Introduction to Corinthians

INTRODUCTION

A. A PERSONAL LETTER

C. S. Lewis, writing from Oxford to an American lady, April 1, 1956, recommended she read 2 Cor, “About prayer (for others),” he wrote, “and suffering for others there’s a lot scattered through 2d Cor which is well worth meditation” (1976, 52). What C. S. Lewis felt has been echoed down through the centuries by countless folk who have been comforted and challenged by what Paul has written. In this letter, the apostle bared his heart to those whom he loved deeply. On behalf of the gospel of Christ and in the sight of God, for these “others,” the church at Corinth, he has prayed much and suffered more than a little. It was a problem church and new problems have arisen since the writing of 1 Cor. Along with 1 Cor nowhere else in Paul’s correspondence can we observe such a long relationship with a people to whom he has given birth “in Christ.” None of Paul's other letters to the churches carries us so profoundly into the heart of the man and the minister as his second letter to the church at Corinth. Here, mused Hanson long ago, "broken sharply off, with none of the jagged edges filed down, is a chunk of Paul's life--authentic, uncensored, bewilderingly complicated, but amazingly interesting” (1954, 7-8). As the apostle expresses his love for a church that has misunderstood him, Matera describes his tone as both “compassionate and defensive, reconciling and provocative, forgiving and threatening, joyful and complaining” (2003, 1). As Philippians amazes us with its unveiling of the quality of Paul's commitment as a Christian, 2 Cor astounds us by its revelation of the radical caliber of his commitment as a servant and apostle of Christ. Open to view in this letter is the heartthrob of that gospel ministry that belongs to every member of Christ, clergy and laity alike--its life-commitment, its divine resources, and its Cross/Resurrection character. Witness is borne to the inescapable truth that the mission of the Church as the body of Christ is the carrying on of the self-giving, sacrificial, and suffering ministry of Jesus. What Paul writes in this letter has much to do with the internal life of the Christian community in Corinth. This is a church somewhat at odds with the apostle, so he has designed this letter to complete his personal reconciliation as a spiritual father with his impertinent children in the faith. Many in the church had been seduced by severe criticisms leveled at the integrity and authority of Paul's apostolic ministry by some who had entered their midst. Paul meets this attack on his personal calling by an appeal to the very character of the gospel he has brought to them, “the word of reconciliation” (5:19 NASB). This is in contrast to Paul’s tactics in his letter to the Galatians. To them, when some had attempted to attach a legalistic compromise to the gospel of grace, Paul had argued from the divine origin of his apostolate to the integrity of his gospel. To the Cor, he proceeds in reverse manner, from the nature of the gospel of Christ to the character of his apostolic calling. For Paul, the message of the gospel and the manner of its proclamation were inseparable. The character and methods of an apostolic ministry were determined by the nature of the message. So as Paul defends his stewardship of the gospel we are confronted with a challenging and potentially transforming witness to the reality and import of the coming of God into the world "in Christ." Apart from the more personal passages (1:1-11; 6:11--7:16; 13:11-14) and his concern for the collection project (8:1—9:15) the letter falls into two main sections. The first (1:12--6:10) contains Paul's defense of his apostolic integrity in regard to his motives and methods of operation in relation to the Cor. The second (10:1--13:10) deals with the vindication of his apostolic authority in the light of the attacks made against it. The necessity of defending the integrity of his conduct as an apostle in such personally excruciating circumstances reveals the fundamental drives of the man Paul. Out of this situation has come to us a penetrating witness to the all-pervading dynamic of the gospel of Christ in the life of this minister of God. To the contemporary church this letter raises questions about the shape of its message and the nature and style of it ministry. The theological dimension of the letter is of crucial significance for the self-understanding of the Church in today’s world. To rightly and more fully appreciate the above glimpse at the letter, several questions need to be looked at. What kind of a city was Corinth and what was the church there like? How often was Paul there and what letters did he write and when? Did he write the entire letter. Did he write it all at one time? How is the letter to be described as a literary document? What theological themes permeate the letter? What interpretive problems are involved in its proper understanding? Re-examine this paragraph when introduction is finished.

B. DESTINATION

The City of Corinth

Corinth, situated on the Isthmus of Corinth under the shadow of a 2,000 foot outcrop of rock, overlooked the two seaports of Cenchreae to the east and Lecaeum to the west. This location allowed it a command of a major trade route between the Aegean and Ionian seas. The economic benefits were considerable. The Greek Corinth had existed as political entity from the eighth century B. C. E. and approached possibly 100,000 in population by B. C. E. 400. The major interruption to its prominence and prosperity was the ruthless destruction of the Greek state by the Romans in B.C.146 when the Roman consul with 32,000 troops devastated the city, massacred the men, and sold the women and children into slavery. For a century the site lay waste (Blaiklock 1965, 56-59). In Paul’s day it was the capital of the Roman province of Achaia, having been rebuilt as a Roman colony by Julius Caesar in B.C. 44. It was named Colonia Laus Julia Corinthiensis in honor of him, after lying in ruins for a century. Roman laws were adopted, Latin became the official language dominating public inscriptions, and Roman organization and planning were in evidence in the design of the city. Corinth was governed by a proconsul sent by the Roman Senate. By the time Paul arrived it was the third most important city in the Roman Empire, surpassed in status only by Rome and Alexandria. Its population had reached 80,000 with an additional 20,000 in the surrounding rural areas (Hafemann 2000, 23). Greek was probably the prevalent spoken language for there had been an influx of Greeks from the neighboring areas. Corinth was a prosperous commercial city, probably the wealthiest in Greece. Through it passed the mainland route for the trade between east and west as well as its several sea routes. It was situated in a significant position between the Peloponese to the south and the rest of Greece to the north. Its people were a multicultural mixture of Greeks, Orientals, Jews, soldiers, a large slave population and Roman freedmen or former slaves, who had come because of the newly-founded city’s opportunities for economic and social advancement. Local craftsmen gathered together in collegia, social fraternities organized around devotion to a patron deity. Corinth was a city obsessed with upward mobility. In an honor-shame society, social status and its accompanying benefits were very important. For some it was by belonging to the hereditary patrician class. For others it was determined by wealth. The most prominent citizens were often the “newly” rich who formed their own clubs and were “those most likely to affect culture by entertaining the Sophists, preferring their more popular rhetoric of display and entertainment to serious discourse” (Witherington 1995, 24). Elite families of both groups provided the networks of power, influence, and patronage. Their wealth and power made for a great gap between them and the great mass of the miserable poor. The city became a pluralistic melting pot of nationalities, sub-cultures, lifestyles, religions, with the prolific presence of street-corner philosophers. Many had severed their traditional local ties and were searching for new ideas and loyalties. They were self-promoters, thirsty for honor and recognition. Corinth was a “boisterous, brawling, bustling” city open to new philosophies in a way that more traditional cities were not (O’Conner 1991, 6). Yet as a recently founded city of uprooted people hungry for status and security, the atmosphere was that of spiritual emptiness. Corinth was famous as a city with a culture of constant entertainment. There was a prominent place for the arts and a love of public rhetoric and human achievement. The theater in Paul’s day held 14,000-18,000 people and the concert hall, 3,000. Sports were represented by the Isthmian games held every other year, second only in size and prestige to the Olympics (Hafemann 2000, 24). As such a metropolitan center, a seaport city with tourists and travelers, historically it was no stranger to immortality and vice. As far back as the comic playwrite Aristophanes (B.C. 450-385), who coined the term korinthiazo, “to act like a Corinthian, that is, commit fornication,” it had this reputation. The evidence for the contemporary accounts of Corinth being an exceptionally licentious city relates more to the earlier Greek city than to the later Roman. So by Paul’s time it would be a city filled with only as much vice and licentiousness as any other seaport and commercial center of the time. Although central in the life of the city was the worship of Aphrodite, the goddess of love, beauty, and fertility with its numerous temples, the earlier prevalence of sacred prostitution in the Greek city has not been supported by historical and archaeological investigation for the Roman city of New Testament times. Yet Witherington writes that nevertheless one should not underestimate the role of sexual expression in both some pagan religious festivals and in some pagan temple precincts (1995, 13). Religiously, Corinth was thoroughly pluralistic. As Paul writes earlier of Corinth, “Indeed, . . . there are many gods and many lords” (1 Cor 8:4). The Romans incorporated Greek gods and goddesses into their religious practices, often doing little more than changing their names. These and the omnipresent Roman imperial cult existed along side the mystery religions. Their religion was essential to political stability, economic prosperity, and civil order. It undergirded most aspects of their society, there being little distinction between religion and secular life (deSilva, 558). There is archeological evidence excavated from the ruins for at lest thirty-four different deities worshipped in Corinth. In addition to Aphrodite, there are temples or shrines to Fortune, Neptune, Apollo, Venus, Octavia, Asclepius, Demeter, Core, and Poseidon. Superstition and magic ruled the day (Witherington 1995, 12-18).

Paul’s Relationship to the Church at Corinth

To this strategic urban center of Corinth the apostle came on his second missionary journey following a somewhat disappointing visit to Athens (Acts 15:36-18:22). As reported in Acts 18:1-18 Paul made his home in Corinth with Aquila and Priscilla. They were exiles as a result of the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Claudius, and worked with them at their common trade of tentmaking. Every Sabbath, Paul was in the synagogue persuading the Jews and Greeks that Jesus was the Christ. Opposition soon arose from the Jews. So he turned to the Gentiles, continuing his evangelistic activity in the house of Titius Justus next door to the synagogue. Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, along with many of the Cor, believed in the Lord. Thus the church was composed of both Gentile and Jewish believers. Both Silas and Timothy became co-workers with Paul in Corinth (2 Cor 1:19). During his stay Paul was brought by the Jews before the Roman proconsul Gallio (Acts 18:12-16). According to an inscription Gallio was in office from July 51 to June 52. But he refused to indict Paul. For the most part this secured him from further open attacks from the Jews. The encounter with Gallio allows a date from spring of A.D. 50 to the late summer of A.D. 51 for Paul’s stay in Corinth. Here, aided by direct divine encouragement, he remained for a year and a half, establishing the church (Acts 18:9-11). When the apostle left Corinth he returned to Antioch by way of Ephesus, making no contact with the Corinthian church except by letter until after his three-year mission in Ephesus during his third missionary journey (Acts 19:1—41). The church in Corinth was a cross section of its inhabitants, differing in social strata, and affected by the cultural and religious atmosphere of its environments. Paul spoke of them as not “wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth” (1 Cor. 1:26). Paul’s “not many” indicates that there were perhaps a few at least in the church from the “wise,” the “influential,” and “of noble birth.” Yet for the most part the membership came from a class with little wealth and power, but offering a new and group identity that transformed aspects of their former class consciousness (Young and Ford 1987, 189). The church members in Corinth along with those in the surrounding area met in small groups in various houses (1 Cor. 16:19; see 14:23), no doubt the houses of the more well-to-do. Meeting in different locations made it difficult for the church to speak with one voice and their relative isolation from one another would encourage divisions and differences. It is understandable that this church gave Paul more problems and severely anxious moments than any other church. In his extant letters then, as Paul deals with their internal problems (1 Cor) and his own relation to them (2 Cor), we are afforded a rare glimpse into the life and heart of a primitive Christian community. But to reconstruct the sequence and nature of the apostle’s subsequent visits and correspondence with the Corinthian church is problematic. The order listed, the number of letters (four to seven), and the composition especially of 2 Cor can be disputed. Beyond, however, the above sketch of Paul’s founding visit (Acts 18:10), there is solid textual evidence for a previous letter now lost (1 Cor. 5:9-13), 1 Cor carried by Timothy from Ephesus (1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10-11), a painful visit from Ephesus (2 Cor. 2:1; 13:2; see Acts 20:18, 31), a sorrowful letter now lost (2 Cor. 2:3-4), variously called the letter of tears, severe, or painful letter 2 Cor (8:6, 16-18, 22-24), A third anticipated visit (2 Cor 1:15-16; 12:14; 13:1-2; Acts 20:2-3). Partition theories divide 2 Cor into possibly three to five letters, each sent separately (Harris 2005, 26). We present two fairly recent analyses. First is that of Margaret E. Thrall (2004, 77) who, writing in 1994, divides 2 Cor into three letters, sent in the following order (1) 1:1—8:24, (2) 9:1-15, and (3) 10:1-13. More recently Margaret M. Mitchell in an essay (2003, 21), basing her conclusions on the researches of many others in the history of Corinthian scholarship, analyzes them as follows in order of dispatch: (1) 8:1-24; (2) 2:14—7:4 (minus 6:14-7:1), (3) 10:1--13:10 as the sorrowful letter above, (4) 2:1—2:13; 7:5-16; 13:11-13, and (5) 9:1-15). These partition possibilities are given more detailed consideration later. For now we offer a tentative reconstruction of Paul’s relations and contacts with the Church at Corinth based on the first list above, suggesting the alternatives as we proceed. Following his year and a half in Corinth (Acts 18:1-18) Paul goes to Ephesus (Acts 18:18-21). From there he sent a letter back to Corinth alluded to in 1 Cor 5:9. This has been designated the "previous letter," now lost, though some scholars believe that 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 is a fragment from it. In this letter Paul had warned them not to associate with immoral persons within the fellowship of the church. This they had misconstrued, deliberately or otherwise, to mean immoral men in general (1 Cor 5:10-11). Due perhaps to the repetition of its substance in 1 Cor the letter was not preserved. A second letter, our 1 Cor, was written in response to this misunderstanding as well as to several other matters. Paul had heard of their divisiveness from members of “Chole’s household” (1:11) and had received oral reports from others regarding “sexual immorality” (5:1-2) and lawsuits (6: 1-8) within the church. Also a letter had come to him brought possibly by a delegation (16:17) asking for his guidance in regard to marriage (7:1), on meat sacrificed to idols (8:1), about spiritual gifts (12:1), and the resurrection (15:l-58). This letter was sent in the spring of 55 or 56. Those who propose 2 Cor 8:1-24 as a separate letter place it here as a follow-up fund-raising letter (Mitchell 2003, 21-23). 1 Cor did not produce the results Paul desired. Borne possibly by Timothy (4:17), the report came back that conditions in the church were becoming worse. Paul then left his work at Ephesus and paid what is described as "the painful visit" to Corinth (2 Cor 1:15-16; 2:1; 13:2) to deal with the issue in person. Not much is known about what happened during the visit. But it appears that someone in particular, a ringleader, rose up in arrogant defiance against Paul (2:5-8; 7:12). The church sided with the attacker and Paul returned to Ephesus, humiliated by the Cor’ response, and in great distress over the condition of the church. Yet it was probably not simply a retreat by a Paul cowed before opposition (10:2). 2 Cor gives evidence that the polemic against the apostle had been stepped up. The charges and slurs against his person were many. Paul carried no letters of recommendation (3:1-3). When he wrote to them he did not make his meaning clear (1:12-13), but used his “weighty and forceful” letters to intimidate them into submission (10:9-10). Paul was insincere (1:12), lorded it over the faith of his converts (1:24), and was inferior in knowledge and eloquence, lacking in ability as a public speaker (10:10; 11:6). Furthermore, they charged, Paul had wronged the church by refusing to receive financial remuneration from them (11:7, 9; 12:13), Yet he had his agents raise an offering from the Corinthian church, using no doubt some of it for himself (12:17-18; 1:16;16:6). Thus the integrity of his motives, his character, his behavior (10:11), and even his courage (10:1) were all brought into question. Most crucial of all the legitimacy of his apostolic ministry (12:11-12) was being attacked (Harris 2005, 69-70). On returning to Ephesus from the "painful visit" Paul wrote the "sorrowful letter" (2:3-4). He dispatched Titus (7:6) to take it to Corinth and attempt to restore the church to Paul (for a discussion of the historical issues involved, see Harris 2005, 54-64). Mitchell (2003, 21) and others take this to be 2 Cor 10:1—13:10 and followed an earlier “apologetic letter” (2 Cor. 2:14—7:4 minus 6:14—7:1). After Titus' departure, Paul's troubled heart would not allow him to continue his work. So he proceeded to Troas (2:12) and on to Macedonia (2:13; 7:5) to await the return of Titus. When Titus came with word that the church had dealt with the offender and that it had re-submitted itself to the authority of the apostle, Paul was comforted (7:6-12). So from Macedonia, within a year (8:10; 9:2) after the writing of 1 Cor, Paul wrote 2 Cor to the church of God in Corinth. He included "all the saints throughout Achaia" (1:1) and asked them to prepare the way for his third visit (2 Cor 1:15-16; 12:14; 13:1-2; Acts 20:2-3). In the letter he expressed his relief at the general success of Titus' mission of reconciliation and answered the derogatory charges of his critics. Throughout the entire letter, but especially in chapters 10--13, Paul found it necessary to defend the legitimacy and authority of his apostleship. Apparently in a pause in writing or dictation of some, perhaps even lengthy, extent between chapters 9 and 10-13Paul received disturbing news that the situation at Corinth had deteriorated causing him to change to a more stern and defensive tone. Although proper relations between the apostle and the church as a whole had seemingly been restored, some severe opposition to Paul still remained in Corinth. There are indications in the previous chapters that reconciliation had only been partially achieved. Paul hoped with this letter to fully heal the situation there. With the restoration of normal relations Paul was also concerned in 2 Cor that the collection project be reactivated and carried to completion (1 Cor 16:1-6; 2 Cor 8:1—9:15). When he visited Corinth for the third time (12:14; 13:1-2), he spent the winter (1 Cor 16:6) before continuing on to Jerusalem with the offering for their poverty-stricken Christians. Thrall has Cor 10:1—13:10 sent as a separate letter before this third visit (2004, 77). The vexed question of “who” precisely were Paul’s opponents in Corinth remains. Scholarly hypotheses are seemingly endless for the use of “mirror reading,” inducing the nature of Paul’s opponents from his rhetoric, is both speculative and by some questionable (Lyons 1985, 75-122). As many as nineteen suggestions have been made (Harris 2005, 79-80). Harris reduces them to four: “Hellenistic Jewish propagandists, pneumatics, Gnostics, and Judaizers” (2005, 80). Hafemann suggests three: Gnostics, legalistic Judaizers, and super-charismatics or “divine men” who “represented a mixture of legalistic and pneumatic elements of various persuasions” (2000, 33). McCant, skeptical of “mirror-reading,” insists that since pastoral concerns permeate 2 Cor, Paul’s focus is throughout on the church as such, certainly a troublesome lot, who are not to be considered strictly as “opponents” (1999, 18). He feels the door on all discussions about opponents at Corinth should be closed. Yet two facts or considerations persist. First, the only available evidence is what the two Corinthian letters provide, that is, the attempt to interpret what the biblical text suggests about Paul's critics is imperative. Second, 2 Cor 11:4 and 11:22-23 appear to speak of strangers who have come into the church from outside. So the nature of Paul’s opposition or even “opponents” in Corinth remains a valid and significant question. The most recent critical and comprehensive discussion of this issue is that of Harris (2005, 71-87). Working with evidence from both the extant letters to Corinth he identifies them as probably Jews from Judea (Jerusalem?). They came to Corinth as self-appointed agents of a Judaizing program, one not identical to that which plagued the churches in Galatia. Claiming to be Christian and presuming to possess the authority of the Twelve, they joined in uneasy alliance with a group of Corinthian “proto-gnostics” in an attempt to undermine Paul’s apostolic ministry among them (2005, 87). The Corinthian opposition to Paul and his ministry that Harris terms “proto-gnostic” were those in the Corinthian church who, influenced by their Hellenistic heritage, possessed several characteristics. First, they were deniers of a future bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12; 2 Cor 5:2-4), believing probably that the only resurrection was spiritual, accomplished by baptism, and therefore lay in the past. Second, they were either libertines or ascetic in morals. Sexual permissiveness probably persisted among some in the church (1 Cor 6:18; 2 Cor 7:1; 12:21). The transition from 1 Cor 6:12 to 7:1ff. indicates the ascetic bent of others. These two seemingly opposite ethical behaviors arose from the emphasis of the Gnostics on the vileness of the material world involving as well the human body, the result of their emphasis on the transcendence of God. In line with this, some chose abstinence from fleshly delights while others simply indulged. So two radically different ethical codes resulted, asceticism and libertinism. Such people were proud of their superior gnosis or “knowledge” (Harris 2005, 80-84). The Palestinian intruders who infiltrated the Corinthian church Harris has given the label of “Judaizers.” They considered themselves to be “Christian,” a claim which Paul was not happy with (10:7; 11:13, 23). These “Judaizers” differed from those in Galatians in modus operandi for there is no trace of any controversy concerning circumcision and the Law. Although they probably shared with their Galatian predecessors the ultimate goal of bringing all Gentile churches into submission to the mother church in Jerusalem, they were in a more general sense seeking to impose Jewish practices on the Gentile church as conditions either for salvation or for Christian fellowship. So in reality Paul faced two sets of opponents in Corinth, Corinthian “proto-gnostics” and Palestinian “Judizers who had temporarily closed ranks in their opposition to Paul (Harris 2005, 85-86). Although Harris may have reasoned a little beyond the evidence in his helpful reconstruction, the essence of his analysis is convincing. Our conclusion is simply that Paul was dealing with Palestinian opponents of his mission and apostolic dignity who had joined themselves with the Gnostic-like opposition to Paul already evident in 1 Cor. Or put another way, a “Corinthianization” of the intruding Judaizers appears to best explain the coming together of seemingly incompatible traits that surface in 2 Cor (O’Conner 1991, 15). The influence of culture at Corinth was both subtle and strong. “How does one participate fully in the power of the Spirit?” may well have been a common question asked on the one hand by the Cor from their Hellenistic worldview and on the other by the concern of the Palestinians with their Jewish heritage. Both believed that their perspective provided a more powerful experience of the Spirit than that found in Paul’s gospel. Their tendency was in the direction of “a theology of glory” that Paul countered with a presentation of the relationship between the power of the Spirit and suffering in his apostolic ministry (Hafemann 2000, 34).

Authorship and Authenticity

Along with 1 Cor, 2 Cor claims in its salutation to come from the hand of Paul: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ . . . To the church of God in Corinth" (2 Cor 1:1). All literary indications within the letter, both stylistic and doctrinal, confirm this claim. Although the historical attestation for 1 Cor is as early as Clement of Rome in A.D. 95 or 96, the attestation for 2 Cor is ambiguous until mid-second century. In 62-64 C. E., Polycarp of Smyrna in his letter to Philippians, alludes to 2 Cor 3:2; 4:14; 5:10; and possibly 6:7 and 8:21. Irenaeus of Lyons writing toward the end of the second century both quotes from the letter and names it. So the letter is widely known by the second half of the second century and finds it place in both the Marcion’s Canon (140 C. E.) and in the Muratorian Canon (late second century). As a result, the genuineness of the Pauline authorship of 2 Cor and its rightful place in the Pauline corpus remains undisputed in the main in contemporary critical scholarship (Plummer 1915, xi-xii, Thrall 2004, 2-3, Harris 2005, 1-3). The only exception to the authenticity of 2 Cor is 6:14--7:1, which some view as a non-Pauline interpolation into the letter. Its distinct vocabulary and subject matter convince some that it derives from a Jewish source, perhaps influenced by the Qumran documents (Hafemann 2000, 31). Since the problems concerning this passage belong as well to the question of the unity of 2 Cor, we discuss them in more detail below.

Unity

In considerations of unity of the letter 6:14—7:1 is not the only problem. In spite of the fact that there is no supporting evidence in the history of the transmission of the text, many scholars hold that 2 Cor is a collection of letters or fragments of letters written by the apostle wrote to the Corinthian church at various times. The manuscript evidence knows no exception to the present content and order of the material in the canonical 2 Cor. So the question of the integrity of the letter narrows to an exegetical one, that is, to an assessment of the internal evidence. On the one hand a convincing motive for a secondary combination must be recognizable before the unity of the letter is abandoned. On the other hand in order to defend the unity of the letter, the nature of the transitions at each point calls for a credible explanation. These transition issues will be noted in the process of our exegesis of the text. Since in the course of critical scholarship the partition theories have become very complex we will handle the unity problem by looking at the four passages that have become the focus of dispute. They are 2:14—7:4; 6:14—7:1, 8:1—9:15; and 10:1—13:13. We will attempt to define the issues in each passage and present the main reasons given for them. Following the order of the canonical text of 2 Cor we begin with 2:14--7:4 (minus 6:14-7:1). Is this segment with its internal literary unity, a separate letter of defense (Mitchell 2003, 21), or a digression in which Paul pauses more directly to defend his apostolic ministry and thus is an integral part of chapters 1-7 (Harris 2005, 14). The main reason given for the former is the abrupt transition from 2:13 to 1:14 and from 7:4 to 7:5 and the smooth transition from 2:13 to 7:5 if 2:14—7:4 are left out. This is argued first in terms of subject matter. Paul has described his anxious state while awaiting the return of Titus from Corinth in 2:12-13: “I still had no peace of mind.” (see 9:5). But he breaks off the travel narrative until 7:5-16 where he describes the comfort brought by the return of Titus”: “But God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus” (7:6). Other reasons can be given for this, primarily that Paul may not have intended to give a continuous account of the events concerning the reception of the sorrowful letter (Thrall 2004, 21-24). The second argument has to do with discontinuity of language at the two transition points, 2:13-14 and 7:4-5. In the first transition, the text shifts abruptly from a conciliatory to an argumentative tone, from a biographical report to a thanksgiving: “But thanks be to God, . . .” In the second, by another change in tone from 7:4 to 7:5, from “I am greatly encouraged” to “this body of ours had no rest.” The opposing consideration to the first transition contrasts the weakness of the human instrument (2:12-13) with the power of God that ”leads us in triumphal procession . . . everywhere” in the proclamation of the gospel (2:14). This contrast is inherent to the thought of the letter. The argument concerning the second transition is countered in the minds of many by the verbal similarities between 7:4 (kauchēsis, paraklēsei, chara, thlipsei) and 7:5-16 (Harris 2005, 12-13, see 7: 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14). In addition, joining 2:13 directly to 7:5 is an awkward shift. So the probabilities appear to be on 2:14-7:4 belonging to its present literary context. To make it an interpolation does not fully satisfy the two tests for unity suggested above. Next is 6:14—7:1 that is considered by many as an interpolation of non-Pauline material either by a later redactor or by Paul himself. Its rightful place in its canonical context is questioned because it appears as an abrupt interruption of the thought connection between 6:13 and 7:2. “Open wide your hearts also” ends 6:13 and “make room for us in your hearts” begins 7:2. But it can be claimed that to connect 6:13 with 7:2 makes for a rough transition, for 7:2 reads like a resumption of an appeal after an interruption. Harris sees a confirmation of this in the chiastic structure of 6:11-13 and 7:2-4, that is, 7:2-4 takes up the thought of 6:11-13 in reverse order, a conscious rhetorical device (Harris 2005, 16-17). It is questioned also because the subject matter does not seem to fit the context. It is rather an interpolated fragment of an earlier letter known as the "previous letter" (1 Cor. 5: 9) that warns against fellowship with a fornicator "who calls himself a brother" (1 Cor. 5:11). Here, however, the warning is against being “yoked together with unbelievers" (6:14). In addition, connections can be found between every verse in 6:13—7:1 and the preceding sections of the letter such as the clear-cut distinction between believers and unbelievers (Thrall 2004, 27-28). If the passage is considered simply a digression, Paul could have paused, after asking the Corinthians to open their hearts wide to him, to warn them against dangerous compromises with paganism. This may be an example of the apostle's tendency to digress, due here perhaps, to his possibly having written the letter at several sittings. With reference to rhetorical practice McCant sees this paragraph as an epideictic digression where Paul goes on the offensive (McCant 1999, 63-64; see Witherington 1995, 402, as well for the function of digression in rhetorical discourse). A more serious question is that of the Pauline character of the passage. Is it Paul’s own composition, and if so, did he write it either in the writing of 2 Cor or was it inserted later by him from perhaps an earlier homily? Some of the vocabulary is not typical of Paul, and the Pauline vocabulary present is employed in non-Pauline ways. Further does the fact that some of the vocabulary has clear affinities to that of Qumran language and thought forms indicate that it is a piece of Christianized Essene theology used perhaps in the church as baptismal liturgy? (see Fitzmyer 1971, 25-217). Yet the similarities are not limited to Qumran and this passage, but are in evidence throughout the New Testament and particularly in Paul (Harris 2005, 19-20). These include such things as the dualism of light and darkness and the Christian community as the temple of God. Thrall asserts that there are enough genuine Pauline characteristics present in 6:14—7:1 that it cannot be proved conclusively that Paul did not write the passage (2004, 34-35). Harris concludes that despite the non-Pauline feature, its uncontestable Pauline characteristics and its place in a genuine Pauline letter 6:14—7:1 “stem in toto from Paul’s own hand” (2005, 25). He admits, however, that Paul may have composed it at an earlier time under Essence influence and incorporated it “as a digressive appeal to the Cor to sever all ties with paganism and thereby become fully reconciled to their father in the faith” (Harris 2005. 25). We suggest that whether or not Paul wrote it, it belongs to the time and process of the composition of 2 Cor by the apostle (see McCant 1999, 62-64). The gain is that in the making of such controversial decisions we are led to examine the text more closely than we otherwise might have in the process of the exegesis that follows (see Further Reading on 2 Cor 6:14—7:1). When it comes to 8:1—9:15 the partition theories are bewilderingly varied in the history of Pauline scholarship. A recent reconstruction is a typical example. Mitchell, considers 8:1-24 and 9:1-15 as separate letters. Chapter 8 was sent as a fundraising follow-up letter to 1 Cor. Chapter 9 was a final fund-raising letter sent to Achia sent after the remainder of 2 Cor, conceived of as four separate letters (2003, 21). A contemporary variation is that of Thrall who conceives of chapter 8 as belonging to chapters 1-7. But for her chapter 9 is a separate letter sent later, yet before chapters 10-13 (2004, 38-43; see Betz 1985, 3-41, 129-145, for a detailed treatment of two separate letters). Some also put chapters 8 and 9 together as a unified separate letter. In summary the issues can be viewed as two: Do chapters 8 and 9 belong together and are the two chapters an integral part of the larger letter? The reasons for the separation of chapters 8 and 9 include content—redundancy and discrepancies—and change in atmosphere. In answer to these it is claimed that there is a network of specific links between the two chapters and the differences can be satisfactorily accounted for (Harris 2005, 37-38; see McCant 1999, 75-77 for a detailed refutation of Betz’s proposal). As to their relation to the larger letter Mitchell sees the parallelism in both content and expression between 12:17-18 and 8:6, 18, relating to the coming of Titus to Corinth, as strong evidence that the fund-raising letter, at least chapter 8, had been received by the church before the writing and reception of chapters 10-13 (2003, 22). In her view, chapter 8 as an earlier letter contributed to the deterioration of the relationship between Paul and the Cor (2003, 23). The most probable solution among others is that 8:6 could refer to an early visit by Titus to prepare the way for the collection, and 8:18, 22, to the visit which carries the appeal of chapters 8 and 9. The reference then in 12:17-18 would be to the earlier visit reported in 8:6. The troubling transition from chapters 1-7 to chapters 8-9 is understandable as a move from apologetic to exhortation in line with a change of subject and purpose. Reconciliation with the church had taken place as reported by the coming of Titus to Paul. Now he takes up the task of reviving the collection project at Corinth. His reconciliation with them affords an effective base from which to launch his appeal. If chapters 8 and 9 belong together, then there is little difficulty in seeing them as a proper addition to chapters 1-7. Almost all scholars who keep the chapters together do not separate them from chapters 1-7 (Harris 2005, 29). The most likely partition hypothesis proposed by many scholars is chapters 10-13 considered as a separate letter. In the history of Corinthian scholarship, this has been set forth in two forms. One form is the assumption that chapters 10–13 were written earlier than chapters 1-9 and constitute the "sorrowful" letter (2:3-9). This letter written "out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears" (2: 4) appears to have brought about the reconciliation of the church as a whole with Paul (7: 6-16). A classic defense of this view is that of Plummer (1915, xxvii-xxxvi). A second form of this hypothesis, defended more widely in recent scholarship, sees it as the last of five letters written to the church at Corinth, written after 2 Cor 1-9. Apparently, as these chapters seem to indicate, the situation at Corinth instead of getting better had taken a turn for the worse due in part to the “intruders” into the church. Getting news of the new developments, Paul wrote a more hard-hitting letter in preparation for another visit to Corinth (13:2, 10). The classic recent defense of this view is that of Thrall (2004, 5-20, 77). Among other reasons, since nothing is said in cc. 1–9 about the reaction of the congregation to the polemic against the false apostles of chapters 10-13, we view this second form of the hypothesis as the more viable one. The essential partition issue is of course the separation of chapters 10-13 from chapters 1-9 as a separate letter. The problem arises primarily out of a change from a sense of an accomplished reconciliation (chs 1-9) to a renewed attack against "some" (10:2) in the church whom Paul calls "false apostles" (11:13). Paul fears that when he comes he will not find them as he would want them to be (12:20), and if so, he "will not spare" (13:2). Additional arguments include the incompatibility of the general tone and attitude of these chapters with chapters 1-9, a different attitude and situation in Corinth, the abrupt transition at 10:1 from what precedes, and that the imminent visit promised in 12:14 and 13:1 is not even intimated in the earlier chapters (Thrall 2004, 5-6; Harris 2005, 29-33). The decisive question is whether or not it is possible for chapters 10-13 to have stood in the same Epistle with chapters 1-9. Some basic considerations are said to remove the supposed impossibility of the two sections standing together. The first is that, although Paul does appear to change his position in respect to the church in the latter section, there are indications in the previous chapters that all is not right with the church. There are defenses against a misinterpretation of the conduct of his ministry (4: 2-6; 5:11-15; 7: 2) and a polemic against other traveling preachers (2:17--3:1; see 4: 2-5). Second, the polemic of 2:17 is expanded in chapters 10-13 where Paul indicates that it is only specific persons in the church who are attacking him (10:2; 11:5, 12:15, 21; 13:2). Paul may be writing to the majority, who are reconciled with him, to support them in their handling of the dangerous minority, at whose center are the "false apostles" (11:13). The increased antagonism to Paul in evidence in chapters 10-13 that appears indicate a different and later situation in the church may indicate that there was a lapse of time between the writing of the two sections that would allow for the deterioration to take place (Harris 2005, 38-39). Witherington, however, does not see the need of any time gap in writing between chs 1-9 and 10-13 to account for the sudden change in tone and atmosphere. These are explained rather by the rhetorical conventions that Paul is following (1995, 431; see 429-432). Third, the theme of strength through weakness pervades the whole of 2 Cor. The whole argument for the genuineness of Paul's apostolic authority is bound up in this theme: “It is by the amazing contrast between his own frailty and the all-conquering strength of God manifested through him that his apostleship is unshakably authenticated to the world” (Hughes 1962, xxx). Matera comments that Paul could not have written as he did in chs 10-13 if he had not laid the theological foundation in 2:14—7:4, which he calls “the heart and soul of 2 Corinthians” (2003, 66). After examining the arguments for chs 10-13 as part of Paul’s original letter pro and con , Young and Ford conclude that ultimately “the only serious argument is the psychological one” (1987 31). Finally a defense of the unity can be made from the viewpoint of ancient rhetoric. 2 Cor is to be taken as a compositional whole as an example of forensic or judicial rhetoric (Witherington, 333-336, McCant 1999, 13-15). In conclusion the evidence and arguments for chapters 10-13 being a separate letter written and sent later than chapters 1-9 are fully convincing for many. Thrall, for example, concludes her very detailed arguments pro and con by saying that there seems to be no decisive reason to reject viewing chapters 10-13 as a separate letter (2004, 20). Yet those who hold to the unity of 2 Cor find explanations for the textual data and considerations used to deny the unity (2005, Harris, 29-51). Allowing that the letter was perhaps written in three stages (1-7, 8-9, and 10-13) we will leave the issue of the writing of chapters 10-13 open in theory. We will interpret the text, however, on the assumption that chapters 10-13 are later than chapters 1-9 and that the letter makes sense in its canonical form.

Purpose

The apostle states his general purpose in writing in 12:19, “everything we do, dear friends, is for your strengthening.” To this Paul adds in 13:9 that his” prayer is for your perfection.” He writes to aid in their building up (oikodomēs) in the faith and in their maturation (katartisis) in Christian living, in their relation to God and to one another. The three well-defined sections of the letter (1:1—7:16; 8:1—9:15; 10:1—13:14) reflect the perspective of the apostle in the successive phases of his relations with the church. Each prepares for the next. As he is writing, 1:1—7:16 look back to their history with a defense of the legitimacy of his apostleship and to his anxiety and relief in relation to the mission of Titus with Paul’s “sorrowful letter.” Next, 8:1—9:15 reflect his present position as he seeks to motivate their generosity and complete the promised collection before his next visit. The final section, 10:1—13:14 looks ahead to some factors that still need attention in the church as he seeks to help them recognize the criteria for authentic apostleship and concludes with words of exhortation and encouragement. All these plus other secondary purposes evident throughout the letter, suggests Harris (2005, 52-53), serve Paul’s overarching specific purpose of preparing the way for an enjoyable and successful third visit by the apostle. It appears that Paul’s third visit probably was successful (Acts 20:2-3).

D. LITERARY FEATURES

Genre

The quest for the literary genre of 2 Cor is most interesting. Obviously it is related to the Graeco-Roman letters of the Hellenistic period. This is seen by the similarity of the salutation (1:1-2) and the closing (13:11-14) to the conventions of the Hellenistic letter (see Doty 1973, 27-42, and commentary on the verses cited). 2 Cor was a letter written to a designated people and directed to a specific situation. The letter was in place of his person, as if he were present speaking to them. 2 Cor was intended to be read to the church as a whole, and probably more than once for the instruction and admonition of the congregation. Paul adapted and expanded the various elements of the traditional form to his pastoral—ethical and theological—concerns as an apostle of Christ. Thus in form the letter stands somewhere between the private letter and the more literary epistle. From the standpoint of letter or epistolary form 2 Cor can be viewed as follows 1:1-2 Salutation 1:3-11 Blessing 1:12-13:10 Body 13:11-14 Closing Paraenetic or ethical material appears at various points in the letter as well as other literary forms or sub-genres that will be noted in the course of the interpretation of the text. The question of the literary genre of 2 Cor does not end, however, with its similarity to the ancient Hellenistic letter. Young and Ford, for example suggest that the closest analogy to 2 Cor is a letter purported to be written by Demosthenes (Ep. 2.), an apologetic speech in epistolary form (1987, 37). This raises the question of its relation to Greek rhetoric. Their judgment and that of others examining 2 Cor from the standpoint of classical rhetoric is that the letter makes ample use of forensic or judicial rhetoric. This does not assume that Paul knew the writings of Demosthenes or others like him though he may have been aware of the handbooks. As an educated person of the first century Paul would “have been hard put to escape an awareness of rhetoric as practiced in the culture around [him] for the rhetorical theory of the schools found its immediate application in almost every form of oral and written communication” (Kennedy 1984, 10). The three species of rhetoric employed were judicial, deliberative, and epideictic. The most common of these, judicial or forensic, aimed at persuading the audience to make a judgment about past events. Rhetoric was deliberative when it sought to persuade the audience regarding some future action, and it was epideictic when it seeks to persuade to praise or blame someone as to actions in the present (Kennedy 1984, 19; Harris 2005, 106). The classical rhetorical handbooks present the six parts of the judicial speech as outlined by Harris (2005, 106): 1. exordium (introduction), which establishes the speaker’s (or writer’s) good moral character (ēthos) and seeks to ensure the audience’s receptivity, 2. narratio (narration), which states the agreed facts of the case, 3. propositio (proposition), which sets out the basic facts to be proven true or false and areas of agreement or disagreement with the opponent. 4. probatio or argumentatio (proof), which gives the reasoning (logos) in support of the speaker’s case, 5. refutatio (refutation), which disproves or impairs the opponents arguments, and 6. peroratio (conclusion), which sums up the case and seeks to arouse the audience’s sympathetic emotions (pathos). Several analyses have been proposed in the literature. Since in the course of the commentary we refer often to the analysis of Witherington (1995 335-336), we give his as one example: Epistolary prescript (1:1-2). Epistolary thanksgiving and exordium (1:3-7). Narratio (18-2:14). Propositio (2:17). Probatio and refutatio (3:1—13:4), which includes Paul’s characterization of his ministry (3:1—6:13), a deliberative digression (6:14-7:1), Paul’s defense of the severe letter (7:2-16), a largely deliberative argument concerning the collection (chs. 8 and 9), and a rhetorical synkrisis (comparison) of Paul and his competitors in Corinth, the false apostoloi, with a strong emotional appeal. Peroratio (13:5-10). Closing epistolary greetings and remarks (13:11-13 [14]) Harris (2005, 107-108) presents several analyses including that of Kennedy (1984, 87-91; see also Young and Ford (1987, 38-40). To what extent should we view the genre of 2 Cor through the lens of judicial rhetoric? Young and Ford, for example, conclude that “2 Corinthians was self-consciously conceived as an apology according to the norms of the day” and “that the thrust of Paul’s argument is clear, provided we take the text as a unity, and understand its genre as that of an apologetic letter” (1987, 43, 54-55; see also McCant 1999, 13-16 who sees the letter as “a parody of defense”). Harris, however, sounds some warnings. Paul was negative against especially the ornamental rhetoric of his day (see 1 Cor 1:20). As his argument in chs 10-13 against rhetorical skills of his opponents in Corinth would indicate in his presentations he had confidence in the truth, in rational appeal, and in the persuasiveness of the Holy Spirit. He disparaged dependence on sheer rhetorical skill: “form was always secondary to content; style was invariably the servant of substance” (2005, 109). Harris’ conclusion is cautious but helpful. First it is doubtful that the apostle “would have consciously developed his argumentation in accordance with the successive divisions of forensic or deliberative or epideictic rhetoric.” Second, any document of the extent of 2 Cor “that is (1) written by a highly educated person, (2) apologetic in character, (3) logical in presentation, and (4) aimed at winning over an audience and influencing their way of thinking and acting is likely to display the basic ingredients of forensic, deliberative, or epideictic rhetoric” (2005, 108-110). Regardless of the precise relation of 2 Cor to the apologetic or forensic speech, attention to the rhetorical background will help us to appreciate and understand more accurately Paul pours out his apostolic heart to the Corinthians.

Content Analysis

The apostle Paul writes this letter to alleviate his troubled relationship with the church at Corinth. This leads him to an appeal to the conduct and character of his ministry that had come under fire in the church. Paul defines his ministry in terms of the gospel that he has both preached to them, the gospel of the Cross and Resurrection of Christ. This they had received gladly and the church was born in Corinth. The Corinthians themselves then, are the proof of his ministry as his children in the faith. As such they should respond to his care and love for them in full reconciliation with him. Some in the church, however, have listened to intruding “preachers” who have sought to undermine Paul’s standing with the Corinthians. Paul introduces his letter (1:1-11) with a Christianized form of the standard Hellenistic greeting (1:1-2). As “an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God” (v 1) along with his co-worker Timothy, he addresses the Christians in Corinth and surrounding area. The greeting is followed by a benediction-like blessing (1:3-7) that strikes the key theological theme of the letter. Paul blesses “the God of all comfort” (v 3) for his comfort with which the apostle in turn can comfort the Corinthians. This comfort he knows through his troubles suffered ministry that he identifies with “the sufferings of Christ” (v 5). As Paul testifies out of his own experience in a time of deadly peril (1:8-11), his participation in the sufferings of Christ gives rise to hope in the God “who raises the dead” (v 9). God has delivered him and will continue to deliver him by the aid of the Corinthian’s prayers, for which thanks is given. Thus already Paul defines his ministry as a sharing in the sufferings of Christ enabling his ministry to the Corinthians. The apostle now moves into a major section of the letter in which he seeks to justify the conduct of his ministry in relation to the church at Corinth (1:12—7:16). The first issue is his travel plans that he has felt necessary to change (1:12—2:13). For this Paul is accused of vacillation, of possessing a “‘Yes’ and ‘No’” (v 18) character. His first response is that his conduct and his correspondence has been sincere in the grace of God (1:12-14) and that his decisions have been grounded in the character of God as revealed in the gospel he has preached to them (1:15-22). Paul does not lord it over their faith for it was out of his love and care for them that he did not come as planned (1:15—2:13). It was to spare them and him more pain like he had caused them by a previous “sorrowful letter.” Paul explains his movements to Troas where the Lord had opened the door to preach the gospel. But he found no peace of mind there for he did not find Titus. So he proceeded on to Macedonia. The second issue Paul faced is the crucial one, that is, the very nature of his apostolic ministry, that he now seeks to defend (2:14—6:10). As he begins to expound the character of his calling he pauses to thank God for leading him as a triumphal prisoner everywhere he goes as “the aroma of Christ” (2:14-17; v 15). As such the apostolic ministry possesses the power of life and death. With divine integrity Paul carries the message of “the word of God” (v 17), a task to which he is not equal. Revealing his heart about his apostolic calling Paul attempts to lead the Corinthians into an understanding of his ministry that will contribute to reconciliation. So he presents his ministry as “a ministry of the Spirit” (3:1—4:6), “a ministry of suffering” (4:7—5:10), and as “a ministry of reconciliation” (5:11—6:10). As he commends his ministry as one of “the Spirit,” Paul first has to answer the charge of self-commendation (3:1-3). He needs no letters of commendation, he says, because the Corinthians themselves are his letter of commendation written on his heart. Paul then proceeds to define his ministry as that of a new covenant whose adequacy is not one of the letter, but that of the life-giving Spirit (3:4-6). Using the example of the fading radiance on the face of Moses as he came down from the mountain (Exod 34:29-35), he illustrates how the glory of the new covenant exceeds that of the old covenant (3:7-11). Therefore, with such a ministry comes a new freedom, a new boldness in proclamation, and new possibilities for transformation (3:12-18). The new liberty of the Spirit makes for (grants, allows a) life-long conversion of life and character into the likeness of Christ, for now one is privileged to see the glory of the Lord as in a mirror. Thus Paul, having such a “Spirit-ministry,” is encouraged for his ministry is open to everyone’s inspection in the sight of God and hidden only to the perishing, (4:1-6). It is a servant ministry possessed by “the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (v 6). Paul continues his presentation of “this ministry” (v 1) as he delves more deeply into his new covenant ministry as one of “suffering.” (4:7—5:10). As a “treasure in jars of clay” (v 7) his suffering in the conduct of his ministry is one that through its participation in the dying of Jesus releases the resurrection life of Jesus into the lives of the Corinthians (4:7-15). The fruit is faith in the future resurrection for both Paul and the Corinthian believers. Again, all can be encouraged for while the outward life declines, the inward life is on the increase (4:16-18): “what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (v 18). This affirmation leads Paul into an exposition of the Christian’s hope for the heavenly home (5:1-10). It is a hope that by faith, possessed of the Spirit, seeks to live pleasing to Christ in anticipation of the judgment. Jolted back to reality by his mention of the final judgment Paul returns to his concern for reconciliation with the Corinthians for “this ministry” (v 1) is supremely one of reconciliation (5:11—6:10). The apostle first turns to his motives in ministry that are grounded in his fear of the Lord, the love of Christ, and the meaning of Christ death (5:11-15): “those who live should no longer live for themselves” (v 15). This leads Paul to the very heart of the matter, to the very character of his message, the “God . . . in Christ” event of reconciliation (5:16-21). Through this, all is now viewed and from it come both the ministry and the message (“word”) of reconciliation: “Be reconciled to God” (v 20). As urges his readers to receive God’s grace, Paul concludes this third presentation of his ministry with a description of his life in ministry (6:1-10). Expressed in paradoxical form, it is the life of a true apostle as one of suffering: “having nothing, and yet possessing everything” (v 10). In a new section Paul resumes the matter of his relationship with the Corinthians as he reaffirms his love for them with an appeal based on his "great confidence" (7:4, 16) in them (6:11—7:16). For some reason the apostle interrupts the call for renewed mutual affection (6:11-13; 7:2-4) with an exhortation separated living (6:14—7:1). In relation to unbelievers the Corinthians are to maintain the holiness of life appropriate to their being the temple and family of God. Paul then returns to his call for mutual affection with an intense affirmation of his love for them: “you are in our hearts to die together and to live together” (v 3 NASB). The apostle closes the section with a report of Titus' role in the reconciliation of Paul with the church at Corinth (7:5-16; see 2:12-13). With what feels like a digression Paul brings up the matter of the collection that he has been promoting among his missionary churches in Galatia, Achaia, Asia, and Macedonia for the aid of the poor in the Jerusalem Christian community (8:1—9:15). Apparently viewed as very significant for his ministry, with it he offered the Corinthians yet another opportunity to demonstrate their genuineness and their confidence in him by completing the offering. Paul encourages them to do this first by the example of the liberality of the Macedonians (8:1-7) and then by the challenge of the liberality of Christ (8:8-15): “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor” (v 9). To complete the offering with delicate care he assigns the task to a delegation of Titus and companions and sends them on their way (8:16—9:5). With 10:1—13:14 comes a new and final section of the letter. Apparently the situation in the church has worsened after Paul completed chs 8-9. He concentrates more on the vindication of his apostolic authority. This has been undermined in the church by intruding “false apostles” (11:13) and their negative influence on the church. As Paul deals with this he is concerned as well to prepare the way for his third visit to the Corinthians. In the process the character of a true apostolic ministry is clearly exposed. These chapters fall into three discernable parts. In 10:1-18 Paul answers his opponents in Corinth in defense of his integrity as an apostle. In 11:1-12:13 he plays the part of a fool as he indulges in boasting. Finally in 12:14–13:10, anticipating his third visit, Paul exhorts the church to set itself in order and mend their ways lest he find it necessary to resort to discipline when he comes. An exhortation and a benediction conclude the letter in 13:11-14. As Paul answers his opponents, probably Judaizers, in 10:1-18 he asserts first that that the methods of his apostolic ministry are spiritual, not carnal (10:1-6). This means that he does not want to come as a disciplinarian unless it is necessary. His “weapons . . . are not the weapons of the world,” yet “they have divine power . . . to demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (vv 4-5). Therefore, Paul’s conduct and his letters, that is, his exercise of apostolic authority, is consistent with who he is as one belonging to Christ (10:7-11). What boasting he is compelled to do about his ministry is more legitimate than that of his opponents (10:12-18). Contrary to their measuring of “themselves by themselves” (v 12), Paul will not boast beyond the proper limits of what God has assigned to him. With 11:1—12:13 Paul sharpens his polemic in what we know as “the fool’s speech.” He becomes more specific in his boast, yet uses it to reveal the heart of who he is as an apostle in likeness to his crucified and risen Lord. The apostle appeals to the Corinthians to put up with his foolishness for two reasons (11:1-6). First, because of his urgent concern for their spiritual welfare, and second because he needs to show that he is in no way inferior to the intruding “super-apostles” (v 5). The latter had used Paul’s refusal to accept financial support from the Corinthians against him so he proceeds to defend his motives in doling so (11:7-15). His motives are in stark contrast to those of his accusers whom he severely labels as “deceitful workers,” indeed, “false apostles” (v 13). Because reluctantly Paul has to adopt the boastful tactics of the intruders, he renews his appeal to bear with him by showing how foolish such boasting is (11:16-21a). After all, he writes, they “gladly put up with fools” (v 19) as he describes the abusive tactics of the visitors in Corinth and ironically apologizes for being so weak in comparison. So as he says, “like a madman” (v 23 NRSV), Paul launches his boast (11:21b—12:10). This he does in two forms. As Paul boasts of “the things that show my weakness” (v 30) he first catalogs the suffering and humiliations he has endured in the course of his apostolic ministry (vv 21b-33). The second phase of his “foolishness of boasting” he calls “visions and revelations from the Lord” (12:1-10). Paul begins these with a report of a heavenly experience about which he refuses to boast lest anyone think more of him than what they can hear or see (vv 1-6). He then moves on to an account of his thorn in the flesh which leads him to confess that his apostolic ministry is in essence one of power made perfect through weakness (vv 7-10): “Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me” (v 9). Before moving on to his final concern, his plans for a third visit (12:14—13:10), Paul brings his “fool’s speech” to an end with one last word about is conduct in Corinth (12:11-13). He again mentions his foolishness, asserts anew his equality with his rivals, emphasizes the authenticity of his ministry in Corinth, and reminds them that he did not mistreat them in sparing them his financial support. As Paul approaches the end of his letter to the Corinthians, the apostle prepares the way for his third visit) 12:14—13:10): "Now I am ready to come to you" (12:14)—and they too must prepare for his coming. To this end Paul returns to his financial policy in relation to the church at Corinth (12:14-18). He has not taken any advantage of them, for he loves them sacrificially. In his concern for their welfare, he is fearful, however, as to the spiritual and moral condition in which he may find them to his sorrow (12:19-21). Putting words to his fears, with a final warning, Paul seeks to encourage a change of behavior. When he comes the third time he will be as firm in his discipline as their situation demands (13:1-4). He will give them the proof that Christ is speaking in him as he appeals again to Christ crucified and risen in relation to his ministry among them! Paul’s theme of weakness has come to its final expression. Paul now challenges them for proof of their Christian faith. He has some confidence that the Corinthians will be able to correct their situation and he will not have to deal severely with them (13:5-10). His prayer remains for their perfection in the faith. Paul brings his letter to a close with an appropriate conclusion with an exhortation, a greeting, and a benediction (13:11-14). Reflecting back on what he has written he ends the letter with his Christianized greeting that contains one last appeal for their spiritual welfare (vv 11-13). Paul’s desire for their full enjoyment of the full blessing of God he express in a concluding “Trinitarian-like” benediction (v 14). Paul’s concerns for the church has permeated every facet of his closing words, even the benediction: “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” Text The transmission of the Greek text of 2 Corinthians is so trouble free that few of the even critical commentaries discuss it in their introduction. Significant variants will be discussed briefly as they appear in the course of our exegesis of the text. Their exist approximately 5,700 Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. Witnesses to the text include the Greek papyri, Greek majuscule manuscripts, Greek minuscule manuscripts, and the ancient versions of the New Testament. We will list the more important ones in each category and indicate the extent of their inclusion of the text of 2 Corinthians (see Metzger 2005, 52-134; Plummer 1915, liii-lv).

Greek Papyri p46 a Chester Beatty biblical papyrus (about 200 C.E.), all of 2 Corinthians. Greek Majuscule Manuscipts אּ Sinaiticus (fourth century), all of 2 Corinthians A Alexandrinus (fifth century), missing 4:13—12:6 of 2 Corinthians B Vaticanus (fourth century), all of 2 Corinthians C Ephraemi (fifth century), missing 10:8—12:14 of 2 Corinthians Dp Claromontanus (sixth century), all of 2 Corinthians Hp Coislinianus (sixth century), contains 4:2-7 (at Petrograd) and 10:18-11:6 (at Athos) Greek Minuscule Manuscripts 33 “the queen of the cursives” (ninth century), all of 2 Corinthians Ancient Versions (known from differing manuscripts) Peshitta or Syriac Vulgate (fifth century), all of 2 Corinthians Old Latin versions (third century), a few fragments of 2 Corinthians Latin Vulgate (fourth century), all of 2 Corinthians Coptic Sahidic (third century), only fragments Coptic Boharic (late?), only fragments

THEOLOGICAL THEMES For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us (4:6-7). For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God's power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God's power we will live with him to serve you (13:4). The theology imbedded in 2 Cor is simply Christology, the mysterious and profound deed of Christ crucified and risen. Christology functions for Paul both as a telescope and a microscope. He looks through it at everything involved in his apostolic calling. Whether his gaze is lifted up to God the Father or brought down to the humiliations, hardships, and dangers he encountered in the course of his ministry, all take on the meaning of his life in relation to Jesus the Christ. Whether Paul is probing the grandeur of the work of the Holy Spirit or defining his ministry to those who look upon it with disdain, the key to each is the person and work of the Christ. Real to his life and thought with implications for the gospel he preaches, for the nature of the Church, and for the life of the Christian is the dying of the Jesus who yet lives by the power of God. A Christology that radically transforms all that it touches, can we say, is the distinctive contribution of 2 Cor to the theology of the NT. So from Paul’s Christological perspective we will examine briefly the themes of God, the gospel, and the ministry. We presuppose the interpretation of the texts employed as set forth in the commentary.

God By definition theology starts with God. To think (logos) about God (theos) is to do theology. And for Paul to think about “the living God” (3:3), he looks first into “the face of Christ” where “a human face [is] united with the being of God” (Young and Ford 1987, 255). There one sees fully “the glory of God.” In “the face of Christ” is where the creator God who said “Let light shine out of darkness,” shines into human minds and hearts to give the “light of the knowledge” of himself. What did Paul understand about his theos? What kind of a God revealed himself to Paul in the face of his Lord? Paul attributes his calling as an apostle of Christ Jesus to the “will of God” (1:1). For him God is the one above all who actively determines his life in Christ just as the Macedonians first gave themselves to the Lord and then to the apostles “in keeping with God’s will” (8:5). Thus all believers and all Christian communities belong to God as “the church of God” (1:1). To all these then the apostle sends his greeting of “grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:2). The greeting comes from God and Jesus as both are inherent to the very being of the church and its apostle. Paul’s opening description of God to the church at Corinth is as “our Father” (1:2). Understood in the context of his Jewish background and the traditions of the earthly Jesus, God is first a Father (1:2, 3). It was Jesus who taught the first disciples to pray “Father” (Luke 11:3; Matt 6:9; see Matt 11:25-27). With this heritage God became for the great apostle primarily and most of all the “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:30; 11:31). Paul can speak of “the Son of God, Jesus Christ” (1:19; see 1 Cor 1:9; only here in the Cor letters, but frequent in Romans). As Father and Son, each defines the other. They are the single source of all that Paul sees and receives from God. Thus God and Christ are to be blessed or praised (1:3). To God thanks (2:14; 8:16; 9:11-12, 15) and prayers (13:7, 9; see 1:11; 9:14) are to be directed. Paul identifies God’s character first as “the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort” (1:3). The attribute “compassion” [oitirmōn], literally “mercies” (NRSV), Paul uses elsewhere both of God (Rom 12:1) and of Christ (Phil 2:1). Divine blessing, salvation, calling, and life all flow out from them. As “the God of all comfort” [parklēseōs] or “encouragement” (Young and Ford 1987, 262), God (1:4) and Christ (1:5) are the source of the apostles’ comfort in all their troubles (see also 7:6). Thus the apostles can comfort/encourage the Corinthians with “the comfort we ourselves have received from God” (1:4). Significantly their ability to comfort others with the comfort of God is due to “the sufferings of Christ” (1:5) overflowing into their ministries (1:7). With such a source, the theme of mutual comfort flows through the entire letter ([parklēseōs] 1:5, 6, 7; 7:4, 13; [parakaleō] 1:4, 6; 2:7; 7:7, 13).   Central to Paul’s faith in God was the God “who raises the dead” (1:9). Spoken in the throes of a deadly trial from which he was delivered, the phrase reaches to the height of NT faith. For the God “who raises the dead” is precisely the God “who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead” (4:14). Had Paul not written to the Corinthians earlier that “if Christ has not been raised your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Cor 15:17)? It is this very character of God that allows Paul to affirm that God “will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence” (4:14). Such a God is the guarantee that “we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven” (5:1) in which “to appear before the judgment seat of Christ” (5:10). As in Paul’s first mention of the God who raises the dead (1:9) this is the kind of God who is at work in the ministries of his servants. With Christ who now “lives by God’s power” Paul writes, also “by God’s power we will live with him to serve you” (13:4). Paul conducts his ministry in a manner that shows that “this all surpassing power is from God and not from us” (4:7; 6:7). The resurrection power of God in Christ applies then not only to our death, but also to our lives and ministries (7:3). God is the God of the Resurrection, an essential dimension of the story of God. For Paul, God is the one whose “grace” thoroughly characterizes his ministry (1:12). The “holiness and sincerity” that rules his conduct in the world and with the Corinthians are from God (1:12). His message to them is a “Yes” (1:19) because “God is faithful” to him (1:18). Faithful because “the Son of God, Jesus Christ” (1:19) whom he and his companions preached in Corinth is a “Yes” to the “many promises of God” (1:20). “In Christ” God has made them all “stand firm,” for he has “anointed” them, “set his seal of ownership” on them, “and put his Spirit” in their “hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come” (1:21-22; see 5:5). God’s action by his Spirit in the ministry of his apostles is in his Son, Jesus. As is already obvious, Paul attributes his ministry directly to God. It is God “who always leads us in triumphal procession” (2:1) and it is “the word of God” [ton tou logon theou 2:17; 4:20; see 5:19] that he proclaims. Yet his apostolic triumph is only and comprehensively “in Christ” (2:14; 5:19), that is, in identification with Christ’s suffering and death, and in the power of his resurrected life. In this manner Paul was “to God the aroma of Christ” to all in contact with his ministry, to both “those who are being saved” and to “those who are perishing” (2:15). It was “to God” to whom Paul was supremely accountable for it was in Christ that he and his co-workers spoke “before God with sincerity, like men sent from God” (2:17; see 5:10). Their “confidence” as apostles was “through Christ to God” (3:4) for their “competence” as “ministers of a new covenant” came from God” (6:6). In a real sense “through Christ to God” was their core definition as self-acclaimed “servants of God” (6:4). As such Paul would even limit his ministerial activities “to the field God has assigned to us” (10:13) which included Corinth. With the term “grace” [charis] as central to his theological vocabulary, God was for Paul supremely a God of grace. Grace came, wrote Paul, “from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:2). It comprehended God’s “unsought and unmerited benevolence” (Harris 2005, 192) which no longer counted “men’s sins against them” (5:19). God extended this grace to all mankind in the person and work of Christ: “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich” (8:9; see 12:9; 13:14). This grace of God determined Paul’s conduct in ministry (1:12). Through his ministry and that of his co-workers, God’s grace reached out to “more and more people” (4:15) including the response of the Macedonians to the collection out of their severe trials and “extreme poverty” (8:1). As a “surpassing grace” (9:14) God caused it to abound to the Corinthians so that they, having all that they need, “will abound in every good work” (9:8). For all these reasons and more Paul urged them “not to receive God's grace in vain” (6:10). The God of grace was the first author and the foundational source of the reconciliation “through Christ” of which Paul and the Corinthians were recipients. To the apostle and his co-workers God gave “the ministry of reconciliation.” It consisted of “the message of reconciliation,” the revealing word [logon] that “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ.” For God had made Christ “who had no sin to be sin” that “the righteousness of God” might be extended to all who will receive it. In this ministry the apostles were “God’s ambassadors” through whom Christ was making his reconciling appeal to the world (5:18-21). A grand assumption it seems by the apostle is expressed in benedictory terms carrying with it all he has said about God. God is one who loves the church and its people: “the God of love and peace will be with you” (13:11)and “the love of God . . . be with you all” (13:14; see 5:14). Inherently a part of God’s love in this final benediction is “the grace of . . . Christ” and “the fellowship of the Holy Spirit,” forming “the most developed trinitarian affirmation in the NT” (Harris 2005, 116). When applied to the more mundane context, Paul seeks to motivate meaningfully the church with the reminder that “God loves a cheerful giver” (9:7). The benedictory “God of . . . peace” along with the salutary “peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:2) conveys the comprehensive biblical shalom in a familiar Pauline characterization of God (Rom 15:13; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 5:23; see 2 Thess 16; Heb 13:20). Fascinating in the theology of 2 Corinthians is the expression “the glory of God” (1:20; 4:6; 4:15) whose implications penetrate Paul’s entire presentation. For now we note only that this characterization of God centers in “the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” and in whose face God has shown “the light of the knowledge” of his glory (4:6). And this is the God whom Paul defines in the proclamation of his gospel.

2. The Gospel Paul’s gospel is supremely “the gospel of Christ” (2:12). Four of the eight appearances of the term “gospel” [euangelion] identify “Christ” as its content (2:12; 4:4; 9:13; 10:14; see commentary on 2:12). Once in the phrase “the gospel of God” (11:7; the cognate verb euēngelisamēn occurs here as well as in 10:16) Paul names God as the source of the gospel that is Christ. In 4:3 “our gospel” is the gospel Paul preaches, and in 11:4 “a different gospel” is an ironic reference to the preaching of Paul’s rivals in Corinth. Paul can also speak simply and grandly of just “the gospel” (8:18). The crucial question is that of the content of Paul’s gospel. For Paul that content is not only Christ but expressed also as “the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (4:4). Interestingly this is the “light of the gospel” that he defines in v 6 as “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” With Christ as “the image of God” Paul means that it is “in the face of Christ” that God makes known his glory (see commentary on 4:4-6). “Glory” indicates that which belongs uniquely to God, ultimately transcending human comprehension. The extensive use of the terminology of “glory” (noun and verb) in 3:7-18 has the fiery blinding presence of God on Sinai as its background. Yet the “glory” can be known! God can be known and the most that can be known of him is seen in the human face of Jesus—in his person and work. It is in Christ, in his life, death, and resurrection that God comes to mankind in the fullness of his revealing and saving presence. Christ is the “Yes” to the many promises of God, for through him is the “Amen” to God for glory through the ministry of the apostles (1:20; see commentary on this verse). The content of Paul’s gospel is ultimately “the glory of God.” It is his hidden mystery and his revealed holiness, as he shares in John’s witness to Jesus the Christ (see John 1:14, 18). Given this unity of the Son with the Father we further explore Paul’s gospel in his presentation of the one he calls the Christ. All important and all consuming is the death and resurrection of Christ viewed as one continually present event. The risen Christ remains the crucified one and the crucified Christ remains the risen one (McCant 1999, 162) Integral to this presentation are “the sufferings of Christ” (1:5) in his life and death. The first and basic consequence is that Christ “died for all” that they may “live . . . for him who died for them and was raised again” (5:15). Guaranteed with Christ’s resurrection is that the God who “raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us . . . in his presence” (4:14). Further, the redemptive core of Christ’s death “for all” is that “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (5:21). For in that act “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ” (5:19). The redemptive, saving, action and presence of God in his world is in the deed of the Cross, in Christ’s death and resurrection. This redemptive event is the content of Paul’s gospel. At its heart it is the “message of reconciliation” (5:19) which is then the very “word [logon] of God” (2:17; 4:2). To receive this message is to be “in Christ . . . a new creation” (5:17) with him who is “the image of God” (4:4). In union with this Christ, crucified and risen, God’s servants are entrusted with “the ministry of reconciliation” (5:18) as his “ambassadors” (5:20). They possess this “treasure in jars of clay” for the “all-surpassing power” of the gospel is “from God,” not from his messengers (4:7). This leads to a second and equally important consequence of the significance of “the sufferings of Christ” (1:5) in the theology of the letter. This we will consider under “The Ministry” below. The two, Paul’s gospel and his ministry, are intimately interrelated and thus difficult to discuss separately. Just as Paul’s gospel determines his ministry, so his ministry reveals his gospel. Thus some themes treated below could have been just as appropriately been looked at under “The Gospel.” For example, Paul accuses some Corinthians of receiving from his rivals “another Jesus,” a “different spirit” and a “different gospel” (11:4 NRSV) than those on which the church at Corinth was founded. At issue in the three closely related charges is the person and work of Christ, the relation of his sufferings/death to his resurrection. Put in Paul’s terminology, it is the relation of power to weakness, as constituting the ministry of Jesus and the ministry of his apostles: “For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Likewise we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with him to serve you” (13:4). Thus we arrive at the all-permeating theme of the ministry of Paul given to him by his risen Lord, “power is made perfect in weakness” (12:9).

The Ministry At a transition point in his argument Paul asserts for himself and his co-workers that “we have this ministry” (4:1). This ministry, which he first defines as “the ministry of the Spirit” (3:8), he later sums up grandly as “the ministry of reconciliation” (5:18) as has been noted. The apostle’s concern for the apostolic and Christian ministry is seen in his frequent use of the terminology for ministry throughout 2 Cor. Translated by NIV either as “ministry” (7x) or “service” (5x including 11:8 “to serve”) the noun diakonia occurs twelve times (3:6, 7, 8, 9; 4:1; 5:18; 6:3; 8:4; 9:1, 12, 13; 11:8). The verb form diakoneō appearing twice is rendered by NIV as “the result of our ministry” (3:3) and “we administer” (8:18) in reference to the collection (so also diakonia in 8:4; 9:1, 12, 13; 11:8). The cognate noun form diakonos, “servant” or “minister,” is translated four times as “ministers” (3:6; 11:15 [2x], 23) and once as “servants” (6:4) by NRSV. Significantly both NRSV and NIV use “ministers of a new covenant” for diakonous kainēs diathēkēs in 3:6. a. A ministry off the Spirit The first specific characterization of Paul’s apostolic and current Christian ministry is “the ministry of the Spirit” (3:8). Constituting this ministry is the fact that God “has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant” in which “the Spirit gives life” (3:6). The new covenant is in contrast to the old mosaic covenant. The old covenant was made with Israel through Moses in the majestic thunder and lightening of Mount Sinai (Exod chs 18-20). It “came with glory” (3:7). But it was “engraved in letters on stone” and as such was a “ministry that brought death” (3:7). In contrast is Paul’s new covenant ministry “written . . . with the Spirit of the living God . . . on tablets of human hearts” (3:3). The apostle’s prime example was the Corinthians themselves who were Paul’s letter of recommendation that Christ wrote by the Spirit (3:2-3). While with the old “the letter kills,” with the new “the Spirit gives life” (3:6). The new possesses the glory of “the ministry that brings righteousness” (3:9). The face of Moses as he came down from Sinai illustrated the glory of the old covenant. His face was so radiant “that the Israelites could not look steadily at” his face “because of its glory, fading though it was” (3:7). The old was indeed “glorious” (3:9), but it was fading away in comparison to “the surpassing . . . glory of that which lasts” (3:10). The new ministry of life rather than death, of righteousness, rather than condemnation (3:9), “the ministry of the Spirit,” has come to stay! It possesses “an eternal glory” (4:17). The Spirit as the dynamic of this ministry is given to the apostles and to all believers “as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come” (1:22; 5:5). With this hope, comes a boldness, a new openness (3:12). The difference, the superiority, the “surpassing glory,” is that now the old veil over human hearts is taken away in the person and work of Christ (3:14-16). Christ, in his death and resurrection is of the essence of “the ministry of the Spirit.” For, declares the apostle, “the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (3:17). Therefore his ministry is “in the Holy Spirit” (6:6). The resultant character of this ministry of the Spirit for the believer and the church cannot be described in any better way than Paul does: We all with unveiled face, seeing as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord who is the Spirit (3:18; see commentary on vv 17-18). The ministry of the Spirit is the power of the resurrected Christ bringing the glory of God into human lives. This is the God of 2 Cor; this is Paul’s “gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (4:6); this is our glorious privilege in ministry. So Paul can say, “since through God’s mercy, we have this ministry, we do not lose heart” (4:1). How does this ministry work? In relation to our second specific characterization of Christian ministry as “the ministry of reconciliation” we have already seen that the redemptive work of God in Christ is the starting point. And we have also noted that Paul’s theology of suffering (1:3-11) is grounded in “the sufferings of Christ.” This he then applies as a “treasure in jars of clay” (4:7) to his own ministry of the gospel of Christ in a penetrating paradox (4:8-12). b. A ministry of suffering Paul in his ministry is “hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed” (4:8-9). Theologically put, Paul sees his apostolic life as one of carrying about the dying of Jesus in order that “the life of Jesus” might be revealed in and through it (4:10). In his words, “For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body” (4:11). This is the theological heart of a Christian ministry, “death is at work in us, but life in you” (4:12 NRSV). The “death” is that of the “sufferings of Christ” and the “life” is that of the resurrected living Christ. The evident anointing of God on the ministry of Mother Teresa had surely tapped into this theological dynamic. Her spiritual power was grounded in her unique faith-identification with Christ crucified and risen. In Mother Teresa’s devotion to the passion of Christ, suffering was taken by her as a means in her vocation. Her career-long experience of interior “darkness” appears related. In the poor, the sick, and the dying to whom she ministered in the slums, she met Christ. She “grasped the depth of Jesus’ identification with each sufferer and understood the mystical connection between the sufferings of Christ and the sufferings of the poor.” (Kolodiejchuk 2007, 43). In her words, “Suffering in itself is nothing; but suffering shared with Christ’s Passion is a wonderful gift” (Kolodiejchuk 2007, 146). What Paul identifies as “the sufferings of Christ” in his ministry he describes in a second paradoxical list in 6:4-10. This list, commending himself that his “ministry will not be discredited” (6:3), comes to a summary climax with “having nothing, and yet possessing everything” (6:10). In 11:23-29 in the context of his boasting as a fool (11:1-21), comes a final list, yet not final mention, of his apostolic sufferings. This list, set against the boast of his rivals in pedigree, in trouble-free triumphal ministry, and in ecstatic experiences, concludes with a vivid expression of the theme of power through weakness. This theme has woven itself throughout the entire letter. If Paul has to boast in defense of his ministry, he will only boast, he writes, “of the things that show my weakness” (11:30). The apostle’s Christological understanding of “Christian” ministry comes to profound clarity as he speaks of “visions and revelations from the Lord” (12:1) in 12:1-10). Of no value to anyone but himself are Paul’s ecstatic or high spiritual moments (12:2-6). Rather, having been graced “a thorn in my flesh . . . to torment me” (12:7), his plea for deliverance was refused. Then came the revelation from the Lord that forever defined his apostolic ministry and all future truly Christian ministries: “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness” (12:9 NRSV). This is how Paul’s ministry takes place “in the power of God” (6:7). Here is where the apostle most deeply saw “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” (4:4). For he concludes that “therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. . . , for when I am weak, then I am strong” (12:9). Paul indeed saw “the glory of God in the face of Christ” (4:6). So can we! No wonder he declared that in his ministry that God leads him “in triumphal procession in Christ” and makes the Christian minister “to God the aroma of Christ” everywhere (2:14-15). But the solemn fact is that we are “the smell of death” to some, and “the fragrance of life” to others (2:16). With Paul “who is equal to such a task?” Yet on this somber note, can we not conclude from 2 Cor that the ultimate expression of the glory of God is in the Christian ministry? Is it not in the witness of his people, the leaven of his church in the world? Paul’s language suggests such. In the administration of the collection for the saints in Jerusalem “administration” is the cognate verb of ministry, diakonoumenēi (8:19). The offering is being administrated “for the glory [doxan]of the Lord himself” (NRSV). In 8:23 those who administer the offering are “the glory [doxa] of Christ” (NRSV). And in 9:13 people will glorify [doxazontes]God for the Corinthians’ ministry [diakonias] of “generosity of sharing with them and everyone else.” In the ministry of the gospel of Christ we “are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory,’ into “the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (3:18; 4:4). As we serve with our eyes fixed on “the face of Christ” (see Heb 12:2), we see in our hearts “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God” (4:6). The theology theology of 2 Cor is brought to a succinct yet comprehensive summary in Paul’s unique to the NT Trinitarian benediction (13:14): May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Following the order of Christian experience first comes “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” who in his life, death and resurrection brought into being the gospel and its ministry. These are intertwined and both take the shape of his cross and resurrection life. Second is “the love of God,” the Father who is the source of all life and hope. Third is “the fellowship of the Holy Spirit,” the common sharing in the divine life that constitutes the church, transforms every life, and empowers the ministry of the people of God.

HERMENEUTICAL ISSUES Ou grammatos alla pneumatos “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” An Apostolic Hermeneutic The apostle Paul lived in the Scriptures as known to him primarily in the Greek Septuagint (LXX). In 2 Cor his quotations from and seemingly limitless allusions to OT texts make this obvious. As a result, Paul possessed a “biblical spirituality” (Young and Ford 1987, 62). His reading and pondering of his Bible shaped his understanding both of himself and of the nature of the situation in the Church at Corinth. Young and Ford observe that Paul “has ’lived in the Bible’ to the point where the Bible has formed his whole outlook on how the world is and what his place in it might be” (1987, 63). One can trace the influence of Paul’s Bible throughout the whole of the letter. The whole range of the then biblical text, the Law, the Prophets and the Writings impacted the mind and heart of the apostle. The language of the Psalms had gotten into his blood stream. With the lament Psalms and others, the Psalms contributed to his sense of confidence and hope in the midst of affliction. Direct quotations appear in 4:13 (Ps 116:10) and 9:9 (Ps 112:9). Most significant were Paul’s allusions to Psalm 116 focused on the quotation of v 10. Allusions are made as well to the surrounding Psalms 112-117. The latter are the Hallel Psalms used in synagogue on the occasion of the great festivals. The Psalms were no doubt his lifelong prayer book and hymnbook and as such were instrumental in molding his spirituality (see Young and Ford 1987, 63-69). . The prophets are represented in 2 Cor by direct quotations from Isaiah 49:8 and 52:11 (2 Cor 6:2; 6:17a), Jeremiah 9:24 (2 Cor 10:17), and Ezekiel 37:27; 20:34. Again the allusions are multiple. With and beyond these, however, was Paul’s assimilation of and dependence upon their message and prophetic perspectives. He interpreted his prophetic vocation in the light of the call of Jeremiah and the latter’s living out the prophetic role. Further, Jeremiah furnished Paul with his key text on boasting (9:24) as well as the terminology of the new covenant (31:31; 2 Cor 3:6; see Ezek 37:26-10). Ezekiel’s stress on the glory of God (1:28; 3:23; 39:21: 43:1-5), the importance of the Spirit (2:2; 37:1-10), and the need of a new heart and spirit (11:19; 18:31) were all in the background of Paul’s understanding. Other connections abound. Aspects of and allusions to the vision of Isaiah (chs 1-66) all made their impact on Paul’s prophetic perception. From these prophets he learned to see God’s dealing with his people in historical perspective. The prophets were examples of despair and warning as well as of hope and encouragement. Paul sought to carry on their vision of redemptive purposes as the ambassador of a new covenant to the Gentiles (see Young and Ford 1987, 69-78) The Wisdom literature furnished Paul with ample illustration of his boasting theme. Other themes such as singleness of heart, trust in affliction, divine counsel, and the aroma of wisdom are also present. Allusions from Proverbs appear in 2 Cor 8 and 9 and possibly are in evidence elsewhere. Significant too are Paul’s quotations from Lev 26:12 (2 Cor 6:16), 2 Sam 7:8, 14 (2 Cor 6:18), Exod 16:18 (2 Cor 8:15), and Deut 19:15 (2 Cor 13:1; see commentary on these texts). Most important, however, for an appreciation of Paul’s biblical hermeneutic is his interpretation of Exod 34:29-35 in 2 Cor 3:7-18 (see Hays 1989, 122-153). Here scriptural exegesis constitutes the method of his argument. He appeals to the Law, to the Torah, which constitutes the basic or most authoritative portion of Scripture for the Jewish community. From the prophets Paul understood the historical failure of the old covenant, a covenant that indeed possessed God’s glory. He saw the consequences of destruction, death and the exile for the people of God. Paul understood the need of the prophetically promised new covenant (Jeremiah, Ezekiel) and its fulfillment in a new covenant of the Spirit. With a dynamic hermeneutic of the Spirit he perceived the realization of the covenant will of God come to completion in the person and work of Christ. In Paul’s view, “the entire history of God’s dealings with mankind could be summed up by the formula ‘God in Christ’” (Hanson 1974, 241). The Word of God overwhelmed the apostle with transforming insight into Christ, “the Lord, who is the Spirit.” Caught up in the raptured creativity of fulfillment he writes with fresh boldness, “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom . And we . . . are being transformed into his likeness with an ever-increasing glory” (3:17-18; see v 12; 12:2-4). As Hays comments, “Paul provides us with a model of hermeneutical freedom” (1989, 186). E. Earle Ellis terms Pauline biblical exegesis as “grammatical-historical plus.” By this he means that Paul’s interpretation assumes the grammar and historical meaning according to the methods of his day. But his exegesis “in its essential character, begins where grammatical-historical exegesis ends” (1957, 147). Paul has soaked himself in the whole of Scripture. He submits his mind and heart to the Spirit of God and hears its witness to its ultimate end in Christ. He knows full well the situation in Corinth. In this matrix, listening to the Spirit and to the needs of the church, he understands anew the Scripture in relation to the condition of the recipients of his apostolic labors in Corinth. This is the witness, the understanding of Scripture that he brings to bear on the world of his day. To what extent does Paul point the way for the role of the Church’s sacred text in the lives of God’s people in the world of our day? How is 2 Cor divinely designed to function for us in our personal reading, in the preaching task, and for our understanding of our calling as witnesses and ministers? Can a “rich, alive, personally revealing God as experienced in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, personally” address “us in what ever circumstance we find ourselves” (Peterson 2006, 28)? Can the Spirit give us a transforming word from the biblical text for our people? Further Reading on Pauline Hermeneutics Ellis, E. Earle. 1957. Paul Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. 1974. Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Hays, Richard B. 1989. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press. Young, Frances, and David F. Ford. 1987. Meaning and Truth in 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

A Biblical Hermeneutic Volumes dealing with the question of biblical hermeneutics could fill a library. We cannot write another book! I will attempt merely to articulate in a few paragraphs what my mind and heart grasps as basic. I write inescapably as a Wesleyan (see Green 2004, 124) mining from Paul “a biblical hermeneutic” for the role of Scripture in the church of our day. We start with a faith declaration: the key to our reading of Scripture is Scripture! Why could not the starting point of our instruction for the proclamation of the message of Scripture be Scripture? Our approach then to the biblical text begins with a twofold assumption. The first is the appropriate role of the grammatical or literary-historical method. The second is the nature of Scripture as “God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16): “when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). The Bible is at one and the same time a “human” book and a “Holy Spirit” book. The Bible is literature, written in an ancient language according to the literary conventions of its day. It was written at specific times in history, at specific geographical locations, in specific ancient languages, and within specific cultures far removed from our postmodern times. In the progress of God’s redemptive action in regards to his people, he has in his providence given to the Church the biblical canon of the Old and New Testaments. God by his Spirit was involved in its writing, its tradition history, its preservation, its collection, and in its canonical formation. Down through the history of the Church the Holy Spirit has spoken to the people of God through its sacred texts, interpreting it for Christian faith, life, and ministry. As Hays observes, “the Holy Spirit is not a theological abstraction but the manifestation of God’s presence in the community, making everything new” (1996, 45). Thus the Bible divorced from the Spirit of God and read apart from a heart and mind open to the Holy Spirit is hardly the Bible. It is merely ancient documents of historical interest and literary inspiration: “an anthology of ancient literary art, a record of historical events, or a depository of universal wisdom” (Wall 2004, 109). The Bible is the Word of God for human lives only in dynamic union with the Living Word: “The Lord is the Spirit” (3:17). With these two assumptions, one historical and the other of faith, our hermeneutic centers in the character and function of Holy Scripture as a “witness to faith.” As the Church’s normative rule of faith, this is its divinely intended function. Simply put the scriptural canon consists of prophetic pre-witness, the OT, and an apostolic post-witness, the NT, to Jesus Christ the incarnate Son of God. The character of this witness can be fully clarified by literary and historical questioning. The function of this witness can be effectively known only by a hearing of mind and heart in the lives of individuals and in the work of the Church. So our attempt is to sum up a biblical hermeneutical approach to 2 Cor as a “Christological witness.” First we listen to Scripture as a witness. As with Paul in the writing of 2 Cor we set it in context of the age-long history of the people of God witnessed to by the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. As Paul included in this history of salvation the coming of the Christ, we include the NT and the centuries-long history of the Christ’s Church. We need to see the biblical text in the light of what God in Christ has been doing redemptively in the ages-long life of the people of God. Within that perspective the primary question is “who is Christ?” How does Paul understand Christ? What is the essence of his work? What is Paul’s basic Christology? How did Paul experience Jesus the Christ? Then as we grasp Paul’s witness in its linguistic, historical, and theological form we listen for the Spirit’s witness in and for our concrete human situation: “the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you” (John 16:15). As Wall writes, “the Spirit of God is at work” in the “Scripture’s performance as the Word of God” in “the interplay of biblical text and social context” (2004, 117-118). We within the worshipping community encounter in our own particularity of life the crucified and risen Christ in whose face we see “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God” (4:6; see 5:14, 15, 21). Our hermeneutic is first to hear and share in a witness! For the Church it starts with what God has done “reconciling . . . in Christ” (5:19). It is a “listening” hermeneutic! Second, our hermeneutical approach to 2 Cor is Christological. As best we can, having understood Paul’s Christ in his life, death, and resurrection, we follow Paul in the application of his faith in Christ. In 2 Cor Paul’s Christology informs and shapes everything about his apostolic life and work. His message, his gospel, was simply “the gospel of Christ” (2:12) and profoundly “the gospel of the glory of Christ” (4:4). Paul’s ministry, “the ministry of reconciliation” (5:18), fully partook of that of Christ: “We always carry around in our body the death (dying) of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body” (4:10; see vv 11-12; 1:5; 6:3-10; 11:21—12:10; 13:4). As “Christ’s ambassadors” God was “making his appeal” through the apostles (5:20). The most fundamental form of ministry is “the life of Jesus” as it highlights the effect the present reality of grace in the personality of the minister” (O’Conner 1991, 145). Paul viewed the Corinthians as the church through Christological lens; they were the “one husband” of “Christ” (11:2). The conduct of their lives was to be determined by “their sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (11:3; 12:20-21; 13:11). The ethics of the Christian community and the individual Christian were to be “Christ-ethics.” The norm for ethics is more than a predetermined set of rules for conduct, “right action must be discerned on the basis of a christological paradigm, with a view to the need of the community” (Hays 1996, 43, see 18, 39-45). To sum up, a contemporary hermeneutical approach to 2 Cor centers on Paul’s Spirit-empowered witness to the person and work of Christ, of God in Christ reconciling the world to himself. This witness as received is then, under the same Spirit’s guidance, worked out in every aspect of the life of the Church, its ministry, and in the individual lives of its people in obedience to the revealed and living Christ. In language of the Fourth Gospel, the Spirit, the Advocate, making known to us what is Christ’s (John 16:15), will guide us “into all truth” and tell “what is yet to come” (John 16:13). He will inspire us to know what Jesus means for us now, where we are in life and community. And as Paul asserts, “the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (3:17). This “freedom,” as his letter shows in every line, involves inherently a Christological ethical imperative. Paul’s “mode of hermeneutical freedom” is as well a model of hermeneutical responsibility: “Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you” (13:11). In the “From the Text” sections of this commentary I have attempted to employ prayerfully the hermeneutic set forth above. As the exegetical disciplines were applied to the text of 2 Cor, the presence and mind of the Living Christ were sincerely sought. My own mind and heart yearned for the witness of the Spirit speaking through the inspired text to Christ, to see “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (4:6). The goal was to articulate the witness of the Living Word through the written Word for my own life and for that of the Church I love. Hopefully a fresh vision of Christ crucified and risen is faithfully applied to Christian ministry and life. Perhaps a personal example will help at this point. Recently I was asked to give the scriptural mediation at the memorial service for the wife of a colleague of over four decades (9/3/08). I felt drawn to 2 Cor 4:7-5:10 as I searched for the voice of the Living Lord for him and his family. I wanted to proclaim the gospel as we had shared it over the years to my friend in his great loss. For 48 years we had been united in our love of Scripture and had exchanged our “penetrating” insights. Another text from Paul’s letter to Corinth leaped out at me as well. The apostle’s word to a troubled church was “I do not say this to condemn you, for I said before that you are in our hearts, to die together and to live together” (2 Cor 7:3 NRSV). Speaking this text directly to my friend and his two children on behalf of myself and the gathered congregation, I began to make use of the “from the text” section on 2 Cor 4:7—5:10. The approach to the text for the occasion was as follows: Plainly and directly Paul understands his present life as one characterized equally by both the “dying of Jesus” (NASB) and the “life of Jesus” (v 10) transforming both his present and his future life. Such is the nature of the Pauline gospel, and by the grace and providence of God, our gospel, our good news, as well. So as we listen with our hearts to this inspired text, keep in mind that “you are in our hearts, to die together and to live together.” The apostle would have us today center our understanding of our lives in the death and the resurrection of Jesus. For as we, with Paul-like confidence (4:1, 16; 5:6, 8), attempt to face the “expected” and the “unexpecteds” of our earthy course as Christians, we discover three profound affirmations about our faith. We proceeded to unpack the following affirmations of biblical faith in the face of the loss of a loved one. Scripture tells us that we are able to face the crucibles of life because (1) we center our faith in the cross and resurrection of Jesus (4:7-15), because (2) we live by faith in the unseen (4:16- 18), and because (3) we possess a confident faith in the future (5:1-10). The concluding word was twofold, first to the family, “This is our privilege, our hope, our fountain of courage! We are grateful!” And then a prayer, “Lord, we hear your word”!

Gebraucht das Beten als ein Bohrer und die Quellen lebendiges Wassers werden aus dem Wort Gottes fliessen!”

Further Reading on a Wesleyan Hermeneutic Bassett, Paul M. Spring 1978. "The Fundamentalist Leavening of the Holiness Movement, 1914-1940. The Church of the Nazarene: A Case Study," Wesleyan Theological Journal, 65-85. Dunning, H. Ray. 1988. Grace, Faith and Holiness. Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 55-76. Green, Joel B. 2004. “Is There a Contemporary Wesleyan Hermeneutic?” Pages 123-134 in Reading the Bible in Wesleyan Ways: Some Constructive Proposals. Edited by Barry L. Callen and Richard P. Thompson. Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City. Peterson, Eugene H. 2006. Eat This Book: A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans. Wall, Robert W. 2004. “Facilitating Scripture’s Future Role Among Wesleyans.” Pages 107-120 in Reading the Bible in Wesleyan Ways: Some Constructive Proposals. Edited by Barry L. Callen and Richard P. Thompson. Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City. Wall, Robert W. 2004. “Toward a Wesleyan Hermeneutic of Understanding.” Pages 39-55 in Reading the Bible in Wesleyan Ways: Some Constructive Proposals. Edited by Barry L. Callen and Richard P. Thompson. Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City. Wiley, H. Orton. 1940. Christian Theology, Volume I. Kansas City, Missouri: Nazarene Publishing House, 135-143, 166-184. Wiley, H. Orton, and Paul T. Culbertson. 1945. Introduction to Christian Theology. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 40-55. LEFT OVER NOTES Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. HarperSanFrancisco, 1996. On Ministry as well?

In these texts, it is difficult to draw a clear distinction between theology and ethics. They are packed together, under pressure: specific pastoral problems in Paul’s churches elicit his theological reflection. Thus, we see theology in progress, unfolding. Paul is not simply repeating already formulated doctrines; rather he is theologizing as he writes, and the constant aim of his theological reflection is to shape the behavior of his churches. Theology is for Paul never merely a speculative exercise; it is always a tool for constructing community (18).

There is, interestingly, no emphasis in Paul on gratitude as a motive for obedience. (He never says, in effect, “God has done something nice for us, so we should return the favor by doing something nice for God.”) Instead, Paul seems to see moral action as a logical entailment of God’s redemptive action. For Paul, God’s transforming act in Christ conditions all of reality. . . . Consequently, much of Paul’s moral exhortation takes the form of reminding his readers to view their obligations and actions in the cosmic context of what god has done in Christ (39).

The ethical norm, then, is not given in the form of a predetermined rule or set of rules for conduct; rather, the right action must be discerned on the basis of a christological paradigm, with a view to the need of the community (43).

In such passages, however, human moral action is given a distinct place in the syntax of the divine-human relationship; obedience is a consequence of salvation, not its condition. The Holy Spirit is not a theological abstraction but the manifestation of God’s presence in the community, making everything new. Those respond to the gospel have entered the sphere of the Spirit’s power, where they find themselves changed and empowered for obedience (45).

Obedience is possible at all only because God has broken the power of sin and begun the work of conforming believers to the image of Jesus Christ” (45). He follows this by quoting 2 C 3:18. Revisit “in the text” on 3:18?

There is no meaningful distinction between theology and ethics in Paul’s thought, because Paul’s theology is fundamentally an account of God’s work of transforming his people into the image of Christ. Within the story, everything points to the death and resurrection of Jesus as the pivot-point of the ages’ the old cosmos has met its end, and God’s eschatological righteousness/justice has broken in upon the present, making everything new. This appearance of God’s justice confirms the integrity of his promises to Israel: God calls a covenant community and models love and truth through that community. When Israel’s Torah is read through the hermeneutical lens of the new community in Christ, Paul asserts, its real meaning comes clear for the first time, and its fulfillment appears in the community of faith, whose vocation is to proclaim and embody that fulfillment The distinctive shape of obedience to God is disclosed in Jesus Christ’s faithful death on the cross for the sake of God’s people. That death becomes metaphorically paradigmatic for the obedience of the community: to obey God means to offer our lives unqualifiedly for the sake of others. Thus, the fundamental norm of Pauline ethics is the christomorphic life. To imitate Christ is also to follow the apostolic example of surrendering one’s own prerogatives and interests. Within this world shaped by the story of Jesus Christ, the community wrestles with the constant need for spiritual discernment to understands and enact the obedience of faith. Ethics cannot be sufficiently guided by law or by institutionalized rules; instead, Spirit-empowered, Spirit-discerned conformity to Christ is required. The community is called to act in creative freedom in order to become “a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” (Rom. 12:1). In so doing, the community discovers koinōnia with one another in the sufferings of Christ and in the hope of sharing his glory (46).

The task of theological ethics must be to proclaim and explicate the Word, “[taking] every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5) and serving notice to all humanity of the truth disclosed in the biblical revelation (Hays 227).

Discuss hermeneutical problems and other interpretive issues (including discussion on a hermeneutical grid from which a book has been interpreted, if appropriate and necessary).

See Young and Ford, 244ff on trinity and ch 8 on the authority of Paul In general see Young and Ford, ch 9.

Check Cousar. A Theology of the Cross

[“The ‘power’ of Christ is effective in Paul, who is ‘weak’ and lives in ‘weakness’, because ‘weakness’ and ‘power’ unite in Christ. . . . Christ’s death and resurrection are one event for Paul. Christ’s death is not merely a past even followed by the resurrection. A Pauline view sees the cross as a continually present event. The Risen One remains the Crucified One and the Crucified One remains the Risen One. Anyone who shares the power of Jesus must also share his weakness (cf. 4:10; Phil. 3:10).” MCCant, 162]

NOTES

O’Conner: Thus the specific contribution of 2 Corinthians to the New Testament lies in three areas: (1) ministry, (2) suffering, and (3) the criteria by which one recognizes the activity of the Spirit. Top draw any clear distinction between them, however, would be highly artificial, because, for Paul, the key to each is to be found in the person of Jesus Christ. . . . Paul . . . gave new speculative depth to the understanding of Christ’s ministry reflected I the gospel tradition (140).

Read O’Conner, 139ff. Crucial?

Does 2 Corinthians make a distinctive contribution to the theology of the New Testament? (139).

Matera: “the theology of 2 Cor is especially rich, providing readers with an insight into Paul’s understanding of (1) the God who raises the dead, (2) Christ, the agent of God’s salvation, (3) the Spirit of the Living God, (4) the ministry of a the new covenant, (5), the community of the new covenant, and (6) the paradox of a gospel in which affliction leads to comfort and power is perfected in weakness.” 9 The theology of 2 Cor can be summarized in this way. The God who raises the dead has reconciled the world to himself by Christ and given believers the Spirit. Through Paul’s new covenant ministry, which entails suffering and affliction on their behalf, the people of this new covenant, who have been empowered by the Spirit, gaze upon the glory of God shining on the face of Christ and are being transformed from glory to glory. In Christ, that have become a new creation.” 15.

Harink, Douglas. Paul Among the Postliberals: Pauline Theology Beyond Christendom and Modernity. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2003.

Relates Paul to postliberalism, post modernity, “It is, rather, because the church lives by the wisdom, power, and riches of God revealed in the cross of Christ, which are irreconcilable with the wisdom, power, and riches by which principalities and powers, societies, and empires rule the world.” 255.

The charge against the church: “Modernity, and often the church with it, dissociates itself from the specificity of YHWH, Israel, Jesus Christ, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, Scripture. . . . Pauline theology . . . takes the church on a road beyond Christendom and modernity, one on which a new form of the church’s faithfulness awaits.” 256.

Appeals to Krister Stendahl, Karl Barth, Hans Frei, George Lindbeck, Stanley Hauerwas, John Howard Yoder. 13-14.

Harris: The Godhead, Salvation, The Gospel, The Church, Apostleship, Christian Ministry (adaptability, jealousy, devotion, affection, fear), The Christian Life, Suffering, Stewardship, Satan, Eschatology. 114ff. Schillington: Theology Born in the Crucible of Opposition—A theology of suffering with Christ, this theology of transformation, a theology of life after life, a theology of new creation, an Adam-Christ theology, a theology of stewardship, a theology of strength in weakness, 19-23 Barrett: Theology at Corinth –Corinthian theology, Paul’s theology in the Corinthian setting. 36-50. Barnett: Three Theological Themes—The Eschatological Centrality of Christ, The Apostolic Ministry in the New Covenant, The Hope of Glory—Pastoral Ministry from Second Cor, 40ff.

[“the false apostle obviously had the gift of eloquence which Paul lacked. But that means nothing as far as the substance of the preaching is concerned and may even cast a shadow over the glory of the cross, which is anything but superficially attractive” Chyrsostom, 292).

Brendan Byrne, S.J., “Interpreting Romans: The New Perspective and Beyond,” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology Volume 58 Number 3(July 2004), 252 (241-152).

It is unlikely that Romans will ever shift from the central position it occupies in Christian theology. It was Paul’s genius—and perhaps his burden—that he could never address any problem, no matter how practical and in itself untheoretical, without relating it to theology. Paul’s writings in every sentence distill a vision of God and God’s action in Christ. Reference to the gospel remains a central criterion. So long as this is perceived to be the case, Romans will never lack interpreters—or debate!

VI. HERMENEUTICAL ISSUES

My Hermeneutic of Paul?

Young and Ford 256 (see ch 5)

Robert S says here to set up my “from the text” portions for relevance to life and work of the pastor. See Hafemann, 35-36.

[The task of theological ethics must be to proclaim and explicate the Word, “[taking] every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5) and serving notice to all humanity of the truth disclosed in the biblical revelation” (Hays 227).]

Paul’s Hermeneutic of Scripture

Paul and the Bible, Young and Ford, 60-63. Ellis, etc.

Young and Ford’s emphasis: Paul had ‘lived’ in his Bible, used it in study, devotion and prayer, to the point where certain features of the scriptural material had come to mould his self-understanding and his discernment of what was going on in the conflict between himself and the church at Corinth (80).

His book sees 3:6 crucial in the new understanding of Paul. Christ the end of the law? And the question, does Paul have a hermeneutic? So Hafemann, Moses, 23 (?), 30-35. Should I get his previous work, Suffering and the Spirit?

See Hays The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as an Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture.. He has a section on “Hermeneutics of Trust. Xeroxed. In Theology?

See Young and Ford, Introduction But since Paul’s use of Scripture is often illuminated by rabbinic parallels and the methods of midrash, typology and allegory does not mean with the ‘liberal’ critics who feel that we are not to be tied to Paul’s use of Scripture, or like the conservative interpreters who feel that Paul ‘free’ use of Scripture according to the ‘spirit’ and not the ‘letter’ was justified then when the radical newness of Christ had to be worked out, but cannot be justified now. Rather Paul leads us to a dynamic hermeneutic where Scripture has

such a creative bearing on the lives of believers in different ages, cultures and situations, not though some kind of search for mechanical correspondence, but by a two-way process of bringing a situation to bear on reading their Bible, and letting the language of the Bible provide a language for expressing and even discerning what is going on the present. For Paul everything was to be made captive to Christ. In a similar way, text needs to be tested against text, and all needs to be subject to the Spirit of Christ. But the Spirit means freedom. The use of critical method, liberation from literalism, can make possible a more dynamic ‘living in the Bible’; for the new covenant is not based on the letter but on the Spirit (83-84).

Should there be a paragraph/essay on Paul and the significance and impact of his scriptural understanding in the “theology” section of the Introduction? Y & F’s hermeneutical comments are especially relevant. Do it in summary form and document Y & F and others? Also p. 201, ch 5 and my notes.

V. Bibliography

From Guidelines

Each commentary in this series will have a traditional introduction, which introduces the reader to the following issues/topics: (Note: This section should be concise and be limited to approximately 10% (or less) of the total length of the commentary.)

Authorship, Date, provenance, audience, occasion, purpose, sociological/cultural issues and textual history (composition of the book).

When dealing with the author(s), attempt should be made to inform the readers what the biblical text itself reveals about the interests, concerns, and convictions of its authors. Likewise, the identification of the audience involves more than naming the first readers as (say) the Christian community founded by the Apostle Paul in Corinth. Rather, what kind of people do the biblical authors envision as their readers? At times, the earliest answers to the questions of introduction are found in the witnesses to the biblical books among the rabbis or early church fathers. But their opinions are often as speculative as those offered by modern scholars and no more certain — ancient should not be confused with authoritative. In the absence of certainty, as with the commentary proper, authors have the freedom to take whatever scholarly view on introductory matters they consider most probable, so long as they offer the serious alternatives, whether traditional or modern.

Literary Features

Discussion of various genres, and other literary features found in the book, with examples or illustrations. Include in this section the major literary divisions and a detailed outline of the book, showing literary units/paragraphs.

Theological themes

In this section, discuss the key theological ideas developed within the book; pay attention to themes that address Wesleyan theological concerns.

Hermeneutical Issues

Discuss hermeneutical problems and other interpretive issues (including discussion on a hermeneutical grid from which a book has been interpreted, if appropriate and necessary).

Bibliography

Include a list of general works and standard commentaries on the book at the conclusion of the introduction section.

Ibid., 43.

4.3.3 TIME \@ "h:mm AM/PM" 8:00 AM DATE \@ "M/d/yyyy" 10/24/2008 PAGE 21

INTRODUCTION

The City of Corinth

Paul’s Relationship to the Church at Corinth

Further Reading on Corinth

Authorship and Authenticity

Content Analysis

Check Cousar. A Theology of the Cross

NOTES

Paul’s Hermeneutic of Scripture

From Guidelines

Literary Features

Hermeneutical Issues

Related in the archive

Andrey Khobnya Proverbs 1-9

Chapter 2 True Knowledge 1:3-21 2 Peter

Chapter 3 False Teachers 2:1-22 2 Peter

Chapter 4 Promise of Christ's Coming 3:1-16 2 Peter