2 Corinthians 10:1-18

2 Corinthians 10:1-18

Introduction: Read. Reread.

Literary Context: Summarize the previous two chapters.

10.1: The tone of chapter 10 changes sharply from what preceded, though the defense of his own ministry is a theme evidenced in the so-called “great digression” in chapters 3-7. Boldness of speech was a recurring theme throughout that portion, and that is the notion initially addressed here as well. His opponents in Corinth presumably saw his withdrawal after the fiasco visit as a show of weakness, and the severe letter likely instigated a hostile reaction from these opponents. Keener notes that: “ancient rhetoricians insisted that letters ought to reflect the same personality that the person exhibited when present” (515). As you can see, the charge is that Paul’s letter failed to do this. Paul was θαρρέω (a word we saw three times in 2 Cor 5-7), meaning “confident, courageous; bold” toward them in his letter, but ταπεινός (humble; contrasted here with “boldness” it carries the sense of “timid”) when in person.

Paul makes his emphatic appeal “by means of the meekness and gentleness of Christ.” This does two things: first, it roots Paul’s argument in Christ’s character; second, it already sets the stage to highlight the utility of “lowliness” for the ministry of Christ, which will subvert the arguments of the opponents. Paul rejects the notion of him being two-faced (we’ll see that he is perfectly willing to exercise authority among them), and he also rejects the kind of boasting his opponents readily engaged in. His model for ministry is Christ and his meekness and gentleness. Hafeman writes: “‘Far from timidity, his [Christ’s] “meekness” is his slowness to anger, far from lacking conviction, his “gentleness” is his forbearance, in contrast to being vindictive’” (quote from Kruse 228).

10.2: Verse 2 is both an appeal and a threat. It is a more veiled threat then what he said in 1 Cor 4:21 “What do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?” but it remains a threat of correction nonetheless. The charge against him is that he is “bold” θαρρέω, and here he pleads with them to repent and reconcile so that he does not have to be θαρρέω when present. We should understand this warning in light of the events that transpired that present the opportunity for the opponents. Garland writes: “His threat in an earlier letter to discipline them (1 Cor 4:18–21) and his apparent failure to follow through, coupled with his abrupt departure after the quarrel, may have given credence to the suspicion that he was not a spiritually authoritative apostle but a man of the flesh who was cowardly and ineffectual” (432).

The opponents “reckon” that he lives according to the flesh. Exactly what they mean by this we cannot know for sure. It may be that they were accusing him of acting with worldly motives, which led to his being inconsistent and unreliable, saying “yes and no” at the same time (a charge we have already seen him address in chapter 2). But when it comes down to it, as Kruse points out: “To act according to the flesh is the opposite of acting according to the Spirit” (229). It was clearly an attack on his Christian character and apostolic integrity. “Paul is a paper and pen apostle, not a flesh and blood apostle.” For the ones’ who continue to hold such views, when Paul returns to Corinth they will see that they have mistaken his “lowliness” for weakness, rather than what it actually was, an imitation of the meekness and gentleness of Christ.

10.3: In verse 3 Paul appropriates the charge, but changes it slightly. He does not walk “according to the flesh” as just described, but he does walk “in the flesh.” By this subtle shift Paul points to the physical, and thus limited nature (flesh and blood) of his life, but his walk is not “in the manner of the fleshly things.” In the flesh, but not according to the flesh. For the next few verses he shifts to military imagery. It’s worth noting that while we may typically have a view of Paul as a rather pugnacious individual, the Corinthian opponents certainly did not (Garland 434). This should probably give us some pause when we are coloring our caricature of Paul. He was a spiritual warrior, no doubt, but he was an imitator of Christ’s meekness and gentleness.

The notion of “waging war” will be further explained in the following verses (as Paul laying siege to arguments and lofty opinions TDNTA), but here it is important to note that the manner in which he wages war is not “according to the flesh.” This picks up the connotation that it had prior. It is not simply “flesh and blood” and thereby not supernatural, but also carrying the connotation of the things of the flesh. This would be such things as underhanded tactics, deceit, and the like. Whatever one must do to get ahead would be an aspect of waging war in the manner of the flesh.

10.4-5: In verses 4-6 we begin to see what kind of war Paul is waging, and the manner in which he engages. First, we are reminded again that the weapons he uses are not of the flesh, and then he immediately contrasts this with “weapons made capable by God.” Now, one of these is far more effective than the other, and the type of war Paul wages (even in human terms) typically always leaned in favor of the attacker (which Paul indicates he is). To “destroy strongholds” presents the image of laying siege to a city. Garland notes: “Everyone in the ancient world knew, however, that the advantage was always on the side of the attacker with his siege engines and not with the fortified city. No matter how well defended cities might be, they would eventually fall to the resourceful and determined general” (435–436). Paul’s opponents in Corinth have certainly miscalculated the situation, for a city that is disadvantaged when fighting against weapons of war is at an even greater disadvantage when warring against God empowered weapons.

Just what those weapons are is not stated, though presumably the truth of the Gospel as well as other spiritual disciplines, but the strongholds that he is laying siege to are described as “arguments and ‘high thing lifted up.’” The image here is that of a “raised rampart” (Garland 436). These ramparts are set up against the “knowledge of God,” so it is necessary for the siege engine used to destroy them to be the proclamation of that very same knowledge. Kruse argues that this suggests that Paul’s missionary activity involved not just the preaching of the Gospel, but a reasoning with others about it as well. It may also be that he has in mind here his going to Corinth to destroy the argumentation of the opponents who have set themselves up against the truth.

The goal either way is to take captives. In 11:3 Paul will warn them that he is concerned that Satan has “led their minds” astray. Here he uses the same word, indicating that the minds he has in view here are those that have been taken captive by Satan. Garland writes: “In 11:3 (Paul) candidly says that Satan has ensnared the Corinthians ‘thoughts’ in the same way he deceived Eve. Satan holds their minds hostage, and Paul is prepared to fight a pitched battle to liberate them…Paul intends to take them prisoner, which, paradoxically, is the only way to be set free from Satan. Their thoughts need to come under the Lordship of Christ and to be liberated from the captivity of Satan” (437). Here again we see that his concern was not winning an argument, but winning others to Christ. He wants them to be taken captive by Christ, just as he himself was.

10.6: Verse 6 seems to indicate that Paul is unwilling to come and discipline if the majority are unwilling to recognize and support that discipline. He is ready to do so; however, as Carson notes: “Unless a church as a whole is willing to recognize and support spiritual discipline, that discipline will remain largely ineffective” (ZSB 2374).

10.7: The NIV renders verse 7 with an indicative “You are judging by appearances”; however, grammatically speaking the verb here could (and probably should) be rendered as an imperative. In which case Paul is saying something along the lines of “Look at what is obvious!” (Kruse 232). Some are claiming to “to be of Christ.” Though this sounds like he is simply saying that some are claiming to be Christians, what he says after this indicates that there is something more at play here. The phrase is also used to designate a servant or apostle of Christ, and Kruse argues that this is the likely meaning here: “The view that it means to be a servant of Christ or an apostle commends itself most in the light of both 11:23 (‘are they servants of Christ…I am more’) and the fact that throughout chapters 10-13 Paul is defending his apostolate” (232). He is thus saying, if these opponents are apostles as they claim, shouldn’t the obvious evidence make it clear that he himself is an apostle. After all, these Corinthians are his letter of recommendation written by Christ! They are the obvious evidence.

10.8: The subject of boasting is going to permeate the next section, and Paul begins with what is probably his opponent’s perception of his boasting done in the severe letter rather than his own assessment of his boasting. They would argue that he boasts too much concerning his own authority because his speech and physical presence hardly demand such a claim upon the Corinthians who prize fine speech and clamor for honor. However, Paul notes that his authority is 1). Given by God (he has not taken it upon himself) 2). Given for the purpose of building them up. The authority of Paul is not rooted in Paul nor Paul oriented. It is given by God and outward oriented (this should perhaps be seen in contrast to those who would build themselves up).

Paul’s statement here at first seems contradictory in that he says his authority is not given “to destroy you” whereas in just a few verses prior he spoke of “destroying strongholds” (same Gk word in both places). The immediate context tells us that the statements do not contradict. Kruse writes: “In the case of verse 4 he speaks of tearing down strongholds (i.e. intellectual resistance to the truth of the gospel), and this is a legitimate part of his apostolic mission. In the case of verse 8 he says the authority the Lord gave him is not for ‘tearing you down’ (i.e. it was given with the opposite intention of ‘building you up’). He tears down arguments, but builds up people” (233).

10.9: The connection between vv. 8 and 9 is somewhat veiled by the NIV. Verse 9 begins with a ἵνα (so that) that marks it as a dependent clause. Exactly how the argument flows is difficult to determine, but it may be something like: “Even if I boast too much, I will not be ashamed, I say this so that it is clear that I am not just frightening you with my letters.” He is responding to accusations concerning the discontent between the force of his letters and the force (or lack thereof) of his presence. Verse 9 serves as a rejection of the notion that he is just a powerful writer, enforcing tyranny through letter crafting.

10.10: Verse 10 makes it perfectly clear that he is responding to accusations concerning his letter writing versus his in-person presence. As we noted before, as Keener writes: “A basic rule of ancient letter writing was that one’s letters should be appropriate to one’s personality when present, because letters in some sense communicated one’s presence. Philosophers who failed to be consistent in this manner were typically attacked verbally” (515–516). The charge that his letters were “weighty” is a play on words that point to the rhetorical brilliance of them and also the literal weight. As we’ve talked about in other classes, Paul’s letters were much longer than the average letter during this period, and were thus “heavier” by the sheer volume of papyri used.

The opponents were critical of his public speaking. The culture held good public speakers in high esteem. Peterson writes: “In Hellenistic society the practice and expectations of rhetorical eloquence were pervasive. Not only were political leaders expected to speak persuasively and eloquently, but so also those who claimed authority in philosophy and religion. Among such people there was great competition, and success depended upon one’s ability to express the power of the divine in his or her performance—not only through miracles, but also through rhetorical performances” (446). His opponents, to promote their own influence in the church, harped on this apparent weakness of Paul.

10.11: Verse 11 serves as his rebuttal to the claim that his presence is inconsistent with his writings, and serves to highlight why he will not be ashamed. His actions when he is present are consistent with what he is “in word.” He writes: “Let such a person reckon, that what we are in word through letters when absent, this also we are in deed when present.” Keener notes that: “Philosophers and Jewish teachers often contrasted words and deeds; deeds weighed more heavily” (516). Paul practiced what he preached, even if they weren’t impressed with his rhetorical skills, they could not accuse him of his speech in letters being inconsistent with his actions when present.

Remember also that he is writing this section “by the humility and gentleness of Christ.” They had plenty of arrogant, self-seeking, braggart speakers, as Garland writes: “Paul is not the weak, wretched quack his adversaries make him out to be…His boldness may have taken the unexpected form of a humble spirit of gentleness when present because he does not want to tear them down…(the Corinthians) do not need an arrogant, overbearing preacher throwing his apostolic weight around. There were plenty of such characters in Corinth already. They need to see instead the example of Christ. He first preached to them the gospel in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and he continues to minister to them in this way” (449).

10.12: Verse 12 contains a sarcastic note in which Paul claims that, as Garland paraphrases: “Such a dwarf as I could not possibly compare with such giants.” See, the opponents of Paul are entrenched in the culture of the Corinthian world of cut throat competition, and these opponents are intensely interested in honor. We’ve noted before that at this period, honor was viewed as a limited resource. Garland notes: “People in this society assumed that honors were as limited as material wealth. Since there was only a limited amount of honor to go around, one resented and envied others for having it. ‘Political enemies were targets of exaggerated character assassination designed to make them symbols of shame or of political subversion’” (451).

So, there was a willingness to cut others down (as we’ve seen thus far), but there was also the practice of intense self-promotion. Garland adds: “This race for honor ‘encouraged outward expressions of pride and arrogance.’ Self-boasting was considered an act of honor… ‘an individual’s worth and consequently his respect in the community was dependent on the status he was able to project’” (452).

Paul’s statement here is spoken tongue in cheek. Keener notes: “Paul satirically declines to compare himself with such teachers—satire was a common argumentative device. One of the rules of ‘comparison’ was that one could not compare dissimilar items; yet the dissimilarity turns out to favor him in 10:13-18” (516). He essentially says: “They are so much greater than I that we cannot possibly be compared.” Yet when they are, he will not be the one found to be lacking. It's also worth noting that the final portion of verse 12 critiques there measure of comparison as foolish on its face. Their cutting down of each other proves their lack of wisdom, not their honorable character.

10.13-14: As Paul begins to talk about his own boasting, he does so in a measured manner. In fact, the boasting that he does is in accordance to the “measure of the standard apportioned to us by God.” Notice that within this Paul puts the emphasis on God as well as seeing to it that any boasting done does not exceed the reality of the situation. This is important, because as Keener notes: “Ancients despised boasting beyond one’s appropriate class, but in the matter of the Corinthians, Paul plainly outclasses his critics (cf. 3:1–2). Ancients often considered as hubris failure to “know oneself,” including one’s limits as a mortal” (516).

Verse 14 makes it clear that this “measure” apportioned by God included the Gentile ministry that extended geographically to Corinth. In fact, he was the first to go to Corinth, and thus his sphere of influence and his authority in the church at Corinth are God apportioned. Garland writes: “His complaint with the rivals is not simply that they have wrongfully invaded turf assigned to him but that they have tried to discredit his influence where he rightfully deserves influence and to take credit for what God has done through him” (455–456).

10.15-16: Verse 15 is a not-so-subtle rebuke of the type of boasting that the opponents are doing: “We do not boast beyond limit in the labors of others.” Danker paraphrases this: “(we do not) meddle in other people’s territory and then compare our performance with theirs” (quote from Garland 456). Paul will not boast beyond his limits (or rather beyond that which God has assigned), but they certainly have.

They are eager to boast about the work already done by others as if they themselves were the founders, whereas Paul was eager to build where no construction has yet been done. Paul was eager to lay foundations, not go to someone else’s worksite and build on what they had begun. The second half of verse 15 is somewhat difficult to interpret; however, the basic idea communicated here is that Paul is hoping that the Corinthian issue would be resolved and thus the opportunity for him to continue ministry even beyond Achaia would be opened. Harris writes: “As their one spiritual father (1 Co 4:15), Paul hoped that the enlargement of his influence among the Corinthians and the improvement of their estimation of him would accompany or even result from the growth of their faith. Then, and only then, would he contemplate fulfilling his eager desire to visit the Christians at Rome (Ac 19:21; Ro 1:11; 15:24) and to advance westward to Spain (Ro 15:24, 28). How could he pursue pioneer evangelism in the western Mediterranean when his converts in the eastern Mediterranean were unsettled and in danger of apostasy (11:3)?” (517–518).

10.17-18: Within all this talk of boasting Paul houses the principle by which all boasting must be rooted. He quotes Jeremiah 9:23-24 that in its entirety reads: “Thus says the Lord: do not let the wise boast in their wisdom, do not let the mighty boast in their might, do not let the wealthy boast in their wealth; but let those who boast boast in this, that they understand and know me, that I am the Lord; I act with steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight, says the Lord.” This is the principle by which Paul boast, and this is why we noted the importance of him beginning with a measure of boasting that is apportioned by God. Paul boasts of the work God accomplishes through him. Garland writes: “This boast in the Lord has nothing to do with Paul’s own pedigree or prowess. It has to do with what the Lord has accomplished through him. Artificial comparisons with others based on human criteria hardly compare with the work that Christ has done in and through him. His boasting is not inappropriate because it is based on what God has done in his life” (457).