Untitled Sermon (3)

2 Corinthians 11:1 ESV

I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me!

Having to defend yourself when you are serving Jesus is foolish!

The reasons for indulging him are three: first, Paul’s divine jealousy for the Corinthians’ purity; second, their willingness to put up with an aberrant message; and third, because he is in no way inferior to his rivals.

Belleville

This is a personal attack Paul is dealing with.

All through this section Paul has to adopt methods which are completely distasteful to him. He has to stress his own authority, to boast about himself and to keep comparing himself with those who are seeking to seduce the Corinthian Church; and he does not like it. He apologizes every time he has to speak in such a way, for he was not a man to stand on his dignity. It was said of a great man, “He never remembered his dignity until others forgot it.” But Paul knew that it was not really his dignity and honour that were at stake, but the dignity and the honour of Jesus Christ.

Barclay

Paul is being sarcastic still. “You bear with others...bear a little with me now...” You cut others some slack, how about cut me some slack now...

2 Corinthians 11:2 ESV

For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

This is paternal jealousy!!!

The motive of Paul’s critics in citing what they had done was self-glorification, but Paul’s was the welfare of his readers. This is the first of three reasons that Paul gave for the Corinthians to bear with him (v. 1). He wanted them to be completely loyal to Christ.

Constable

Paul is crazy passionate about the purity of God’s people, about their faithfulness to Jesus. Murray J. Harris astutely observes, “Human jealousy is a vice, but to share divine jealousy is a virtue.” Jealousy is recorded in the Decalogue: “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God,” as a command to the Israelites that idolatry is not tolerated (; ). God’s zeal for his people results in blessings when they obey and curses when they disobey ()...He guards them like a father who watches protectively over his daughter before she is given in marriage to her future husband.

“I gave you in marriage to one man, to Christ, to present you as a pure virgin to him.” Every word in this illustration is filled with meaning and has been chosen carefully. Paul presents himself as a parent who has sought and found a suitable husband for his marriageable daughter. He is responsible for the spiritual purity of the Corinthian congregation, which he wants to present to Christ. The Old Testament depicts the betrothal of Israel as bride and God as bridegroom (e.g., ; ; ). Also, the New Testament often mentions the spiritual relationship of the bride, which is the church, and the bridegroom, who is Christ (; ; ; ; ; ).

Notice that Paul says “I gave you in marriage,” a translation of the Greek word hērmosamēn. The basic meaning of this verb is “to fit together” (we have the derivative harmony) and, next, “to join or give in marriage, betroth.” The church in Corinth is engaged to be married, while Paul serves as friend of the bridegroom and guardian of the bride. He wants the bride to be faithful to her future husband.

The phrase to one man illustrates divinely intended monogamy in which one man and one woman pledge faithfulness to one another. The man is Christ and the woman the Corinthian church. Christ’s loyalty to the church is faultless and need not be mentioned; but the fidelity of the Corinthians demands Paul’s protective care and watchfulness.

In the oriental culture of that day, an engagement was equivalent to marriage without consummation. The betrothal period lasted for one year, during which bride and bridegroom prepared for the wedding ceremony. From the day of her betrothal, the woman legally was the wife of her future husband but she remained a virgin until the wedding day. In addition, the engagement might not be broken. If this happened, it was considered a divorce. Only death might end an engagement. Unfaithfulness of either party was regarded as adultery and had to be disciplined accordingly. The bride had to remain a virgin to be presented to her husband. So Paul exerts himself to keep the church pure from doctrine contrary to the gospel as he strives to present her to Christ.

The last part of this verse augurs a bright future in which Christ as bridegroom and the church as bride will be together in full communion. To borrow a thought, God’s people see “only a shadow of the good things that are coming” (see ). Nonetheless, while on earth the church must be ready to appear before Christ without wrinkle or blemish in holiness and purity ().  

Kistemaker

Be loyal to God---God’s jealousy for His holy name and for His people is a major Old Testament theme. In God said, “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.” reveals that one of God’s names is “Jealous.” describes the Lord as “a consuming fire, a jealous God” (cf. ; ; ; ), while and 21 reveal that His holy jealousy is provoked when His people worship idols (cf. ; ). In God declares, “I shall be jealous for My holy name.”

Like David, who wrote in , “Zeal for [God’s] house has consumed me, and the reproaches of those who reproach [Him] have fallen on me” (cf. ), Paul felt pain when God was dishonored. That pain produced a “daily pressure on [him] of concern for all the churches” (), particularly for those believers who were weak and led into sin (11:29). He was especially concerned that the Corinthians offer God the loyal, loving obedience in which He rejoices and of which He is worthy (cf. ; ; , , ; ; ; ; ; ; ).  

Be loyal to Jesus---When Paul preached the gospel to them, he betrothed the Corinthians to one husband. At salvation, they pledged their loyalty to Christ, and Paul wanted to make sure they remained faithful. As their spiritual father (), Paul was determined to present them as a pure virgin to Christ. Having been engaged to Him at salvation, the Corinthians (like all church-age believers) will be presented to Christ at the Rapture (cf. ) and have their marriage supper during the millennial kingdom (). Paul’s overriding concern was that the church remain pure for her Bridegroom (cf. ).

MacArthur

We may define the purity of the church as follows: The purity of the church is its degree of freedom from wrong doctrine and conduct, and its degree of conformity to God’s revealed will for the church...The unity of the church is its degree of freedom from divisions among true Christians.

Factors that make a church “more pure” include:

1. Biblical doctrine (or right preaching of the Word)

2. Proper use of the sacraments (or ordinances)

3. Right use of church discipline

4. Genuine worship

5. Effective prayer

6. Effective witness

7. Effective fellowship

8. Biblical church government

9. Spiritual power in ministry

10. Personal holiness of life among members

11. Care for the poor

12. Love for Christ  

 Christ’s goal for the church is “that he might sanctify her having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing that she might be holy and without blemish” (). Paul’s ministry was one of “warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man mature in Christ” (). Moreover, Paul told Titus that elders must “be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it” (), and he said that false teachers “must be silenced” (). Jude urged Christians to “contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (). Proper use of the sacraments is commanded in , and right use of church discipline to protect the purity of the church is required in , .

Of course, if we are to work for the purity of the church, especially of the local church of which we are a part, we must recognize that this is a process, and that any church of which we are a part will be somewhat impure in various areas. There were no perfect churches at the time of the New Testament and there will be no perfect churches until Christ returns. This means that Christians have no obligation to seek the purest church they can find and stay there, and then leave it if an even purer church comes to their attention. Rather, they should find a true church in which they can have effective ministry and in which they will experience Christian growth as well, and then should stay there and minister, continually working for the purity of that church. God will often bless their prayers and faithful witness and the church will gradually grow in many areas of purity.

Grudem

He begins by using a vivid picture from Jewish marriage customs. The idea of Israel as the bride of God is common in the Old Testament. “Your Maker,” said Isaiah, “is your husband.” (). “As the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.” (). So it was natural for Paul to use the metaphor of marriage and to think of the Corinthian Church as the bride of Christ.

At a Jewish wedding there were two people called the friends of the bridegroom, one representing the bridegroom and one the bride. They had many duties. They acted as liaisons between the bride and the bridegroom; they carried the invitations to the guests; but they had one particular responsibility, that of guaranteeing the chastity of the bride. That is what is in Paul’s thought here. In the marriage of Jesus Christ and the Corinthian Church he is the friend of the bridegroom. It is his responsibility to guarantee the chastity of the bride, and he will do all he can to keep the Corinthian Church pure and a fit bride for Jesus Christ.  

Barclay

with a godly jealousy Not resentment or envy, but intense devotion—like the devotion God had for His own people (). Paul planted the church in Corinth, but they rebelled against him; Paul considers it his responsibility to bring them back to genuine faith through his godly jealousy (zeloō in Greek).

promised you in marriage According to Jewish tradition, fathers were to present their daughters as virgins. Paul feels that the church at Corinth has been defiled by following false teachers and presents this analogy to make his point.

In this analogy, Christ represents the one who receives the virgin bride. Although Paul’s argument here focuses on the idea of betrothal, he often uses marriage as a metaphor to describe the relationship between Christ and the Church (see and note; compare and note; ).

FSB

“divine jealousy” - the desire for exclusivity in a relationship

“betrothed” - the people of God belong exclusively to Jesus

What does it mean to be a “pure virgin to Christ”?

Biblical Images for the Church---people of God; body of Christ; temple of God; royal priesthood; flock of God; bride of Christ

2 Corinthians 11:3 ESV

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Paul was afraid that they would be led astray. People who come offering something more than Jesus are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

As in the garden, the goal of their deception is to create a new way of thinking among the Corinthians that no longer agrees with God’s will.

Hafemann

Genuine Christians can be and are being deceived by false teachers and are abandoning their faith today. This sometimes happens when young people go off to college, and it happens when cultists come knocking on Christians’ doors.

Constable

In some Jewish traditions, Satan, disguised as a good angel (cf. 11:14), deceived Eve sexually. Given the image of the betrothed virgin (11:2, perhaps betrothed to Christ, the new Adam), Paul could have this tradition partly in view here. More certain is the biblical allusion to , where the serpent deceived Eve. Paul presents his opponents as adulterers who corrupt betrothed virgins—a crime punishable by banishment under Roman law and death under Old Testament law ().

Keener

b. Illustration. “But I am afraid that as the serpent with his craftiness deceived Eve, your thoughts may somehow be corrupted.” What blame would have fallen on Paul if through his neglect the Corinthian church had fallen away from Christ. As a shepherd of the flock that is entrusted to his care, the apostle watches over the church to preserve Christ’s honor.

By mentioning the serpent and Eve, Paul calls to mind the scene in Paradise where Satan deceived Eve and led her into sin (). He seems to discontinue his illustration about marriage and introduce one of deception and sin. Some commentators have tried to explain this sudden change of topics by alluding to a Jewish legend of Eve being sexually seduced by the serpent. This legend was probably current in the first century and presumably Paul was acquainted with it.

Even if Paul knew about this Jewish tale, he selected the reference to Eve’s deception only because of its contextual relevance. With Adam, Eve broke her dedication to God by transgressing the command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil (; , ; compare also ). Similarly, the Corinthian church faced the danger of deserting Christ by listening to another gospel (v. 4).

Three considerations bear upon the interpretation of this verse. First, the Genesis account fails to disclose anything sexually immoral between Eve and the serpent. To suggest that fallen angels can have sexual relations with women is an unfounded assertion, because angels do not marry (). Next, Paul’s objective is not to speak about something sensual but about the corruption of the mind. Just as Satan attacked the thinking of Eve, so the intruders are trying to change the thought patterns of the Corinthians. And last, Paul links the serpent’s deception to the superapostles (vv. 4–5) and the masquerading Satan to the masquerading false apostles (vv. 13–14). In short, these intruders are Satan’s servants who attempt to subvert the thinking pattern of the Corinthians.

c. Devotion. “[To drift away] from the sincerity and the purity that is toward Christ.” Paul’s purpose in supplying the illustration about Eve’s deception is to emphasize the necessity of unblemished spiritual fidelity to God. As Satan perverted Eve’s guileless faith in God, so the false apostles attempt to persuade the Corinthians to abandon their single-hearted faithfulness to Christ. Seeing the servants of Satan at work among the members of the Corinthian church, Paul sounds the alarm and seeks to preserve their spiritual sincerity and purity. The word sincerity means simplicity, which effectively rules out every trace of duplicity. It signifies being exclusively devoted to one person or cause with respect to thinking, speaking, and doing. The term purity refers to moral blamelessness.

Acting as the friend of the bridegroom (Christ), Paul keeps the bride (the church) pure and blameless. He is unable to do this unless the entire membership of the local church is alerted to the impending danger. Not only for the Christians in Corinth, but for every believer, the watchword is alertness. The attacks of the evil one occur relentlessly to the end of time. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes notes, “The enmity between the seed of the serpent and the Seed of the woman continues unremittingly until the day of judgment, and mankind will continue to suffer from and be threatened by the evil effects of the first sin of the first woman until, at Christ’s coming, the new creation is fully realized and the former things are passed away.”  

Kistemaker

Paul feared that Satan’s emissaries, using the same craftiness (cf. ) by which their evil master deceived Eve, would lead the Corinthians’ minds (the Greek word could also be translated “thoughts”) astray, thus corrupting or ruining them (the Greek term also has those connotations). Lack of discernment is a major problem for the church (cf. ), because the spiritual battle is an ideological one (see the discussion of 10:3–5 in chapter 25 of this volume). The church’s willingness to tolerate error in the name of unity, coupled with a lack of biblical and doctrinal knowledge, has crippled its ability to discern. As a result, it is too often easy prey for the ravenous, savage wolves of whom both Jesus and Paul warned (; ), who wound it and sap its power and testimony.

MacArthur

In ancient Near Eastern literature of the Old Testament world, animal speech is not uncommon. The context for such speaking is that of magic, which of course is tied to the world of the gods, or direct divine intervention. No Egyptian, for example, would have presumed that the animals they experienced in their normal lives could talk. But when the gods or magical forces were in view, that was a different story. Animals were often the vehicle for manifesting a divine presence or power in a story. The kind of animal would often depend on characteristics associated with that animal, or on the status of that animal in a culture’s religion.

Consequently, the point of is not to inform us about ancient zoology or a time when animals could talk. We’re not in the realm of science by design. Genesis telegraphed simple but profound ideas to Israelite readers: The world you experience was created by an all-powerful God; human beings are his created representatives; Eden was his abode; he was accompanied by a supernatural host; one member of that divine entourage was not pleased by God’s decisions to create humanity and give them dominion. All that leads to how humanity got into the mess it’s in.

In some respects, we know that the Genesis “serpent” wasn’t really a member of the animal kingdom. We have other passages to help us grasp that point, particularly in the New Testament. We understand that, even though New Testament writers refer to the serpent back in Eden, they are really referring to a supernatural entity—not a mere member of the animal kingdom (; ; ).

This is how we need to think about the story of . An Israelite would have known that the episode described interference in the human drama by a divine being, a malcontent from within Yahweh’s council. The vocabulary used by the writer reveals several things about the divine enemy that has emerged from the council. If we’re thinking only in terms of a snake, we’ll miss the messaging.  

Heiser

There was a Jewish legend current in Paul’s time that, in the Garden of Eden, Satan had actually seduced Eve and that Cain was the child of their union. Paul is thinking of that old legend when he fears that the Corinthian Church is being seduced from Christ.

Barclay

as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness Refers to the events of . Eve believed the lie of the serpent, which convinced her to eat from the tree that God had forbidden.

craftiness By extension of his analogy, this refers to the deceitfulness of Paul’s opponents in Corinth. These people cast doubt on God’s promises and Paul’s apostolic authority.

FSB

“cunning” - deceitfulness usually characterizing an especially wicked character

“led astray” - actively deviating from what is considered moral, right, proper or good

“thoughts” - we move towards what we are thinking

“sincere” - honest, the absence of pretense, the real deal

“pure” - being unsullied by sin or moral wrong; especially lacking a firsthand knowledge of evil; today we might say naive or innocent (this isn’t the same word used in v. 2

“devotion” is not actually in the passage; it was supplied

2 Corinthians 11:4 ESV

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

The proper understanding of the mission of Jesus, the proper understanding of the role of the Spirit (not simply a human “spirit,” contra the niv13), and the proper understanding of the relationship between the gospel of the new covenant and the role of the old are inextricably linked together. The central question is what Jesus accomplished in his ministry, how one receives and grows in the Spirit as a result, and what the conditions are for belonging fully to the people of God. In short, the issue is “what constitutes a proper manifestation of the Spirit in the ministry of the gospel. A mistaken emphasis on the miraculous by these so-called super-apostles (11:5) resulted in a construal of the Spirit as a wonder-worker rather than a guarantor of the kerygma.” cf. 2 Cor. 4:5

Hafemann

In all this they were bearing up “beautifully.” Paul described ironically their accepting it all very graciously and submissively from the false apostles (cf. 10:7). Since they showed such remarkable toleration of false teachers surely they owed their father in the faith the same toleration.

This is the second reason the Corinthians should bear with Paul (v. 1): their willingness to accept visitors who presented an adulterated message.

Constable

What the intruders’ preaching amounted to is difficult to assess. “Another Jesus” has commonly been understood to refer to Jesus either as a Hellenistic wonderworker (along the lines of the Greco-Roman “divine-man”) or as a Jew who modeled obedience to the Mosaic law. It is hard to know whether by a different spirit Paul meant a human attitude (niv, JB, Phillips, RSV) or the Holy Spirit (TEV, NEB). If the former, a spirit of legalism or an attitude of false spirituality could be the idea. A lifestyle antithetical to the gospel and someone’s having fallen under the influence of evil spirits are also possibilities. From its position between Jesus and gospel, it seems probable, though, that pneuma denotes the Holy Spirit.

But in what sense was Paul’s rivals’ preaching different? Did they overemphasize their capacity for visionary and ecstatic experiences? Or did they lay claim to authoritative prophetic utterances, tongues, special revelations and the like? A different gospel sounds very much like the language Paul uses to describe the preaching of the Judaizers in his letter to the Galatian churches (compare “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved”—). Yet the topic of circumcision and law-obedience is strangely absent from 2 Corinthians. So we do well to look elsewhere for an explanation of Paul’s language.

the role of the miraculous was to validate, not displace, the gospel; and persuasion functioned to convince that “the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead” ().  

Belleville

Notice the triad: Jesus, spirit, gospel; and note the three verbs: proclaimed, received, accepted. Also, the Greek adjective allos (other), which usually means another of the same kind, has the same meaning as the Greek word heteros (other, in the sense of different). Their correlation here is based on the parallel of proclaiming Jesus and accepting the gospel, for both activities are similar.

In the first part of this epistle, Paul discusses the above-mentioned triad, although not in the same sequence. He relates that the Spirit of the living God is instrumental in giving life, while the letter kills (3:3, 6). Next, he writes repeatedly about Jesus’ gospel, death, and resurrection (4:5, 10, 11, 14). And last, Paul speaks about “our gospel,” which he compares implicitly to another gospel (4:3). We are not surprised, therefore, to find the same triad in the present context.

b. Exposition. “For if someone comes and proclaims a Jesus other than the one we proclaimed.” The “someone” is the representative of a group of meddlers, as is evident from the preceding chapter (10:7, 10, 11; see also 11:21). This person presents another Jesus to the members of the Corinthian church. Because Paul seldom uses only the single name Jesus instead of Christ Jesus or Jesus Christ, we assume that he calls attention to the ministry of Jews without preaching him as crucified Lord. The intruding Judaizers would refrain from depicting Jesus as the Christ, even if they called themselves “servants of Christ.”13

Paul’s opponents came to Corinth with self-commendations, were not commissioned by Jesus Christ as apostles, presented themselves on their own authority, and had never suffered for the sake of Jesus and his gospel. Refusing to listen obediently to the Scriptures, these people avoided the inevitability of enduring hardship for Christ. Instead they probably talked about a victorious Jesus who performed miracles, preached good news, and inspired multitudes. But they failed to mention Jesus’ suffering, humiliation, and death on a cruel cross (compare []). They proclaimed a Jesus who was entirely different from the one Paul had taught the Corinthians.

“Or you receive a spirit different from the one you received.” Should the word spirit be capitalized, referring to the Holy Spirit? No, because the spirit that the intruders propose is not the Spirit of God but a human spirit. When the Corinthians accepted Christ, God gave them his Holy Spirit. In the last four chapters of this epistle, Paul says little about the Holy Spirit. But he already had spoken on this topic and did not have to repeat himself (3:3, 6, 17).

The interlopers wanted to give the Corinthians a worldly spirit in place of the Holy Spirit. But a worldly spirit enslaves people and fills their hearts with fear. Such a spirit is devoid of power, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (; ).

“Or a gospel different from the one you accepted.” Paul preached Christ’s gospel, which the Corinthians accepted in faith. When the Corinthians believed Jesus, they received from God the gift of the Holy Spirit. Note, then, that believers accept the gospel but receive the Spirit. Guided by the Holy Spirit, they were to follow Christ steadfastly.

Now the people are in danger of accepting a different gospel. They can hear the echo of , where Paul writes: “I am astonished that you are so quickly … turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all.” There is but one gospel of Jesus Christ, which we have in the four versions of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There is no other gospel than the gospel of Jesus; all others are apocryphal.

Paul wrote that he had received the tradition from the Lord and passed it on to the Corinthians (). Afterward he wrote to them about the light of the gospel. With that light, believers are able to see Christ’s glory, but those who are lost cannot see it because it is hidden from them (4:3–4; contrast 9:13). The apostle remarks that he and his colleagues never distort the word of God (4:2). But, by implication, this is exactly what his adversarsaries did (2:17).

“You put up with it well enough.” The changes in doctrine were presented gradually so that the members of the Corinthian church hardly noticed the difference. Paul himself has to call their attention to the spiritual threat in their midst. For this reason, he must be direct in confronting the readers.  

What are the scriptural consequences of presenting a Jesus void of suffering, humiliation, and death on the cross? What is the effect of proclaiming a Jesus who did not humble himself and did not become obedient to death ()? What is the result of preaching a Jesus without mentioning the shedding of his blood? The writer of Hebrews puts it squarely before the reader: “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (). Further, through the sacrifice of Christ’s body on the cross, we have been and are being made holy (, ).

Paul is saying the same thing. He writes that if the resurrection of Jesus is nullified, then our faith is useless and forgiveness of sins nonexistent (). Also, there is then no eternal life for the human race.

When another Jesus is preached, not according to the gospel, the biblical teaching of atonement, reconciliation, removal of the curse, and adoption is eliminated. If Jesus is merely a man whom we must use as a model, “we are to be pitied more than all men” (). However, on the basis of Scripture we joyfully confess with the church of all ages

the forgiveness of sins;

the resurrection of the body;

and the life everlasting.  

Kistemaker

Be loyal to the Gospel---First, the false apostles preached another Jesus, not the true Lord Jesus Christ whom Paul preached. An aberrant Christology has always been a hallmark of false religions and cults. Instead of viewing Him as the eternal second person of the Trinity, who became a man and died as an atoning sacrifice for sin, they see Him as a prophet, guru, avatar, social or political revolutionary, Michael the archangel, a spirit child of God, an emanation from God—anything but the true God in flesh. Although the false apostles outwardly identified with Jesus, the Jesus they preached was not the Jesus of Scripture.

Second, the false apostles came in the power of a different spirit, a demonic spirit, not the Holy Spirit whom the Corinthians had received at salvation. All false teaching ultimately derives from Satan and his demon hosts, whom Paul described as “deceitful spirits” (), and John called “the spirit of error” (; cf. 4:1).

The logical consequence of proclaiming a different Jesus in the power of a different spirit was that the false apostles preached a different gospel. They did not preach the true gospel that the Corinthians had accepted when Paul first preached it to them. As previously noted, Paul did not define this false gospel. It undoubtedly denied that salvation is by grace through faith alone, and it added human works. Incredibly, instead of rejecting this damning heresy, the Corinthians bore it beautifully; they tolerated it, thus justifying Paul’s fear for their purity.  

MacArthur

The issue in this passage is the person of Jesus and the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus

It is clear that there were in Corinth men who were preaching their own version of Christianity and insisting that it was superior to Paul’s. It is equally clear that they regarded themselves as very special people—super-apostles, Paul calls them. Ironically Paul says that the Corinthians listen splendidly to them. If they give them such an excellent hearing will they not listen to him?Barclay

Jesus whom we have not proclaimed Paul’s opponents may have downplayed the importance of Jesus’ crucifixion, since Greeks considered crucifixion to be a sign of weakness (see and note). By contrast, Paul presented the crucifixion of Christ as the heart of his gospel (; ; ).

different spirit The so-called super-apostles either proclaimed that Christ wasn’t crucified or that His crucifixion degraded Him as Savior (compare note on ; note on v. 1). In doing so, they preached the opposite message of Paul, who only wanted to proclaim Christ crucified (13:4; ). Paul was interested in their relationship with Jesus (compare ), but his opponents were interested in their own gain (compare ; ). In this regard, the spirit of their teaching was one of arrogance.

Paul’s description here also has a spiritual component, emphasizing not only the arrogance of the false teachers but also the evil spiritual powers behind their false teaching (compare ). These teachers were essentially working with the powers of evil in proclaiming a gospel contrary to Christ being crucified. At Corinth, people were exploiting spiritual gifts for the sake of gaining power (see note on ), so Paul may also be hinting at supernatural gifts being manifested by the powers of evil. Paul similarly calls for distinguishing between spirits elsewhere (see note on ; compare note on ).

different gospel Paul is likely referring to his opponents’ culturally motivated attempts to undermine the importance of Jesus’ sacrificial death as the pivotal component of the gospel (see note on ).

These false teachers may have been attempting to elevate themselves as leaders in their community by removing the difficult parts of the gospel. They may have also been regarding the poor in the Corinthian church as lower in status than others. Paul argues that all are equal, regardless of spiritual gifts or social status, because all have received grace equally and because gifts cannot be earned (see note on ; compare ; note on ).

FSB

“another” - some other, another of a different kind

“proclaim” - people can talk about a different Jesus just like I talk about the biblical Jesus. The delivery can be the same even thought the subject is completely different.

“different” - unlike in nature

“gospel” - good news

“put up with it readily enough” - accept it as true and good even though you know it is unpleasant or difficult

2 Corinthians 11:5 ESV

Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles.

It would be highly unusual, however, for the conjunction introducing verse 5 (gar) to indicate a contrast. Its most common function is to introduce a ground or support (i.e., “for” or “because”). Moreover, it is difficult to imagine that Paul would go back on his resolve not to compare himself with others or that he would try to establish his authority by comparing himself positively to Satan’s servants! This objection takes on special force in light of 11:12, where Paul refuses to allow his opponents to be compared to himself. Furthermore, the Greek text need not be translated as “those super-apostles” but can be rendered simply as “the highest ranking apostles” or “superlative” or “eminent apostles” (cf. nasb). Rendered in this way, in 11:5 Paul is not comparing himself to his enemies but to the authority and status of the leading apostles of the early church, namely, to the acknowledged “pillar apostles” of and those within their sphere of authority.

Hence, the “most eminent apostles” of 11:5 and 12:11 should not be equated with the false apostles of 11:4 or 11:13–15. Paul is not continuing his discussion of his opponents and their “gospel” from verse 4, but is switching focus in verse 5 by introducing the reason why the Corinthians are in such danger if they accept Paul’s opponents (11:2–4) and why they ought to “put up” with Paul instead (11:1). In turning their backs on him, the Corinthians must remember that in his message and ministry he is in no way inferior to those acknowledged to be the church’s most eminent apostles but that he carries their same authority and status. Those who reject Paul are therefore rejecting the one common, apostolic gospel (cf. , ). By comparing himself positively to the “pillar apostles,” Paul is driving a wedge between his gospel and the subsequent claims of his opponents, who may have supported their message by boasting that they came with the Jerusalem church’s stamp of approval. In reality, however, Paul is the one who represents the apostolic tradition.

Paul’s equality with the leading apostles means that even if he is an amateur in the art of professional rhetoric and public oratory, his knowledge of the gospel is not second rate (11:6). Indeed, he has manifested this knowledge to the Corinthians “in every way,” that is, by both word (i.e., his preaching) and deed (i.e., his suffering), a clear reference back to 2:14. Paul’s statement in 11:6 also recalls , where Paul stated that it was of no significance whether the Corinthians heard the gospel from Paul or from any of the other apostles, since they all represent the same message. Paul’s reference in verse 6 to his “knowledge” makes this same point: His knowledge is on a par with any of the apostles, just as he himself shares their apostolic authority in every way.  

Hafemann

Paul had all the authority he needed to speak to the church in Corinth.

This is the third reason the readers should bear with Paul (v. 1). He claimed that he was not inferior to these “super-apostles.”

Constable

Who are these so-called superapostles? Are they Jesus’ twelve disciples and others who followed him from the time of his baptism to that of his ascension ()? This interpretation fails to do justice to the immediate context, in which Paul speaks of an opponent who preaches a different Jesus (see v. 4). Moreover, the three pillars of the church (Peter, James, and John) had come to an agreement with Paul on a division of labors between Peter and Paul (). Apart from a confrontation at Antioch, we do not read of any tension between these two apostles () or the rest of them. Hence, we cannot infer that Paul considers himself inferior to the Jerusalem apostles. Rather, he employs irony when he labels the Judaizing interlopers as superapostles.

The expression superapostles “even linguistically brings out the impossible nature of such apostles,” because being an apostle of Jesus is in itself incomparable. The list of spiritual gifts indicates no higher position than that of apostle (; ).

No one but Jesus appointed the twelve apostles, chose Matthias to succeed Judas Iscariot, and called Paul as an apostle to the Gentiles. Jesus commissioned no successors to these men, with the result that apostleship never became an established and continuing church office. The apostolate is therefore “unrepeatable and untransferable.”

If the superapostles are not identified with the apostles in Jerusalem, we must associate them with the false apostles whom Paul mentions in verse 13. These men came to Corinth on their own accord, adopted the name apostles to gain entry into the church, and gave the impression of possessing more authority than Paul. These people probably had Judean roots.  

Kistemaker

Be loyal to the truth---Paul did not keep his knowledge secret, but in every way he made it evident to the Corinthians in all things. As he had in Ephesus, Paul “did not shrink from declaring to [them] the whole purpose of God” (). He had proclaimed to the Corinthians the “true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself” (; cf. 1:27; 4:3; ).

Yet despite the solid doctrinal foundation Paul had given them, the Corinthians were in grave danger of being seduced. The risk of wandering from the truth and becoming confused and disloyal is a constant threat to the church of Jesus Christ. Paul forcefully rebuked the Galatian churches, expressing his amazement that they were “so quickly deserting Him who called [them] by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel” (). Five of the seven churches John addressed Revelation to, churches founded under Paul’s influence, had defected. That tragic pattern has been repeated throughout the church’s history. Therefore, absolute loyalty to God, Jesus Christ, the gospel, and biblical truth are nonnegotiable principles for everyone who names the name of Christ.  

MacArthur

Then he draws the contrast between these false apostles and himself. He is quite untrained in speaking. The word he uses is idiotes. This word began by meaning a private individual who took no part in public life. It went on to mean someone with no technical training, what we would call a layman. Paul says that these false but arrogant apostles may be far better equipped orators than he is; they may be the professionals and he the mere amateur in words; they may be the men with the academic qualifications and he the mere layman. But the fact remains, however unskilled he may be in technical oratory, he knows what he is talking about and they do not.

There is a famous story which tells how a company of people were dining together. After dinner it was agreed that each should recite something. A well-known actor rose and, with all the resources of elocution and dramatic art, he declaimed the twenty-third psalm and sat down to tremendous applause. A quit man followed him. He too began to recite the twenty-third psalm and at first there was rather a titter. But before he had ended there was a stillness that was more eloquent than any applause. When he had spoken the last words there was silence, and then the actor leant across and said, “Sir, I know the psalm, but you know the shepherd.”

Paul’s opponents might have all the resources of oratory and he might be unskilled in speech; but he knew what he was talking about because he knew the real Christ.  

Barclay

preeminent apostles A sarcastic reference to Paul’s opponents in Corinth, who were trying to turn the church community against him. These people may have also boasted about the Corinthian church as if they had planted it (; compare ).

FSB

“consider” - this was Paul’s conviction, his settled belief

“inferior” - Paul was not one bit less of an apostle in spite of what the super-apostles were claiming for themselves

2 Corinthians 11:6 ESV

Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; indeed, in every way we have made this plain to you in all things.

Paul had just said that he was not inferior. He was not now claiming that he was inferior in speech. He evidently meant that even if his critics’ charge that he was inferior in speech was true, which it was not, no one could charge him with being inferior in knowledge. The Corinthians knew very well Paul’s superior knowledge of the revelations of God (cf. ; ). He had expounded divine truth to his readers exhaustively in person and in his letters. Obviously knowledge is more important than speech.

Constable

William Barclay tells the story of a group of people at a dinner party who agreed that each should recite something after the meal. A well-known actor rose and, with all the resources of elocution and dramatic art, recited the Twenty-third Psalm. He sat down to tremendous applause. A quiet man followed him with his own recitation of this psalm. At first there were a few snickers. But by the time he had ended, his hearers had fallen into a stillness that was more eloquent than any applause. When he sat down, the actor leaned across the table and said, “Sir, I know the psalm, but you know the shepherd” (Barclay 1954:247). Similarly, Paul’s opponents may have spoken with great skill and ability, but Paul preached from personal conviction. He knew the real Christ.

Belleville

a. Admission. “I may be unskilled in respect to speech but I am not so in respect to knowledge.” The emphasis is on the first person singular pronoun I, which occurs twice in the first sentence. The plural we in the second half of the verse refers to Paul himself.

Verse 6a is Paul’s frank acknowledgment that he was no orator. He lacked the oratorical skills of Apollos and was unable to compete with the Greeks, who favored eloquent speakers. The Greeks considered anyone who floundered in speech an amateur. Apollos was the favorite preacher in Corinth, and Paul was regarded as second best ().

Even though Paul acknowledges his lack of eloquence, at times he was able to articulate and speak effectively. Luke recorded Paul’s address before Governor Festus, King Agrippa, high-ranking Roman army officers, and prominent leaders in Caesarea (; ). This last speech is the best of Paul’s addresses, for its style borders on that of classical Greek. Yet Paul knew his limitations and freely admitted his deficiency in rhetoric. He realized that his accusers had spread the word that his speaking was less than mediocre (10:10). According to the standards of the Greeks, they were correct.

The apostle was an amateur in oratory but a genius in factual and spiritual knowledge. He especially knew the Scriptures and had profound insight into the mystery of Christ’s gospel (see ). In this text and others he associates the term knowledge with both the preaching of the Good News and spiritual knowledge (4:6; 6:6; 8:7; 10:5). This word directs attention to God’s redemptive revelation in Jesus Christ.

b. Difficulty. “Certainly, in every respect and in all things we made this known to you.” This sentence presents a number of difficulties that affect its interpretation. Paul has left out three expressions. With elisions, and following the Greek word order, the sentence reads: “However, in every … having made known … in all … to you [plural].” In sequence, I have supplied the words respect, this, and things. Other translators have inserted different terms, so that few versions are identical.

The plural form of the participle having made known points to Paul, who is the subject, and the supplied object is “this.” We infer from the context that the object is spiritual knowledge of the gospel that Paul had imparted to the Corinthians in person and by letter.

Next, the verb we made known has the support of the better Greek manuscripts. It is definitely preferred to the passive construction, “we have been thoroughly made manifest,” which makes an object unnecessary. The rule that the shorter reading is probably original fails in this text, because without additions the sentence is unintelligible.

Third, if indeed Paul emphasizes spiritual knowledge in the form of Christ’s gospel, then one of his earlier statements truly illuminates this text. He wrote, “But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession and through us God makes known the fragrance of the knowledge of himself everywhere” (2:14; see the commentary). Wherever Paul comes or goes, he spreads the knowledge of his Sender. This knowledge emits a sweet fragrance that becomes evident to anyone who approaches the apostle. Paul’s message of spiritual truth is received by believers but is rejected by unbelievers. The gospel is relevant in all situations and germane to all things in every respect. In Christ Jesus “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” ().

There is no need to state that the Greek text in this sentence is corrupt. Rather, here is an instance of Paul’s “clipped speech” that is rather frequent in his epistles. The prepositional phrases in every respect and in all things are commonplace for Paul, as is evident from their frequency. Although many translators favor the masculine (“among all men”) to the neuter (“in all things”), the translation we prefer provides balance and emphasis (see ).

We conclude that because of the frequent occurrence of the phrases in question, we have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the text. What we find here is a familiar example of Paul’s penchant to abbreviate his sentences whenever possible.  

Kistemaker

unskilled in speech Paul’s speaking abilities did not meet the standards of some in Corinth. Many people in the region were trained in professional rhetoric, which was highly valued in Greek culture.

not in knowledge Paul may be saying that he does not primarily possess knowledge, which would make this a parenthetical statement against the Corinthians’ favoring of knowledge over proper understanding of the Spirit and the proper use of spiritual gifts. Alternatively, Paul may have meant that unlike the Corinthian false teachers, he has knowledge, but his knowledge differs from that prized in Greek circles. In , Paul dismisses knowledge as a deciding factor of authority.

Knowledge doesn’t necessarily mean transformation---it may result in exaltation!

FSB

“Even if I am unskilled” - and I may be is the sense, lacking professional skill or expertise

“knowledge” - the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered or learned

“made this plain” - this was something that they could not deny regarding Paul