Although there is no doubt that Paul wrote the second letter to the Corinthians, the transitions from one part of the letter to the other have been deemed so abrupt that many biblical scholars would cut it up into what would have once been independent pieces. Nevertheless, it may well be Paul's most oratorically persuasive writing, for in the various hypothetically independent pieces he has left some unforgettable passages. Perhaps no other letter of Paul's so vividly evokes the image of a suffering and rejected apostle, misunderstood by his fellow Christians.

1. The Background

   In the previous chapter, we established a numbered list (from 1 to 6) of the contacts between Paul and Corinth up to and including the writing of letters A (lost) and B (= 1 Corinthians) that were part of Paul's correspondence with the Corinthians. Let us now continue this numerical and alphabetical list to explain the genesis of 2 Corinthians.

   (#7) After Paul wrote I Corinthians in late 56 or early 57, Timothy, who was traveling in Macedonia, came to Corinth (Acts 19:21-22; 1 Cor 4:17-19; 16:10-11). This would have taken place in early 57 (after the arrival of the first letter to the Corinthians?). Timothy found the situation bad; and many suppose that this was the result of the arrival of the false apostles described in 2 Cor 11:12-15, who were hostile to Paul. Timothy went to Ephesus to report the situation to Paul. (# 8) This urgency led Paul to leave Ephesus and cross directly by sea to make what turned out to be a "painful visit" to Corinth (2 Cor 2:1; a distance of about 250 miles by sea). This second of Paul's three visits to Corinth was a failure. He had threatened to come "with a whip" in 1 Cor 4:21; yet, according to 2 Cor 10:1: 10b, he was perceived as timid and ineffective in dealing with the Corinthians. Apparently, someone confronted him publicly and undermined his authority with the community (2 Cor 2:5-11; 7:12). Paul decided he needed a period of reflection, so he left Corinth planning to return quickly, without stopping on the way back to visit the Macedonian churches first (as he had planned in 1 Cor 16:5).

   (#9) Either before or after Paul's return to Ephesus, he changed his mind and did not want to return directly to Corinth, realizing that this would only be another painful visit (2 Cor 2:1); instead, he wrote a "tearful" letter (2:3-4; 7:8-9: Letter C, lost). It may be that the letter contains a certain severity, an example of Paul's boldness once he was far from Corinth (10:1,10). However, its purpose was not to afflict the Corinthians, but to make known his love for them. Encouraged by Paul's hope that the Corinthians would respond favorably (7:14), Titus carried this letter. (#10) Finally, Paul left Ephesus, probably in the summer of 57, heading north to the port of Troas, from where he crossed the sea from the province of Asia to Macedonia (1 Cor 16:5.8; 2 Cor 2:12-13; Acts 20:1). In the meantime, Titus had been well treated in Corinth (2 Cor 7:15); in fact, he had even been able to start collecting money for Paul to take to Jerusalem (8:6); and in the late summer or early fall of 57, he brought this joyful news to Paul in Macedonia (7:5-7.13b). Although Paul's "tearful" letter had caused grief, the Corinthians had repented and expressed concern for the grief they had caused Paul; indeed, with trepidation and some indignation, they were eager to prove their innocence (7:7-13). (#11) In immediate response (so from Macedonia [Philippi?] in the late summer or early fall of 57 with Timothy at his side) Paul writes 2 Corinthians (Letter D). It was to be carried by Titus (and two other brothers) as part of an ongoing mission to raise money in Corinth for Paul to take back to Jerusalem (8:6: 16-24). (#12) Paul himself went to Corinth (his third visit; 12:14; 13:1-2), where he spent the winter of 57-58 before taking the collection to Jerusalem by way of Macedonia, Philippi and Troas (Acts 20:2-5). (#13) There is no clear evidence that he ever returned to Corinth. If the Pastoral Letters contain reliable historical information, 2 Tim 4:20 may mean that the ship that took Paul from Ephesus to Rome as a prisoner stopped at Corinth. After Paul's death, there was an echo of his contacts with Corinth, dating from the end of the first century. The letter from the church of God in Rome to the church of God in Corinth, which we know as 1 Clement, was once again concerned with the problem of factionalism in Corinth (1:1); and in chapter 47 it compares the new factionalism with that addressed in the letter written by Paul to Corinth at the beginning of his preaching.

2. General Analysis of the Message
   1. Opening formula (1: 1-2) and thanksgiving (1: 3-11)

      We do not know why Paul changes the address in 1 Cor 1:2 (to the church of God in Corinth and to Christians [saints] everywhere) to specifically include Christians "in all Achaia." Is this in preparation for the collection that will be made in all Achaia (2 Cor 9:2)? In 1:3-11, Paul speaks of his trials in Ephesus - an experience that highlighted his own weakness and the comfort of Christ, and that also served as a backdrop to his recent dealings with Corinth.

   2. Part I of the Body of the Letter (1: 12 - 7: 16)

      This section deals with Paul's relationship with the Corinthians, both describing it and examining it from a theological point of view.

      1. 1: 12 - 2: 13: his deferred visit and the "tearful" letter

         In this section, Paul focuses on his change of plan after the painful visit he had made from Ephesus (#8). This change was not simply a matter of human preference, it was part of his "yes" to what God wants for the Corinthians and for Paul himself. Instead of exposing them to another painful confrontation that might make him seem too domineering (1:23-24), he wrote a "tearful" letter (#9) to change their minds, so that his coming would be a joyful experience. From 2:5-11 we learn that the problem with the painful visit centered on a stubborn individual. In response to Paul's "tearful" letter, the Corinthians disciplined this person, but now Paul calls for mercy and forgiveness. Paul tells the Corinthians that his interest in healing his relationship with them was such that (after leaving Ephesus) he interrupted his preaching ministry in Troas to go to Macedonia to hear from Titus the effect of the letter written in tears (2: 12-13).

      2. 2: 14 - 7: 16: his ministry (interruption: 6: 14 - 7: 1)

         In this section, Paul links his wider ministry to the crisis in Corinth. This crisis gives Paul passages of remarkable oratorical power, for example 5:16-21, which describes what God has done in Christ. Many will find that Paul's reference to God "making a call through us" (5:20) is still true, for that call continues to be effective today. If the train of thought seems erratic, it is partly because the argument is based on the activity of the so-called apostles in Corinth and their attacks on Paul (of which he will give an account in chapters 10 to 12). Stressing that he is not a peddler of the word of God (2:17), Paul insists that, unlike others, he does not need a letter of recommendation to the Corinthians - they are themselves, as a result of his ministry, his letter (3: 1-3), then Paul launches into the superiority of a ministry involving the Spirit over a ministry engraved on stone that brought death (3: 4-11). Moses put a veil over his face when he dealt with Israel, and that veil remains when the Israelites read the old covenant. However, when someone turns to Christ, the veil is removed because the Lord who spoke to Moses is now present in the Spirit (3:12-18). Paul's gospel is not veiled, except for those who perish because the god of this world has blinded their minds (4: 3-4). Paul's power comes from God, even if this treasure is carried in a "earthen vessel" (4:7). In a masterpiece of irony (4:8-12), Paul differentiates between his physical suffering and his status in Christ, for "we still carry in our bodies the death of Jesus, that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our bodies."

         In 4:16 - 5:10, in a series of contrasts (outside/inside; seen/unseen; naked/clothed), Paul explains why he does not lose heart. His troubles are momentary compared to the eternal glory; and when the earthly tent is destroyed, there is an eternal and heavenly dwelling place of God. Although Paul insists that he is not commending himself to the Corinthians, he is clearly trying to make them appreciate his ministry to them (5:11-15), which others would have disparaged. Whether he means Christ's love for him or his love for Christ or both, Paul's expression "Christ's love compels us" (5:14) is a wonderful summary of his dedication. God "has given us the ministry of reconciliation...so we are ambassadors for Christ" (5:18-20), this movingly describes the vocation Paul was to share with them. Calling on the Corinthians not to receive God's grace in vain (6:1), Paul assures them that he will not put a stumbling block in anyone's path (6: 3). In a moving catalog of what his life has been like (6:4-10), Paul lays his soul bare before the Corinthians, inviting them to open their hearts to him (6:11-13).

         Moving on to dualistic contradictions (6:14 - 7:1, righteousness/wickedness, etc.), Paul exhorts them not to be attached to unbelievers. Then, in 7:2, he returns (see 2:13) to the explanation of his behavior towards the Corinthians, telling them how delighted he was when Titus brought him the good news in Macedonia that his "tearful" letter had produced a good effect (# 9, #10). He is glad that he can now have full confidence in them (7:16).

   3. Part II of the Body of the Letter (8: 1 - 9: 15)

      This part deals with Paul's collection for the church in Jerusalem (8:1 - 9:15). This confidence leads him to dare to ask them for money for his collection, a project they had already started the year before (8:10 - 9:2). He presents them with the example of the Macedonian Christians, who are generous in spite of their poverty (8:1-5), as well as that of Jesus Christ himself "who, though rich, became poor for your sake, so that you might be enriched by his poverty" (8:9). Influenced perhaps by the Jewish custom of sending distinguished men to Jerusalem with the Temple collection, and desiring to ensure his own probity, Paul sends Titus, who had recently been favorably received in Corinth, to organize the collection (and probably to carry 2 Cor). With him (again to ensure probity: 8: 16-23) will go a brother famous among all the churches (someone from Achaia (more precisely, from Corinth, by diplomatic gesture), working in Macedonia?), and another zealous brother who helped Paul - two characters we cannot name despite numerous proposals. The collection for Jerusalem is also the subject of chap. 9, which seems to be addressed specifically to Achaia. Just as Paul boasts of the generosity of the Macedonians to the Corinthians, he boasted of the generosity of the Corinthians (Achaia) to the Macedonians; and he does not want to be embarrassed if Macedonians come with him to collect the collection. Paul's statement "God loves a cheerful giver" (9:7) was, as one might expect, a favorite theme of the fundraisers.

   4. Part III of the Body of the Letter (10: 1 - 13: 10)

      This part contains Paul's more detailed response to the challenges to his apostolic authority. While chapters 8-9 were optimistic and enthusiastic about Corinth's response, the next four chapters become abruptly more pessimistic, for Paul indicates that he is not certain to be received when he comes a third time. Indeed, he has to threaten to be as severe when he comes as he has been in his writings, probably including his "tearful" letter of #9 (10: 2.6.11; 13: 2). Nevertheless, Paul wants to emphasize that the authority the Lord has given him is for building up, not tearing down (10:8; 13:10; cf. Jeremiah 1:10). There have been "apostles" (would-be "super-apostles": 11:5; 12:11) who have undermined Paul in Corinth; but for Paul, they are masqueraders and false apostles (11:13-15) who, in the end, will be punished. Their lasting contribution is to have drawn from Paul the longest and most passionate description of his own apostolic service. In this moment of crisis in his life, a cry of confidence in the power of Christ springs from his soul: "When I am weak, then I am strong" (12:10). Although 12:12 lists signs, wonders and miracles as "signs of an apostle" that Paul performed among the Corinthians, it is clear that the times when he was imprisoned, scourged, flogged, stoned, shipwrecked, endangered, starved, thirsty and stripped naked were more important to him as an expression of his apostolic concern for all the churches (11:23-29). Paul is willing to risk boasting in order to show the sincerity of his challenge to the Corinthians: "I will spend and expend myself entirely for you. If I love you more, will you love me less?" Obviously, this was the best way he could devise to get the Corinthians to respond generously and to get rid of divisions and corruptions before his coming, so that he would not need to be harsh (12:20 - 13:10).

   5. Concluding formula (13: 11-13)

      This conclusion is Paul's final exhortation to the Corinthians in the missive as it stands: "Change your ways, heed my call, think alike, live in peace." Did he succeed? Was his third visit peaceful or a struggle? The book of Acts (20:2-3) devotes only one sentence to the three months he spent in Achaia (of which Corinth was the capital) after coming from Macedonia; it gives no indication of any internal conflict among the Christians. Nor do the passages in Romans 16:1.21-23 mention Paul's Christian friends in Corinth (from where he wrote this letter). Whatever the reaction of the Corinthians, Paul's triadic blessing on them in 13:13, including God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit (the most complete blessing Paul composed) has served Christians in the liturgy to this day as a model invocation.

3. One Letter or a Compilation of Several Letters?

   Among the letters of the Pauline corpus, the unity of 2 Corinthians has been most contested, and from two to five formerly independent components have been diagnosed. Remember that there was a letter A (lost, warning the Corinthians not to deal with immoral people) before 1 Corinthians was written, so that 1 Corinthians was the letter B. Next, a "tearful" letter C (lost) was written before 2 Corinthians (# 9).

   Many of those who value 2 Cor as a unity consider it to be letter D, so that the total Corinthian fourfold correspondence would have consisted of two lost letters and two preserved letters. The fact that there is only one opening formula (1:1-2) and one concluding formula (13:11-13) confirms the unity of 2 Corinth. If formerly independent letters are contained in 2 Cor, they have been truncated, and one cannot assume a simple collage of documents.

   On the other hand, the change of tone in 2 Corinthians, from chapters 1-9, generally optimistic, to chapters 10-13, more pessimistic, is very clear. A majority of biblical scholars would support the independent origin of at least these two elements which would become letters D and E in our alphabetical sequence. Beyond that, 2 Corinthians 6:14 - 7:1 looks like a self-contained unit, and chapters 8 and 9 seem to imply some duplication in the reference to the collection. So some biblical scholars distinguish five letters in 2 Cor. In our alphabetical system, they would be the following, letter C = 10: 1 - 13: 10 (the "tearful" letter mentioned in 2:3-4); letter D = 2: 14 - 7: 14 (minus 6: 14 - 7: 1), i.e. the main section of 2 Co ; letter E = 1: 1 - 2: 13 + 6: 14 - 7: 1, a letter of reconciliation; letter F = 8: 1-24, written to the Corinthians concerning the collection for Jerusalem; letter G = 9: 1-15, a circular missive to Achaia concerning the collection. In this hypothesis, each particular subject of 2 Co was interpreted as a separate letter.

   The problem of sequence can be added to that of formerly independent units. For example, some biblical scholars argue that 2 Cor 8 was written first and sent with Titus, who reported news of the troubles in Corinth. Then, Paul would have written 2 Cor 2: 14 - 7: 4: a letter that failed. Then, Paul would have visited Corinth (#8); and when that failed, he would have written the "tearful" letter (#9) consisting of 2 Cor 10 - 13. Titus reported the news that, this time, Paul had succeeded; so he would have written 2 Cor 1: 1 - 2: 13 and 7: 5-16. Finally, he would have written 2 Cor 9. To the obvious question of why an editor rearranged this material in the existing order, several explanations have been proposed, including absent-mindedness. For example, 2 Corinthians would have been organized after Paul's death as his last testament, chapters 10-13 being conceived as a prediction of the false apostles to come, and 13: 11-13 being his final farewell prayer; or again, the three letters to the Corinthians would have been gathered under this title in order of decreasing length, that is, what we know as 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians 1-9: 2 Corinthians 10-13, without noticing that two distinct letters were then joined as 2 Corinthians.

   What is behind all these theories? An important factor in judging unity is whether the breaks from one section of 2 Cor to another are so sharp that they cannot be interpreted as a change of direction within the same missive. Let us turn our attention to two sections that are often proposed as independent, and therefore as separate letters.

   1. 2 Co 10 - 13

      One gets the impression from Titus' report in 7:5-16 that the difficulties between Paul and Corinth have been resolved: "I rejoice because I have full confidence in you." However, in chapters 10 - 13, the atmosphere is different. Paul fears that he will have to be severe when he arrives; there are false apostles who belittle Paul, and the Corinthians listen to them. Three explanations have been proposed.

      1. The first explanation is that chapters 10 to 13 come from an independent letter written at another time. Some think that this letter, which would have been composed before chapters 1 to 9, would constitute letter C, the "tearful" letter mentionned in 2 Co 2: 3-4, but there are serious objections to this thesis. A more plausible suggestion is that after the sending of 1 Cor 1 - 9 as letter D, a new crisis was created in Corinth by the arrival of so-called super apostles, forcing Paul to write this new letter of which 10 - 13 is a truncated remnant (Letter E).

      2. The second explanation is that chapters 10 - 13 are part of the same letter (D) as chapters 1 - 9, but that they were added as a result of new and disturbing information that Paul received before sending chapters 1 - 9. In fact, the line between an unexpected addendum to the original letter and a new letter is blurred. The fact that there is no opening formula in chapter 10 may be easier to explain if it is an addendum, on the other hand, the absence of any indication that disturbing news has reached Paul becomes more confusing than if we were dealing with a truncated new letter.

      3. The third explanation is that chapters 10 to 13 are part of the same letter (D) as chapters 1 - 9 and that they were conceived by Paul as soon as he started writing 2 Corinthians. The optimistic relief so tangible in chapter 7 is due to the fact that Titus brought the news that the major crisis had been resolved, the obstinate individual who had publicly embarrassed Paul face to face with the cooperation of the community had now been corrected and was about to be disciplined. The community had not decisively rejected Paul. Nevertheless, there was still the danger of those who presented themselves as apostles and made derogatory remarks about Paul. Even though Paul had increased confidence in the goodwill of the Corinthians because they had rejected the stubborn individual, he had to intervene in case they were not clear about the so-called apostles. We have seen, in discussing 1 Cor, that the sense of sequence in Paul is not always smooth, and so this theory cannot be rejected out of hand. The main argument in its favor is that some of the remarks in chapters 1 - 9 seem to envisage the same opponents as those described in chapters 10-13. Nevertheless, can the attack in chapters 10 - 13 really have been planned as a follow-up to a call for money in chapters 8 - 9?

   2. 2 Co 6:14 - 7:1

      Here too, there is a problem of sequence, since the theme of the opening of the hearts of 6:13 is taken up in 7:2, so that 6:14 - 7:1 is clearly an interruption. But there are also issues of vocabulary and reflection. The passage contains a number of words and usages that are not attested elsewhere in the undisputed Pauline letters, for example Beliar, and its biblical citations. If the "unbelievers" who are the main target are Gentiles, the all-too-familiar contact with Gentiles was not a problem in 2 Cor. Would Paul urge the Corinthians not to meet with Gentiles when in Antioch he had argued to Peter (Gal 2:11-13) that eating with Gentiles represented evangelical freedom? Or are we to think that Gentile "unbelievers" posed a particular moral threat in the licentious atmosphere of the "open" port city of Corinth? The three elements of dualism (righteousness/malice, light/darkness, Christ/Beliar) contain some familiar terms in the dualism of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and a number of scholars have suggested that Paul or an editor of 2 Cor took this passage from that source. Nevertheless, some prominent biblical scholars maintain that Paul himself composed 6:14 - 7:1 in its present location. Can we consider "unbelievers" to be polemical terminology for the opponents who will appear more clearly in chapters 10 - 13? Whichever view one accepts, there remains the problem of why this passage was placed here and how it was deemed to fit the thought of the rest of the letter.

   These two examples should establish a range from what is possible to what is plausible for the thesis that 2 Cor is composite. Certainty cannot be achieved. The debate over the unity of 2 Cor has required detailed historical knowledge of Paul's relationship with Corinth; but from the earliest days, 2 Cor was presented in its present format and sequence. Therefore, listeners and readers have had the task and opportunity to make sense of this format. As I have pointed out several times in this introduction, commentaries based on reconstructions are of questionable value. To understand what Paul wants to communicate, it will suffice for most readers to recognize that 2 Cor contains different topics expressed in different rhetorical emphases.

4. Imagery in 4:16 - 5:10

   Paul expresses his thoughts on mortal and eschatological existence in allusive language that is not easy to decipher. His contrast is between the outer human being and the inner human being. It is not about the opposition between body and soul, but about human existence in this world, where one lives by the life one has received from one's parents, as opposed to the life one receives through faith in the risen Jesus Christ. The former is mortal, constantly delivered to death; the latter is renewed and made more glorious day by day, as one is transformed into the likeness of Christ (4:11; 3:18). In his mortal life, Paul was repeatedly brought close to death; and yet, paradoxically, each time, the life of Jesus was manifested more in Paul's flesh. Whereas in Stoic philosophy, the soul becomes more perfect through discipline, in Paul's faith, increasing perfection comes from the Lord who is the Spirit (3:18).

   Yet, some of Paul's images also give a glimpse of what he expects in the next world, and what happens if the earthly tent, like the house, is to be destroyed (5:1) - a tent in which he sighs under a burden (5:4), the body in which he is at home while he is away from the Lord (5:6). For Paul, the destruction does not mean that he will be stripped and found naked (5:3-4), but rather that he will be clothed in a more splendid manner. To replace the tent-like house, there is a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in heaven (5:1). In fact, Paul prefers to be away from his house in the body and to be at home with the Lord (5:8; see Phil 1:20-26). If all this seems clear, many other things are not. Does this house not made with human hands already exist or is it made by God when the earthly tent is destroyed? Is it a new spiritual body to replace the mortal body? And if so, when does the believer stand before the judgment seat of Christ (5:10) and become clothed in this body - at the moment of death or at the resurrection from the dead (as in 1 Cor 15:36-44)? Or is the reference more ecclesiological, involving incorporation into the body of Christ? Or is the reference more apocalyptic, involving a type of heavenly sanctuary? Or, without being precise, is the imagery simply meant to contrast the transient present existence with the lasting future existence? In any case, would Paul have had a special revealed knowledge of what awaits Christian believers beyond death? Or, in this imagery, was he simply expressing his confidence in victory and being with Christ?

5. Paul's Collection of Money for Jerusalem (chaps. 8 - 9)

   In a period that chronologically should be in the 40s, Acts 11:29-30 records that Paul and Barnabas gave the elders in Jerusalem a gift from Antioch for "the service of the brethren who dwell in Judea" - a gesture difficult to reconcile with Paul's own recollection of his relationship with the Jerusalem Christians prior to the Jerusalem meeting in 49. It was there that Paul acceded to the request of the Jerusalem authorities to remember the poor, which he was eager to do (Gal 2:10). We do not know whether Paul immediately instituted a collection in response to this request and whether he stopped after "those of James" came and created a problem in Antioch. In any case, by 56-57, half a dozen years later, the collection for Jerusalem, "the service of the saints," had become a major preoccupation in his missionary career. The Galatian churches and the Corinthians had been instructed to set aside a certain amount of money on the first day of each week (1 Cor 16:1-4: presumably the day the Christians met), and in 2 Cor 8-9 and Rom 15:26 we see Paul making a solicitation in Macedonia and Achaia. Why was Paul so concerned about the success of this effort?

   Generosity to the poor is attested to in the OT (Ps 112:9) and was instilled by Jesus. Those who are in abundance are to share with those in need - one day the roles may be reversed (2 Cor 8:14). But why the poor of Jerusalem? Paul's desire to unify his Gentile communities with Jerusalem certainly has something to do with it: the Gentiles have shared the spiritual blessings of the Jews, and so they owe it to the Jews to share with them the material blessings (Rom 15:27). It will therefore be clear that Gentiles and Jews (especially those in the mother church) are one in Christ. From a psychological and practical standpoint, there are few things in life that bind people and institutions together more effectively than the sharing of their bank accounts.

   Was there also a personal issue? If the people who denigrated Paul in Corinth came from Jerusalem and accused Paul of being disloyal to the parent Christian community, would a collection on behalf of the Jerusalem Christians refute this idea? Did Paul's opponents in Galatia pass on to him his sarcastic comments about the so-called pillars of the Jerusalem church being of no importance to him (Gal 2:6.9) and his description of the present Jerusalem as a slave (of the Law) with her children (4:25); and if so, does Paul hope that the collection will quell any rancor between him and the Jerusalem authorities? Certainly, in Rom 15:30-31, Paul seems to wonder whether his service in Jerusalem will be acceptable to the Christians there. Between the lines of Acts 21:17-25, we can detect tensions between Paul and James when Paul arrives in Jerusalem. Thus, collection may have played a spiritual, ecclesiological, and diplomatic role in Paul's ministry - a sample of the complicated roles that money collection has played in the churches since then.

6. The Opponents or False Apostles in 2 Cor 10 - 13

   Although some biblical scholars argue that the "super apostles" of 11:5 and 12:11 are different from the "false apostles" (11:13), this is a minority view involving unnecessary complication. If one accepts the thesis that only one set of "apostles" is described throughout 10 - 13, what are their characteristics? By reading the chapters with this question in mind, one can create a portrait not only from what Paul says in direct criticism, but also from his self-defense. They seem to have recently "arrived" in Corinth. They are of Jewish stock but have rhetorical skills (presumably Hellenistic); they preach Jesus and what passes for a gospel. They boast of extraordinary powers and experiences, and the fact that they ask for support makes the Corinthians feel important. It is interesting to note that Paul focuses his attacks on their claims and flashy attitudes more than on their doctrine, and he does so largely in a style of one-upmanship. If they are Hebrews and Israelites and servants of Christ, so is he (11:21-23). If the super-apostles talk about their powers, Paul also did signs, wonders and miracles when he was in Corinth (12:11-12). If they talk about their experiences, Paul himself, fourteen years ago, was taken up to the third heaven and heard things he cannot say (12:1-5). They must build on the foundations laid by Paul, boasting only of the work of others; as for Paul, he built on the foundations of no one else (10:15; 1 Cor 3:10). But beyond these points of comparison, can they match his record of suffering and persecution for Christ (2 Cor 11:23-29)? As for money, Paul's failure to seek help was a sign of strength, not weakness, precisely to avoid burdening the Corinthians and out of love for them (11:7-15). He stole support from other churches in order to serve them. Now, despite the insinuations of the false apostles, when Paul completes his collection, he is careful to act with prudent probity, sending Titus and a brother disciple to collect the money (12, 16-18).

   The picture of false apostles can be expanded and confirmed by recognizing that Paul had them in mind at some earlier point in 2 Corinth (3:1 - 6:13). They obviously arrived in Corinth with letters of recommendation from other Christians; Paul does not need them, for the Corinthians he has converted to Christ are his letter (3:1-3). Here we find confirmation that they were paid to preach the gospel (2:17) and that they boasted of what they had seen (5:12). Is Paul's defense of his suffering and life-threatening situations (4:7-5:10; 6:4-10) an indication that the false apostles were invoking them as a sign of his failure? Does Paul's insistence that the treasure received from God is contained in earthen vessels indicate that the false apostles thought that the power now belonged to them rather than to God (4:7)?

   As for the doctrine proclaimed by these people, was it intrinsically wrong from Paul's point of view, or did the difficulty lie simply in their claims? Not much can be said of the highly oratorical reference to the possibility of someone coming to preach another Jesus or another gospel (11:4). There is nothing in 2 Corinthians comparable to the attack in Galatians on those who would require Gentile Christians to be circumcised. Yet Paul insists on his Hebrew and Israelite origins, and in 3:6-18 he praises a new ministry and a new covenant of the Spirit rather than what was written in stone. This emphasis might suggest that the opponents valued their Jewish heritage. On the whole, however, beyond the theological implications of the false apostles' claims about them, no clear doctrinal fallacy emerges from 2 Corinthians 3 - 7; 10 - 13.

   What happens if we join 1 Corinthians to 2 Corinthians? Were the people attacked by Paul in 1 Cor the opponents designated as false apostles in 2 Cor? According to 1 Cor, the Corinthians were divided as to whether they should follow Paul, Apollos, Cephas (Peter) or Christ; and Peter at least would have been considered an apostle, even though it remains very uncertain whether he was in Corinth. 1 Cor 9:1-27 defends Paul's rights as an apostle and 15:8-10 defends his status as the recipient of an appearance of the risen Jesus that was given to all the apostles. Nevertheless, precisely because he had not seen Jesus during his public ministry, Paul was forced to defend his apostleship because of criticism by people who were not themselves apostles. Against the identification of the opponents of 1 Corinthians with those of 2 Cor, there is the impression given by 2 Cor 3:1; 11:4 that the false apostles had arrived recently; indeed, they may have appeared as the most important force to be countered only after Titus' visit with the "tearful" letter (#9). However, since it seems impossible that 1 Cor would have defeated all of Paul's opponents mentioned there, is it not likely that some of his older enemies had joined forces with the newcomers, so that some kind of hybrid had now emerged to cause Paul problems in Corinth?

   Scholars have theorized at length about whether the false apostles had roots in Jerusalem as adherents of the Twelve or James, or whether they were Hellenistic Jewish preachers who promoted Jesus as a wonder worker, or whether they were Gnostics. Despite occasional passages that may support one or the other of these theories, there is not enough explicit evidence in the Corinthian correspondence to establish one convincingly. In Galatians 2:12, Paul was very specific about the fact that "men of James" (or Jerusalem) had come to harass him in Antioch; if emissaries of James from Jerusalem were coming to frustrate his cause in Corinth, why would he be less specific? Perhaps we should be content with the fact that the appointed "apostles" were vain about their own wonderful gifts of the Spirit and preached a victorious Christ with little emphasis on his sufferings or the Christian imitation of those sufferings.

7. Issues and Problems for Reflection
   1. "He who knew no sin, God made him sin for us" (2 Cor 5:21). There is a common teaching in the NT that Jesus was without sin (Jn 8:46; 14:30; Heb 4:15; 1 Pet 2:22; I Jn 3:5). Is Paul here going against this tradition by claiming that God made Jesus personally a sinner who would therefore be an object of God's disfavor? If not, there are several possibilities:
      1. God allowed Jesus to be considered a sinner (blasphemer) and to die a sinner's death. A parallel can be made with Gal 3:13: "Christ has become a curse for us, for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree'" (the punishment for blasphemy: Lev 24:16 and Deut 21:22-23 are combined by Josephus).

      2. God allowed Jesus to take the place of sinful humanity. The rest of the sentence in 2 Corinthians 5:21 may support this interpretation: "so that we may become the righteousness of God in him.

      3. God made Jesus a sin offering. In the Greek of Lev 4:25, 29, "sin" is used for sin offering. Yet there is no preparation in the context of 2 Corinthians for such an idea.

   2. The historicity of Acts, with its heroic portrayal of Peter and Paul and their wonder-filled careers, has often been disputed. 2 Cor 12:12 deserves to be considered in the light of these judgments. Paul himself claims the performance of "signs, wonders and miracles" among the Corinthians (see also Rom 15:19), even if he does not give them the evidential value that others do. A comparison of what Paul says he underwent in 2 Cor 11:23-33 with the picture in Acts shows that, above all, Acts may have underestimated the extraordinary career of the apostle. Even some of the most contested aspects of the Acts table, such as Paul's initial preaching in the synagogues and the opposition of the Jews in the diaspora, are confirmed (11:24.26). There are minor differences, for example, the fact that Paul's departure from Damascus aroused the hostility of King Aretas and not only of the Jews (cf. 11:32-33 and Acts 9:22-25). However, the similarities between Acts and Paul's writings should not be underestimated (see the table of Paul's activities according to his letters and the Acts).