one which comported fully with this truest love for the Corinthians and for all whom he won for Christ. Christ would not have made Paul’s case what he did if that would have interfered with Paul’s love.

2 Corinthians 11:12

12 That is settled. But in the case of the Corinthians others besides themselves are to be considered. Δέ brings up this other consideration. Moreover, what I do and will do, (I do and will do) in order to cut off the occasion of those who want an occasion, that in what they boast they be found as, indeed, we (are found).

Paul says that what he does and what he will do aims to cut off anything in the boasting which the false prophets do by which they can make it appear that they are what they are not, namely the genuine apostles that Paul and his assistants actually are. Paul’s taking no pay while these false apostles take all they can get shall not serve as the ἀφορμή, “starting point or occasion” which they would love to have in the boasting that they are constantly doing. This is a hill which they cannot climb.

The second ἵνα states the purpose for which the false apostles want a starting point, namely “that in what they are constantly making a boast they may be found as, indeed (καί), we on our part (emphatic ἡμεῖς) are found.” They would like to have people find them what people have actually found us. But the handicap which Paul has placed in their way is too great. They have a hard time explaining why they take all they can get while Paul and his assistants never take anything.

All of their explanations are bound to be lame. One, as it seems, was that Paul did not love the Corinthians (v. 11). But that was weak. “God knows I do” is the only answer needed. Another was that Paul took no pay because he knew that he was no real apostle. But that had the wrong effect. Perhaps that proved him to be real and his detractors spurious. Paul achieved his purpose: the false apostles had the starting point which they wanted completely cut off.

2 Corinthians 11:13

13 Paul drives home this point with an explanatory γάρ: For such men are pseudo-apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder, Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Paul calls these men exactly what they are. “Pseudo-apostles” appears only here in the New Testament; some think that Paul coined this word after the analogy of pseudo-Christs, pseudo-prophets (Mark 13:22), and pseudo-brethren (Gal. 2:4). “False apostles” shows that the Jesus whom they preached, the Spirit and the gospel which they offered, were wholly pseudo or false (v. 4). “Workers δόλιοι” are such who deceive by putting out bait to catch victims; the original meaning of the noun δόλος is bait. The connotation is deception that kills.

They put on a σχῆμα, an outward form or fashion that makes them look like “apostles of Christ.” They do not have the μορφή, the form that is native to the essence, the form which all true apostles of Christ have. Their own μορφή they dare not display, for then all Christians would run from them. So they put on a mask and thereby transform themselves into apostles of Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:14

14 Does this seem incredible? Does anyone ask why men who have no use for Christ should want to pass as true apostles of Christ? There is “no wonder” about it at all. “Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.” Again, as he did in v. 3, Paul brings out the connection of all false apostles with Satan. He uses the same verb. The present tense is important: Satan does this again and again, it is his practice. He makes people think that they are dealing with an angel of light when, in fact, they are dealing with the prince of darkness himself. How else can Satan get his deadly lies across except by presenting them as God’s words that are being spoken by one of God’s angels (ἄγγελος = messenger)? In “angel of light” the genitive is qualitative.

In the apocryphal Vita Adami et Evae there occurs the passage: et transierunt dies XVIII, tunc iratus est Satanas et transfiguravit se in claritatem angelorum et abiit ad Tigrem flumen ad Evam, etc. The Apocalypse of Moses states: τότεὁσατανᾶςἐγένετοἐνεἴδειἀγγέλουκαὶὕμνειτὸνΘεὸνκαθάπεροἱἄγγελοικαὶπαρακύψασαἐκτοῦτείχουςἴδον (“I saw,” namely Eve) αὑτὸνὅμοιονἀδδέλου. But the conclusion that Paul uses “an apocryphal mythical motif” here is unwarranted. In the Vita Satan transfigures himself physically and proceeds to the Tigris River; in the Apocalypse the same statement is made, he puts on the physical looks, sings like the angels, and Eve, leaning over the wall, saw him “like an angel.” When angels appeared to men they used a physical form and bright and shining garments that were visible to the human eye. The apocryphal statements say that Satan imitated this. What Paul says is not that the false apostles dressed and made themselves look like Paul physically, or that Satan did that and made himself like an angel physically, but that they used “the craftiness” (v. 3) with which Eve was deceived, that they “corrupted the thoughts” of unwary men. There was no physical transformation of any kind, it was all moral deception.

We have at most only an allusion to the apocrypha, a reduction of the apocryphal statements to what is true regarding Satan and a stripping off of what is not true. Paul uses iterative present tenses to describe what is regularly done by these deceivers and not historical tenses to indicate what Satan is supposed to have done before the eyes of Eve. As to Satan and as to his false apostles—they still deceive in the way in which Paul states. Who ever saw anything that is similar to what these apocrypha allege regarding Eve?

2 Corinthians 11:15

15 It is, therefore, no great thing (at all) if also his ministers transform themselves as ministers of righteousness—they whose end shall be according to their deeds. There is nothing “wonderful” or “great” about this imitation. What Satan does he will, of course, teach his ministers. Paul significantly calls the false apostles “his (Satan’s) ministers,” men who voluntarily serve Satan for the sake of the aid they can give him; not “his slaves” (δοῦλοι) who are compelled to work for him. All false apostles and teachers serve Satan voluntarily. In order the better to do so, they pretend to be “ministers of righteousness” (compare 3:9, “the ministry of the righteousness”). The genitive is objective in both expressions: ministers who serve righteousness. “Righteousness,” too, is to be taken in its full forensic, soteriological sense and not merely in the sense of our righteous living (called acquired righteousness) but as imputed to us by God’s verdict for Christ’s sake by means of faith.

We might expect the direct opposite to “his (Satan’s) ministers,” namely “God’s ministers.” As he does in so many instances, Paul here has no formal opposite but one which advances the thought and says more. The fact that “ministers of righteousness,” who bring justification by faith and all that this includes, are ministers of God is self-evident. But this expression flashes into our minds all the blessedness of this ministry. This reacts on “Satan’s ministers,” for their work in serving Satan is to keep God’s saving righteousness from men or to filch it from them if they have already obtained it by the help of God’s ministers. The devilishness of this work is thus brought out and the devilishness of the method employed in this work, for these ministers of Satan pretend to bestow what God’s ministers do bestow, yea, pretend while they really bestow the opposite, assured damnation.

When it is placed at the end, the relative often has strong demonstrative force. “Whose” = these who are the very ones whose, etc. They may play their game for a while, their “end will be according to their works.” What that end will be need not be specified. The very restraint exercised in the brief expression is more effective than stronger language would be. “Their works” includes the constant deception which they practice by their lying transformation.

We are told that Paul ought to have told the Corinthians to sever themselves completely from these ministers of Satan, the more so since they were still active in Corinth. Is there any stronger way of demanding separation than by pointing to men as being ministers of Satan?

Others ask: “Was Paul’s judgment regarding these men just? Should we not hear also ‘the other side’?” The Oriental, the Jew, the Levantine are always ready with the denunciation: “Of the devil!” even when their own passion plays a strong part. The judge and the jury in this case are not we of today but the Corinthians, for this letter was written to them. “The other side” was before the Corinthians in extenso and for months. As to presenting sides, all the disadvantage lay with Paul. If Paul were just a Jew, an Oriental, a Levantine, why bother about this letter at all as though he were not fair to Satan and his emissaries? But Paul was Christ’s apostle, and not a common Levantine who was uttering intemperate invective. Besides, he wrote these words under the guidance and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

II. Paul Begins His Boasting as a Fool

2 Corinthians 11:16

16 Reluctance is written all over Paul as he now crowds over the edge to fall into the pool of foolish boasting. He is ashamed to do this sort of thing and yet sees that he just has to do it. In v. 2–15 he has stated the grave reasons for his present strange proceeding. Now that he is about to begin he wavers a bit and tells the Corinthians how he wants them to understand it. He is not one bit happy about doing what has to be done.

Once more I say: Do not let anyone think that I am (actually) a fool! But if (you will) not (grant this wish), think of me, even if (you may think of me) as of a fool, so that I on my part, too, may boast in regard to a little something!

There is no need to assume that πάλιν, “again” or “once more,” intends to repeat what v. 1 has said. The adverb states only that Paul is “again” speaking about his acting the fool. “To speak of it again,” he says, “please, let nobody think that I am actually a fool!” Negative aorist prohibitions have the subjunctive and not the imperative. Although he is about to act as a fool by boasting like so many fools do, Paul is by no means a fool. Behind this apparent folly there is something that is vastly other than folly. This cannot be said about other boasters.

But Paul’s wish will perhaps not be granted; the Corinthians will perhaps take him to be the fool he is acting. “Well then,” Paul adds, “take me so and grant me the indulgence you grant a fool, let me do a little boasting!” The translation above fills the ellipses which make the Greek so neat but which the English is unable to duplicate. The negative μήγε cannot be used elliptically in English. Translations usually give only the sense and thus omit the negative.

2 Corinthians 11:17

17 What I am going to utter I am not uttering according to the Lord but as in folly, (namely) in this undertaking of my glorying. The two present tenses λαλῶ are futuristic (R. 869): “I am going to utter,” the verb refers to mere utterance, the opposite of keeping still. Κατά does not mean that Paul is not going to follow the example of the Lord; it indicates norm. This foolish boasting will not follow the norm and principle of Jesus, for it will be done, not, indeed, “in folly,” yet “as in folly.” It will look like folly. It will thus stoop to a lower norm than Jesus used. If it were done in actual folly it would, of course, be stooping to sin; since it is done only in apparent folly it is not sin but is ethically on a lower plane than the one on which Jesus moved.

We thus see why Paul is so reluctant. We must admire him the more for overcoming himself. But see how he tells the Corinthians all about his reluctance. They must know it in order to appreciate what Paul is doing and thus to get the full effect of what he is doing. The second phrase is epexegetical: “namely in this undertaking of my glorying.” It is difficult to find the right word for ὑπόστασις, a term that has various meanings. If we translate, “this confidence of my (Greek article) boasting,” it would be the confidence or assurance which dares to do such a thing; if we think rather of the act, it would be mutiges Unterfangen, Wagnis, courageous undertaking, C.-K. 541.

2 Corinthians 11:18

18 Of his own volition it would not occur to Paul to stoop to boasting that would in any way comport with the part of a fool. He is forced into it. Since many are boasting according to the flesh, I, too, will boast. It is not the Lord’s norm or principle but only that of men. The “many” includes the false prophets found in Corinth. Textually, “according to the flesh” is more assured than “according to flesh.” Yet according to either reading the phrase does not mean “in a fleshly, that is, sinful way.” To that Paul would never stoop.

The phrase is to be construed with the main clause as well as with the minor clause. It need not be repeated, especially not in the Greek. In many connections “flesh” signifies anything that belongs to our human nature; Leib, seine Art, C.-K. 893. “The flesh” sums up all such externals and non-essentials. For a little while Paul will stoop to make “the flesh” in this sense the norm of his boasting and feel like a fool in order to be in the company of those who know no higher norm.

2 Corinthians 11:19

19 As far as the Corinthians are concerned, Paul says, he certainly need have no compunctions about boasting as a fool. For gladly you bear with the fools, (you) being (so) intelligent! This is irony. People of intelligence cannot endure fools. But these Corinthians are so intelligent that they not only bear them but bear them gladly. The verb is the same one that was used in v. 1 and governs the genitive. “The fools” has the generic article.

Paul is proposing to enter this class for a little while. The remark that he cannot call the false apostles “fools” overlooks the fact that by “fools” Paul refers to “the many” mentioned in v. 18 who boast according to the flesh, and that Paul is now about to do the same thing. If the Corinthians tolerate fools so well, Paul certainly feels encouraged: they will tolerate him and his foolish boasting, too.

In the Greek φρόνιμοι and ἄφρονοι are a pair, we cannot duplicate this in English. But the former are not “wise” (our versions), the term for which would be σοφοί, entirely too good a word. Even “intelligent” is too good. “Smart” comes nearer the sense. Since they are themselves smart, the Corinthians do not at all mind fools, they rather like to have them around. The sting in this remark is the implication that such smart people are bigger fools than the fools they indulge; and that, by getting such indulgence from people who think themselves so smart, these fools are smarter than the smart people on whom they impose.

2 Corinthians 11:20

20 Just how smart the Corinthians are in tolerating the imposition of fools gladly and with a smile is driven home with a vengeance. They are so smart that there is scarcely a limit to their folly. Why, you bear it if one enslaves you, if one devours (you), if one captures (you), if one lifts himself up (over you), if one smites you in the face! I am speaking by way of disgrace that we on our part have been weak.

Behold all that the Corinthians are willing to bear and even like! Paul lists the items and calls each one by its actual name. All of the “ifs” denote reality. All of them refer to past actualities that occurred in Corinth, but they cut more deeply: not only have the Corinthians actually tolerated such treatment on the part of the false apostles, but the conditional form also implies that they are ready to have it repeated again and again. So “smart” are they, smart fools! Such fools are the false prophets, mighty smart ones! The irony is devastating, but it is the irony of the cold facts—that produces the devastation. Irony is really of two kinds: one that aims only to wound and disregards facts, the other that lets the facts speak, to wound in order to help.

The five items make up one picture. Five is the half of ten, i.e., the half of completeness, hence it only sketches the fools that the Corinthians are to submit to this sort of thing. The picture is one of outrage of the most intolerable kind. That is the actual fact, but the Corinthians bear it as something that is perfectly in order. They submit to it “gladly.”

Κατά in the first verb means “down”: “if one makes abject slaves of you.” The same is true with regard to the next verb; but we say, not “eats you down,” but “eats you up”; the English is queer, for instance, “burn down” is also “burn up.” The third verb means “to take,” yet not “takes of you,” robs you (A. V.), but “takes you captive” (R. V.) so that he has you where he wants to have you, to do with you what he pleases. These three involve the fourth: “if one lifts himself up over you” so that you simply have to submit. The last puts in the finishing touch: “smites you in the face,” but not in answer to resistance which you may offer; no resistance on the part of the Corinthians is thought of, this smiting is the regular, everyday treatment. The Corinthians take it “gladly.” Δέρει means literally “to flay.” We need not resort to a figure of speech.

Did Paul in 1 Tim. 3:4 not write regarding the bishop: “no striker” (not fighting), and in 2 Tim. 2:24, “must not be fighting”? Lords and masters freely used actual blows, and this custom persisted down the centuries to very recent times, and it persists to this day in many lands.

What an astounding picture of the false apostles, the superfine apostles, who had come to Corinth as high lords—and the Corinthians bowed in sweet submission !

2 Corinthians 11:21

21 But the worst cut of all follows in a sudden and wholly unexpected turn. The reader thinks: “What a disgrace for the Corinthians!” and would stop at that. Not Paul, not Paul by any means. “I am speaking by way of disgrace,” he says, “I am using this category or norm” (κατά); and now comes the sudden flash: “that we on our part have been weak!” What a disgrace for me and my assistants, poor, weak fellows who could not act the abusive lords like that so that you could submit to us with this gladness of yours! The disgrace is mine.

In 10:12 Paul has already admitted that he and his assistants are not in this class of high and mighty men and cannot even faintly be compared with them. In 10:10 he says, “My bodily presence is held to be so weak, and my word amounts to nothing.” These false apostles know how real apostles ought to act so as to impress you with what real apostles are; we—why, we did not even know how to act as apostles. The perfect tense “have been (and thus still are) weak” is the correct reading, some texts have only the aorist “were weak,” which omits reference to the present time.

Does Paul overdraw the picture? Then he would, indeed, be a fool and deliberately defeat his own end. His use of five clauses indicates that still more might be said. Four is used to indicate ordinary completeness; four is not used here in order to avoid this impression. It is worth while to note even such points in Paul’s writing Ὡς is simply declarative “that,” see 5:19 with the references. R. W. P., regards ὡς as implying that the clause “we have been weak” is quoted by Paul as the charge of others against Paul and his helpers; but see R. 1033 where Robertson himself is of a different opinion.

Here there is another place where Paul is charged with not being plain. The result is a guessing in regard to whose “disgrace” he has in mind, and the choice is assumed to lie between three: the pseudo-apostles, whose tyranny was a disgrace; the Corinthians, whose glad submission was a disgrace; Paul and his apostles, whose weakness in not having played tyrants is esteemed a disgrace. But Paul is as plain as plain can be with his most emphatic ἡμεῖς and his own admission: “We, we have been weak!”

And let it be noted that what Paul pictures here has been endlessly repeated. People will swallow anything on the part of false teachers. These men get their followers just where they want them; they love to put on lordly airs; they still get the huge salaries; they still act abusively. The only change that we note is a little modern veneer.

III. The First Grand Gush of Foolish Boasting

2 Corinthians 11:22

22 After having been pent up so long (since v. 1) the flood now bursts the dam and roars down in a torrent. Yet it is perfectly controlled. What other long lists found in Paul’s letters lead us to expect is duplicated here. Read the author’s study of the magnificent one in Rom. 12:7–21 which is perfect in every detail; also the one in this epistle, 6:4–10 which is briefer but equally perfect. For some reason the present one has found considerable appreciation among the commentators. It ought to find still more.

Here we have again a sample of the swift mind of Paul. When he began this list, the whole of it was already present to his mind. He did not start it and shape it as he went along. If he had he would have had the experience that we frequently have: we use some of the pieces too soon, and our design becomes faulty. Paul is a good teacher from whom to learn rhetoric. With perfect, unsought facility he combines his rhetoric with his material. Who except Jesus, the ancient psalmists, and the prophets have ever done as well?

Everything throbs with life. More than this, it burns with vitality and with power. There is not one false note. Only the high points are touched. There are so many that lesser things must be omitted. Only the most obvious things are used, those which it takes only half an eye to see. After the first three items regarding birth the pseudo-apostles are left miles behind. It is literally true as 10:12 has stated: Paul would not dare to put himself into the same class with these men, would not dare to draw a comparison. There was nothing in them with which comparison could be made. Paul’s boasting and that of the pseudo-apostles appear like day and night. Verse 20 shows what they could in reality boast of.

Paul leaves out his assistants. He had to. They, indeed, shared many of these items; but if Paul had used plurals he would have seemed to appropriate what his assistants suffered for himself. At least the question would be raised concerning his share. Because this is all “I—I,” it is boasting, foolish boasting like that of common, unspiritual men; Paul is blowing his own horn. Yet in a way it is not boasting; these are only the bare, unadorned facts which appear as boasting only because Paul himself recites these facts. For that reason Paul stoops to this fool thing as he calls it. The effect that was produced on the Corinthians simply had to be stunning.

The Corinthians had known many of the items long ago. This does not imply that Paul went about with a recital of them; but Paul’s assistants and others who knew much of Paul’s story had certainly talked in Corinth, had been asked to tell what they knew, and had surely told. The effect of the recital lies, not in telling a lot of new, startling things, but in putting together in briefest fashion this whole array of the facts. The effect produced lies in the mass. And the focus of this effect is not lost, the point is not blunted. Paul is not boasting about himself as being a superman, a mighty Atlas who is holding up a world of inflictions; it is Paul’s weakness which constitutes his boast. Yes, this is the man who is so weak, who lets all these inflictions roll over him, he it is who “has been weak” (v. 21) in Corinth and was unable to act the lordly tyrant, the role which the false apostles assumed, the role which the Corinthians liked so well in these false apostles because they regarded it as the one that was really proper in genuine apostles.

But in what thing anyone may be bold—I speak (only) in folly—bold am I also! The singular “in what” challenges any point that may be brought up by anyone, and ἄν denotes Paul’s expectancy, he is ready, come who will. If anyone has the boldness to stand up and to make an issue on anything, Paul says, I will do the same, and we shall see if I fall down. But he just cannot help feeling like a fool when he does this boasting. The Corinthians must know: “I speak (only) in folly.”

Hebrews are they? I, too! Israelites are they? I, too! Abraham’s seed are they? I, too!

The frequently used rhetorical three begins the list. Our versions do well to regard them as questions, which accords more with the challenging tone. The three terms are close synonyms, all are terms of honor among Jews and together express all that made the Jews so proud of themselves. The term Ἰουδαῖοι, “Jews,” is, of course, not among them. The false apostles in Corinth were of genuine Jewish descent and made a grand boast of that fact. In this purely external matter—external as far as Christianity is concerned—they had no advantage over Paul.

Let them call themselves what they will, choose what designation they please, “Hebrews—Israelites—seed of Abraham,” they only include Paul, too. He is all these without a flaw.

“Hebrews” is the national name that was preferred by the Jews, and it names them according to their language. Some think that the word is here intended as a distinction from Hellenists. The “Hebrews” were the old type of Jews who preserved their Aramaic and used the Hebrew Bible, the Hellenists were the diaspora type who knew little or no Aramaic and used the LXX; even birth in Palestine has been introduced. But this overloads the word and dislocates the parallel with “Israelites” and “seed of Abraham,” these two being only variants of the same idea. All three are just variants, all three are intended as boasting Jews intended them when they spoke of themselves with pride: they were of the choice Hebrew nation, descended from Israel, the father of the twelve patriarchs, born of the very seed of Abraham, the head of the covenant.

2 Corinthians 11:23

23 After this has been said, all the boasters in Corinth are left behind forever. Ministers of Christ are they? This question resembles the three that precede and is thus connected with them; but it is not intended as number four but as opening the new, astounding line which runs through to v. 31. The three questions are concerned only with birth and outward descent, which was a minor issue to Paul. But “ministers of Christ” is the supreme and in reality the only issue. All four designations are not terms chosen by Paul but terms that Paul caught up from these false boasters.

Do they arrogate to themselves the title “ministers of Christ”? Do they set up such a claim? Now Paul cannot say: κἀγώ, “I, too!” Now he says: ὑπὲρἐγώ, Way beyond that I! But he inserts: I am talking as one beside himself! He means: “That sounds crazy.” Can anyone be more than a “minister of Christ”? But note λαλῶ and not, as in the parenthesis in v. 22, λέγω. The latter would be improper because it would refer to Paul’s meaning; the former refers only to the sound of what he says.

This clears up a number of questions. How can Paul admit that the false apostles are in any sense “ministers of Christ” and even compare himself with them as being only more such a minister than they? Is he not comparing himself with the Twelve, the other real “ministers of Christ”? Paul is only quoting the claim of these false apostles. He has said that they “preach another Jesus” (v. 4); he has given them their right name (v. 13). They, of course, sail under the false flag “ministers of Christ,” they would not dare to do anything else.

That is their boast—take it for what it is worth; Paul puts his boast over against it. His boast is that he is “way beyond” what they are able only to claim. Paul’s is not merely another claim that is only more extensive than theirs; Paul opens all the batteries of the facts, all of which prove overwhelmingly that he is in fact more than these false boasters ever even dreamed of including in their false claim.

Ὑπέρ is simply an adverb (B.-P. 1342); the fact that we lack other examples of this use need not disturb us. “I am beyond” means two things: 1) beyond because I have all the true marks of “a minister of Christ,” have them in superabundance while they have nothing but their claim, against which the facts in their case, as stated in v. 20, cry out in horror; 2) beyond because I have the marks not only of “a minister of Christ,” such as also Paul’s noble assistants have, but even of an apostle of Christ. For in Paul’s list of grand marks (v. 26–29) he brings in his extensive travels and what goes with these travels. One who was merely a minister of Christ might not be a traveller at all. But an apostle dared not remain in one place; the apostles had to “go to all nations” (Matt. 28:19), “into all the world, to all creatures” (Mark 16:15). Even in Corinth, Paul had to have the Lord’s orders to stay one and one-half years as he did (Acts 18:9–11). Throughout all of Paul’s work we see how the ground burned under his feet; his aim was ever to cover as much new territory with the gospel as possible. We dilate on this point because it is sometimes overlooked and yet sheds so much light on the composition of the present list.

The fact that Paul should introduce a comparison between himself and the Twelve is so much beside the mark that we need offer no refutation of it.

Paul says that he is “beyond” all such as have no more than the claim of being “ministers of Christ,” and that means completely beyond. An advance guard of four ἐν phrases that is coupled with adverbs shows how utterly he is “beyond” them: Way beyond (am) I: in labors—excessively! in prisons—excessively! in stripes—beyond measure! in deaths—often! These four are used to indicate ordinary rhetorical completeness and are arranged in an ascending scale: labors—prisons—stripes—deaths. These four are selected from Paul’s life. Burdensome, exhausting labors (κόποι) are meant—the sham ministers of Christ have nothing of the kind. “Labors” is the proper word to place at the beginning; a genuine minister will do the heaviest labor for Christ. These sham ministers do not even work for Christ, to say nothing about labor.

See Rom. 16:18 for information as to whom and what they serve (but compare the author’s interpretation of this passage). With that combine v. 20 and note for what the false apostles use their strength. Not a bit for Christ!

The next three expressions belong together: labors and labors—but what a reward! “Prisons, stripes, deaths.” Who of these sham ministers received a stripe for Christ, ever faced death for Christ? Never a one! The game which they play offers no rewards like this. Their “belly” would not endure it, Rom. 16:18. They enslave, eat up, lift themselves up, abuse others (v. 20). Is Paul ὑπέρ? So far that he has left them out of sight!

The adverbs are not adjectives, nor are they used in place of adjectives. They do not modify the phrases but the adverb “beyond”: I am beyond them, not merely a little but “excessively” beyond them in labors, again “excessively” in prisons, even “beyond measure” when it comes to stripes, and “often” when it comes to deaths. This wipes out the idea that Paul means that he has more labors and more prisons to his credit than the false apostles, and that Paul drops the idea of “more” when it comes to stripes and to deaths.

Why this view? Because the first two are comparative adverbs, while the last two are not. R. 664 favors the idea that in every comparative adverb the comparative sense is somehow conserved. He has against him B.-D. 60, 3 who state that in some cases περισσοτέρως = ὑπερβαλλόντως. Here, where πολλάκις follows, this is surely the case. If, however, we must have comparison, it can be only this: “I am beyond them in labors as well as in prisons far more than I need to be in order to destroy all comparison; in stripes even excessively beyond them; in deaths often.” The sense is that regarding these four points the false ministers have nothing whatever to exhibit.

The last adverb “often” is a drop downward from the other three for the simple reason that “deaths” are the climax upward. “Stripes” are placed between “prisons” and “deaths” because scourgings were so severe as at times to cause death. Paul wrote from cruel experience. The backs of the false ministers showed not a single scar; Paul’s back showed them ὑπερβαλλόντως.

2 Corinthians 11:24

24 By (the hand of) Jews five times I got forty (stripes) less one; three times was I beaten with rods; once was I stoned; three times was I shipwrecked; a night and a day have I spent in the deep. As was the case in v. 20, we have five items, the half of total completeness which is ten. Paul recites only half of the whole story as to how he was often in the shadow of death. “By Jews” has the regular preposition of the agent with passives although “I got” is active. The Greek needs no noun, “I got forty minus one” being plain enough. Luke 12:47 likewise omits “stripes.” When Paul says he got the thirty-nine five times he means that he got them. To suggest that on a few occasions he got less because this scourging was stopped before the full count was reached in cases where the victim was weak and had collapsed, contradicts what Paul says about his experiences.

Five times he got the full thirty-nine; if he ever got a smaller count, it did not happen in these five instances. But this is true, he names these scourgings with the full count because each one brought him to death’s door.

Deut. 25:3 fixes the extreme number of blows at forty. The Jewish judge might decree a lesser number, but he might not go above forty. Beyond that lay the death penalty. So Paul says he got the penalty just below death five times from Jewish courts. In later times the Jews fixed the extreme number at thirty-nine for fear of a miscount.

The victim was laid with his face on the ground, was held by his arms and his feet until the blows were administered before the eyes of the court itself. Originally rods were used. But later, despite the fact that the Jews were so scrupulous about not exceeding the number forty, the rod was exchanged for a leather strap made of calf’s hide. The end of this strap was split into five strips, which made the penalty much severer. The Mishna states that the victim was bound to a pillar, the breast and the shoulders were bared, the body was bent, and thirteen blows were administered upon the breast, twenty-six upon the shoulders.

We have no record of these five Jewish scourgings which Paul experienced. It is evident that they did not occur in Palestine where the Jewish courts could unquestionably decree such penalties but in the Diaspora. This raises the question as to whether Jewish synagogue courts were allowed to administer such justice in pagan provinces. The Jewish Encyclopedia IV, 277, etc., states that this right was assumed by the rabbis.

2 Corinthians 11:25

25 Three times Paul was beaten with rods. This verb indicates that this was a penalty which was decreed in Roman courts and inflicted by lictors or, where a court was of lesser grade, by common court servants. Fortunately, we have Acts 16:22, 23 where one of these three scourgings is mentioned, where the same verb is used. The question naturally arises as to how Roman courts could scourge Paul since he was a Roman citizen, and heavy penalties forbade scourging of Roman citizens in the empire. The account given in Acts is valuable for showing that this did happen in Philippi where the judges lost their heads before the howling mob and Paul could not possibly assert his rights and thus, together with Silas, received we do not know how many blows. See the author on Acts 16 for the full story.

The trouble was that a tumult was generally raised, and no orderly trial took place. Thus the Lex Porcia went for nought. How dangerous this Lex was we see from Acts 16:35, etc., where the judges were badly frightened when they discovered whom they had allowed to be scourged. We see the same thing in Acts 22:24, etc. Here Paul was able to assert his rights as a Roman. To assume that in the two other instances, concerning which we have no details, the Roman courts simply ignored the Lex, is not probable.

The one stoning which Paul mentions is fully recorded in Acts 11:19, 20. Paul was given up for dead. Shortly before this Paul barely escaped stoning at Iconium (Acts 11:5, 6).

We know nothing about the three shipwrecks. But that is not reason to cast doubt on Luke’s Acts because he omits mention of them. He omits ever so much more because he does not write a biography of Paul. During one of these wrecks Paul was very likely adrift on the open sea for a night and a day and was in constant danger of being drowned, in danger also of not being picked up. We have no earlier use of νυχθήμερον, accusative to indicate extent of time. We have ποιέω in the sense of spending time in Acts 13:33; 20:3; James 4:13.

The tense is the perfect, the change to which after the aorists B.-D. 343, 2 call “without sufficient reason”; R. 897 calls it the dramatical historical present perfect, which is well enough as far as a name is concerned. But why not another aorist? Because extent of time in the past is to be expressed, and the perfect expresses that: I have done “a night and day” in the deep. That means twenty-four hours, but it also means that they began with the night, and that Paul was rescued only toward the end of the next day. Another night would probably have ended his life. “In the deep” does not mean under the water, another Jonah-miracle; it means on the high sea, on a raft or clinging to wreckage. These are a few of the almost fatal experiences of Paul. They reveal how much of the strenuous life of Paul is hidden from us.

2 Corinthians 11:26

26 The first dative ὁδοιπορίαις is different from the eight κινδύνοις that follow; the first governs the rest, and, therefore, in order to mark this difference and this dependence, κινδύνοις is repeated eight times. We have a similar construction in v. 27. There, too, a main dative governs the specifications, all of which are, however, cast in phrases. The eight dangers listed in our verse are grouped into 2–2–3–1. Two have genitives, two ἐκ phrases, three ἐν phrases of place, one an ἐν phrase of place but denoting persons: “among false brethren.” All of this is rhetorically perfect.

There was a reason that prompted Paul to list his travels with all that they entailed. The emphasis is usually placed on the “perils”; it ought to be on the “travels.” The perils were incidental to the travels. But these travels marked Paul as a true apostle. We have already (v. 23) pointed out that “going” was the essential of apostleship. The apostles were to reach all nations, the whole world. It was their very commission to travel, ever to travel, and ever to travel into new territory and new lands. Obstacles, hindrances, dangers made no difference. It is in that sense that they are introduced here. But perils or no perils, an apostle had to do much travelling.

Ὁδοιπορίαις is the dative of relation: “as regards travels,” and it depends on: “Beyond am I” stated in v. 23. Paul says: I am way beyond the false ministers as regards travels. He says that he is this πολλάκις and repeats this adverb found at the end of v. 23; he does this purposely in order to indicate that the thought developed in v. 26 is a continuation of that begun in v. 23. As Paul was utterly beyond the false apostles “in deaths,” which was “often,” namely every time he incurred mortal danger, so he was utterly beyond these false apostles every time he fared forth on an apostolic journey, and that was again “often.” The false ministers could never take an apostolic journey, they were “pseudo-apostles” (v. 13). They had no commission “to go.” They had, indeed, travelled to Corinth, but they were impelled to do this only by their own evil impulses (v. 20). On whatever journeys they undertook they, too, may have encountered perils, but none of their perils were like Paul’s, could never be.

Paul’s were perils that were met with on apostolic journeys, theirs were perils such as the Pharisees encountered when they “compassed sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves,” Matt. 23:15. Compare v. 3, the serpent deceiving Eve, and v. 14, Satan.

It is thus that Paul brings this decisive evidence: As regards travels—often! with perils of rivers! with perils of robbers! with perils from (my) race! with perils from Gentiles! with perils in city! with perils in wilderness! with perils in sea! with perils among pseudo-brethren!

“Rivers” and “robbers” are genitives of source, the two genitives are a pair. Few rivers had bridges over them, many fords were dangerous, especially when the rivers had risen because of floods. Robbers infested the wilds despite Roman rule. They waylaid travellers, robbed, and often killed them. Remember the Samaritan who rescued the man that had fallen among “robbers” (the very word which Paul here uses, Luke 10:30, etc.). That poor man would have lost his life except for his rescuer. Christ’s parable is taken from’ life. How many times had Paul and his little party been held up on the long and the frequent journeys which he had to undertake?

All of the “perils” which Paul lists were mortal perils, in anyone of which he might have easily lost his life. As v. 24, 25 specify instances to substantiate “in deaths often,” so v. 26 specifies still further what some of these death perils were. Whereas v. 24, 25 have exact figures, the simple plurals used in v. 26 point to a large number of mortal dangers. During all of his travels Paul constantly took his life into his hands. Yet see how much he travelled! Divine providence alone preserved him. Yet he had many distressing experiences.

A second pair made up of ἐκ phrases follows. Deadly peril often threatened Paul from his γένος, his own race. Luke furnishes a number of such instance in Acts. The hostile Jews ever wanted Paul’s blood. As they murdered Jesus and Stephen, so murder was ever in their hearts—a lurid commentary on their morality. As Acts shows, the Jews often stirred up the Gentiles to murderous hate. They drove Pilate to crucify Jesus against his will; in the Diaspora they often found willing Gentile cooperation—in Acts 17:5, “certain lewd fellows of the baser sort.”

The next are four ἑν phrases which are thus bound together, but the last is distinct from the other three. These perils occurred “in city” where one might think himself safe because of the protection of civil magistrates and their police; but, of course, also “in wilderness,” on lonely roads, far from any habitation, and “in sea,” in the small vessels of that day which were so easily wrecked by storms. Tourists are told of the wonderful “blue Mediterranean.” It is lovely, indeed, when it is calm. But in 1925, in midsummer, the author’s voyage from Sicily into the great fortified harbor Valleda on the island of Malta, even on a good French steamer, was made during a heavy gale which would have been dangerous to the sailing vessels of Paul’s day.

City—wilderness—sea—pseudo-brethren. Critical eyes see a misplacement of the last, ascribe it to an early scribe, and correct it by transferring the pseudo-brethren to the place where the critic thinks this item should be: my own race—Gentiles—pseudo-brethren. The fact that ἐν would then be joined to two ἐκ does not cause hesitation. “Among false brethren” goes with the other three ἐν; “in city, desert, and sea” the worst dangers to Paul were those that threatened him “in (among) false brethren.” The last phrase is exactly where it ought to be; no second phrase could be joined to it in order to make a pair.

Judas was in a class to which no other class has ever been added. Traitors are always in a class by themselves. And they constitute the worst peril of all. Judas betrayed Christ to death. Under the mask of “brethren” they who are pseudo-brethren have easiest access to their victim. Being but human, unable to see through a Judas as Christ did, such a victim is unsuspecting, takes no precautions, and unless the Lord delivers him, his fate is sealed. Paul writes φευδαπόστολοι (v. 13) and ψευδάδελφοι. He puts these individuals into the same class. Both work secretly. Their power is destroyed once they are exposed. Paul discovered some of the pseudo-brethren and their dastardly work in Gal. 2:4.

2 Corinthians 11:27

27 As regards labor and toil, amid sleeplessnesses often! amid hunger and thirst! amid fastings often! amid cold and nakedness! The dative is exactly like the one that introduces v. 26. As all the “perils” modify the “travels,” so all the ἐν phrases modify “labor and toil.” The travels were connected with so many and such varied types of perils. The travels as travels were also “labor and toil.” Whereas “travels” is a simple plural, two singulars now produce a similar effect: “as regards labor and toil.” The singulars refer to mass, and both words bring out the strain and the effort of exertion which produce great fatigue.

Paul mentions four, the rhetorical number to indicate ordinary completeness. The second and the fourth items have paired terms like the first dative; the first and the third items are made multiple by “often,” the adverb that has already been used twice.

Paul has mentioned “labors” in v. 23, but only as severe work. He is not repeating, for the emphasis is now on the hardships “amid” which all the labor and toil has to be accomplished. “And watchings often.” The adverb modifies the phrase. It is distressing to be weary in body and in mind and then not to be able to get the rest and the relaxation of sleep. “Hunger and thirst” prevented sleep. “Cold and nakedness” did likewise. Those exhausting journeys led through arid places; on the long distances traveled food also gave out.

“Amid fastings” has nothing to do with ascetic fasting. That was a discipline which Paul certainly seldom needed. Such fastings would be ridiculous in this catalog. These are fastings that were caused by the fact that one had no food at all or had food but could not or dared not eat it. We have an instance from the later life of Paul (Acts 27:33, etc.); it certainly also illustrates sleeplessness and terrible weariness. “Often,” Paul writes for the fourth time. What a tale it would make if we could get the details which this adverb covers!

The final touch is in “cold and nakedness,” the latter meaning lack of sufficient clothes. Many a day is hot, but bitter cold is the night. When the road led over mountains, cold nights were frequent. Paul camped wherever he could. In the fall and the spring wet could be added to cold. Tourists complain that the cold is miserable during these seasons, even the hotels are icy.

How little travellers could carry with them in order to keep warm. Paul’s picture is only too true. When we note it we shall appreciate the various references to “being sent forward” by the brethren on some of these journeys. Their number means protection; they carried supplies, food, clothing, etc. They sometimes went even the entire way (Acts 17:15 is such an instance). Paul often had only two or three of his own assistants with him.

2 Corinthians 11:28

28 Apart from the things (that thus come in) besides (there is) the press of a crowd upon me day after day, the worry over all the churches! All the items mentioned from v. 24 onward are τὰπαρεκτός, the things that come in only “besides.” They are not at all Paul’s chief burden, they are only the extras that are thrown in for good measure. “Apart from” them (χωρίς) lies Paul’s real burden. In part those extras accompany his frequent travels, his arrival in new cities; in part they occur as extras when Paul is in the midst of his work in any place. They are always only “the besides.” They deserve no better name when they are compared with Paul’s real load.

This χωρίς phrase is astounding. We think that Paul has been heaping up all of his very worst troubles, during some of which he was even nearly killed. With the turn of a little phrase he now tells us that these are only the little extras, the greens that garnish the roast, the perquisites that are handed him in addition to his full salary. These things come “often,” he now adds the big thing that comes καθʼ ἡμέραν (distributive use of the preposition): “day for day.” Those extra things Paul does not at all mind. They would, of course, frighten the false apostles in Corinth to death! Already that shows, as we have seen, how utterly “beyond” them (v. 23) Paul is.

Paul uses five verses to describe the extras, to indicate his real load he writes one line. That is perfect psychology as far as the effect to be produced upon his readers and the exposure of the false prophets are concerned. The main burden is thus not minimized by comparison—quite the contrary. To expand on the main burden would have dissipated the concentrated effect at which Paul aimed.

The two nominatives are like an exclamation although we may supply “there is.” The vivid word ἐπίστασις (R., W. P., aptly calls it thus) appears again in Acts 24:12 in the same sense: “collecting a crowd,” causing people to halt; or “a collection of people.” “Onset” is incorrect (R., W. P. on Acts 24:12). Paul refers to the number of people who in every city soon besieged him with a thousand and one questions that he should answer, a thousand and one difficulties about the gospel which he should solve. The apposition: “the worry over all the churches” (objective genitive) shows that all the questions and all the problems of all his churches found their focus in him. In Luke 10:41 we have the verb that corresponds to the noun μέριμνα, Martha “worrying” about many things; in Matt. 13:22 we have the noun “the worry of the world” smothering the good seed.

Liddell and Scott, 984: “earnest care,” with a note on derivations. This was the real load which Paul carried. All else was only “besides.”

On the dative μοι see B.-D. 202. We have a compound verbal noun with the dative which is found only once in the New Testament; a few texts read “my.” The A. V. has mistranslated the χωρίς phrase. Many wrestle with it as we see from the R. V. which offers two marginal alternatives. “The things besides” are the ones mentioned in v. 23–27, they are not “things without,” things which Paul omits, or such as “come out of course.”

2 Corinthians 11:29

29 In view of his main load (v. 28) Paul exclaims: Who is weak, and I am not weak! Who is being trapped, and I on my part am not being burned! No, not as a powerful man who is able to endure all this is Paul boasting thus. If the false prophets had even a few of the accessories to their credit, how they would boast of strength! For this reason Paul is so utterly beyond them (ὑπέρ, v. 23). He sees nothing in himself but weakness. He feels like nothing in view of this vast load. Is any man weak, too weak to bear his load, and am I, says Paul, not weak? Has anyone a burden that is greater than mine to make his legs give way?

The second exclamation is synonymous but a climax. Its sense is: Is anyone getting himself into a fatal trap, and I on my part am not doing even far worse, getting myself into fire? We may ask why we have ἐγώ only in the second question. It is because we have only a mere parallel in the first question: another is weak—then Paul certainly has a right to say that he, too, is weak (just ἀδθενεῖ and ἀδθενῶ). But the next two verbs are immensely stronger, both are deadly, the second indicates a death that is worse than the first; hence ἐγώ with all its emphasis must be used.

The verb σκανδαγίζω means to catch in a deathtrap, and the passive means to be so caught. The noun δκάνδαλον denotes the crooked stick to which the bait is affixed so that to touch the bait is to spring this trap that kills the victim. M.-M. 576. The point of comparison is deadliness. The noun never means “stumbling block,” the verb never “to stumble,” its passive never “to be made to stumble.” When it is used metaphorically it means: “offense, to offend,” etc., the idea is always mortal offense, offense that kills spiritually. Our versions misunderstand the word; dictionaries and commentators generally follow them. See the author on the previous instances of these words as found in the New Testament, Matt. 5:29; Mark 4:17; Luke 7:23; John 16:1; Rom. 9:33 (where πρόδκομμα, “stumbling block,” and δκάνδαλον, “trap-trigger,” are used side by side); 1 Cor. 8:13.

Πυροῦμαι is also passive. Both verbs are durative present tenses: “is anyone being trapped”—“and am I not (worse than trapped) being burned in fire?” Is there anyone whose work and whose burden are about to kill him as a trap closes down and crushes a victim? If there is, am not I, Paul, one who is literally being burned in the fire by my work? Both questions are sometimes misunderstood: Is anyone weak, and do I not in sympathy share his weakness? R., W. P., gives the second question the sense: “When a brother stumbles, Paul is set on fire with grief.” The sympathy, the grief are introduced by the commentators.

The sense becomes extravagant, a sense and a thought that Paul could never entertain, namely that in all Christendom there could be no weak person, no person getting caught in fatal trouble but that Paul feels it all on his back, on his heart. It has thus been said: Paul is here representing himself as almost equal to the heavenly Christus consolator. But such a thing is an impossibility for Paul, in fact, the opposite of what he says.

2 Corinthians 11:30

30 It is all weakness in the case of Paul, weakness that breaks down of itself as weakness, weakness that gets burned in fire by the load that is put upon it. If I have to boast, in regard to the things pertaining to my weakness will I boast! Paul is sure that he will leave most men behind in these things. Other men take pride in their personal strength and power, Paul’s pride lies in the fact that he is weak, yea, nothing at all.

Δεῖ is used to indicate every kind of necessity, here that which forces Paul to boast like other men boast. Well, then, if it has to be, Paul says, I will boast, but only of things that no one else except some other good Christian would ever dream of using in a boast, of things that show how wretchedly weak I am! The very idea seems contradictory, paradoxical in the highest degree: boasting—weakness. But the greatest thing that Paul has come to see in himself is his weakness. He is himself astonished to see how great his weakness is. Men boast of the greatest thing they have; well, Paul says, this is my greatest, so this shall ever be my boast when boast I must.

2 Corinthians 11:31

31 Is this facetious? Is this pretense? The God and Father of the Lord Jesus knows, he who is blessed to the eons, that I am not lying! Paul is not lying by equivocation, by playing with words, by leaving an impression on his readers that is different from what he really intends. As he says in 1:13, he writes nothing other than what his readers read and what they understand when they read. Strange as it may sound, his boast is nothing but his excessive weakness. God knows it is the truth.

Paul uses the same assurance which he voiced in v. 11 where he stated it in briefest form: “God knows”; here he expands the subject and merely adds the object. “God knows” is not an oath in v. 11 or here in v. 31 although it is called an oath by some commentators. There is neither the form of an oath nor the necessity for one. Paul is no profuse swearer. “God knows” states an assured fact, one that helps to assure others. Any additions to this brief basic formula do not change it into an oath. In v. 11 the object omitted is the one expressed in v. 31; with “God knows” no other object can be used than “that I am not lying.” It really needs no expansion in v. 11. Nor does Paul Christianize this “oath” by adding to “God” what he does add.

Does Paul not always refer to the Christian God when he writes “God,” whether he adds something to the word or not? The addition “and Father,” etc., intends to Christianize as little here in v. 31 as it does in the benedictions in 1:3. See that passage for the explanation that God is both God and Father of the Lord Jesus. The addition to ὁΘεός only describes God, only bids the mind to dwell on who and what he is.

Ὁὤνκτλ. is an apposition; the participle is made a noun by means of the article. It is overstraining to say that ὁὤν is more than merely “he who is,” that it = “the Self-existent One,” and that εὑλογητός is another apposition as it would then have to be. Although Paul uses an apposition it embodies the common Jewish benedictions with reference to God: “blessed to the eons,” exactly as in Rom. 1:25.

Εὑλογητός is the verbal with the force of the passive past participle “praised or blessed” in the sense of alone worthy of praise and blessing. The Greek has no word for “eternity”; it uses “eon” or the plural “eons” (here) or the intensification “eon of eons” instead. “Unto the eons,” cycles upon cycles, means “forever.”

Another word must be added regarding “weakness.” See the exposition of 12:5, 9, 10. The more of weakness there is, the more room is there for pure grace and all-sufficient divine power; the less there is of our own weakness, the less room is there for divine grace and power. When we are reduced to nothing, God is allowed to be our everything. The world cannot comprehend such an experience. It was utterly beyond (ὑπέρ, v. 23) the false ministers and apostles in Corinth. But it is literally true: our greatest asset, our highest cause for boasting if we must boast, is this our weakness and all the things in our lives that exhibit this weakness: τὰτῆςἀσθενείας. Paul writes more than a God’s truth, he writes a most instructive one.

Let us add the caution: this is not what is called “sinful weakness.” Nor is the word used as it is in Rom. 14:1, etc., regarding a “weak” brother, weak in regard to the faith, weak in knowledge, grace, etc. Of this weakness one should be ashamed; he could never make it a boast. To be wholly weak, in absolute dependence on God’s grace, help, gifts, etc., that is the weakness which God works in us by his Spirit and also fills with his power.

32, 33) Critics voice serious objection to v. 32, 33. Why a little story inserted here? Paul perhaps told several, and his scribe liked this one so well that Paul just let him insert it. Or the story is a gloss which was placed in the margin. Textually this brief story is assured. As far as Paul’s asseveration of veracity in v. 31 is concerned, this certainly seals v. 30, it is not intended to fortify v. 32, 33, nor does it refer to 12:1 on the hypothesis that the Damascus story is an interpolation.

The list of items in Paul’s first round of boasting closes with v. 28. The addendum found in v. 29, 30 points out what is essential in all of these items, especially in the real burden of Paul which is summarily stated in v. 28: it is that in all these things the readers are to see exhibitions of Paul’s weakness, and that this his weakness, which is so exceedingly great, is his great boast. This astounding declaration is full truth and not a lie (v. 31).

The very career of Paul began with weakness, he had to run away as a fugitive. We say his career began thus, for the work in Damascus was not a part of his apostolic career. What work among the Jews he did there was abruptly discontinued. He tried a bit of work among the Jews in Jerusalem, but this, too, was soon interrupted. Then there follows a long period in which Paul is lost to view as he lives in Tarsus. Barnabas brought him to Antioch.

There Paul at last really began to work until after this preliminary training in Antioch the Spirit sent him forth on his real work among the Gentiles in all lands. The flight from Damascus was the beginning. Paul’s career began, like that of Moses, with flight and with a long period of waiting, waiting, nothing but waiting. This makes the flight from Damascus so significant. It forced Paul into the long wait in which he fully learned that he was nothing, that his mightiest asset was utter weakness, weakness which enabled God to do everything with him and through him.

The asseveration of veracity is supported by this historical evidence which began the night when Paul fled from Damascus so that he might learn the long lesson of his utter weakness, on the complete learning of which his apostolic success depended. For this reason the story is told here; for this reason a brief reference would not suffice. For this reason it is told at this most proper place. The tremendous energy of Paul, which at one time made him the worst ravager of the church, which after his conversion sought to make him the mighty disseminator of the gospel, must first of all be humbled in utter weakness and learn the only reliance which was at last learned by Moses: “I will be with thee!” Exod. 3:12; Matt. 28:20. More may be said; let this suffice.

In Damascus the Ethnarch of Aretas, the king, was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to arrest me; and through a door in a basket I was lowered through the wall and escaped out of his hand.

This is the story related in Acts 9:23–25. But Paul and Luke relate it independently. Luke received his account from Paul. To make certain of capturing Paul, the Jews enlisted the aid of the Ethnarch by denouncing Paul as a dangerous disturber. This official posted special guards at the city gates, and, lest Paul elude them in disguise, the Jews, who knew Paul, helped to watch. But Paul escaped at night as both he and Luke describe this incident.

Along the city wall, where houses were built against it, one house was found which had a door that had been cut through the great wall high up from the ground; the door opened out from the upper story or from the roof of the house. This θυρίς was “a little door,” eine Luke, and not a “window” as we think of windows. In a wall which served as a fortification houses that adjoined the wall would not have windows. This one little door was so exceptional that the hostile Jews and nobody else even thought about it even if they knew of its existence. It was, of course, always tightly barred. Paul was seemingly to be caught until some friend informed the disciples, and then Paul got safely away, and the soldiers and the Jews watched for an indefinite time at the gates.

The imperfect “he was guarding” already intimates that an aorist will follow which will tell about the outcome. Guarding the city means no more than what Acts says, namely guarding the gates. We do not think that the Ethnarch surrounded the whole city. Aretas was the Nabataean King Harithath IV, the father-in-law of Herod Antipas. Aretas ruled from 9 B. C. to 39 A. D. How he came to have an Ethnarch in Damascus at this time, and just when this occurred, are questions for discussion. We think of this Ethnarch as an Arabian sheik.

An interesting point in the narration is the fact that after Paul names Damascus he does not say “guarded the city” but “the city of the Damascenes” (the adjective used as a noun). This sounds as though the city belonged to its inhabitants, and as though the king’s overlordship through his Ethnarch was loosely exercised. It is a point for the historians to discuss; it is apparently one of the incidental touches that point to the absolute reliability of the historicity of Paul. Acts is full of such little tests. The “basket,” too, is of interest since Luke calls it δπυρίς and emphasizes its roundness, Paul calls it σαργάνη and emphasizes the fact that it was plaited. In 1925 the writer was shown the hole in the air where the “window” was said to have been; the natives were making a new wall so as to enclose that hole again!

A lone, miserable fugitive is a man to be pitied. The flight from Damascus to Jerusalem was a long journey. Mighty Paul proposed to enter Damascus with a force of Levite police; he entered as a weak, stricken, blind man. When he left, never to return, he fled under cover of night. Weakness, weakness to learn so thoroughly as to allow God at last to use his strength in Paul

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.