2 Cor 12.6-10. A thorn was given me. Part 1

My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.

the citadel in Suceava, Romania.

---

2 Cor 11.29–12.1

Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I am not indignant?

If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. The God and Father of the Lord Jesus (blessed be he forever!) knows that I do not lie. In Damascus, the governor under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his hands.

It is necessary to boast; nothing is to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord.

2 Cor 12.2-5

I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows. And I know that such a person—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows—was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat. On behalf of such a one I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses.

2 Cor 12.6-9

But if I wish to boast, I will not be a fool, for I will be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think better of me than what is seen in me or heard from me, even considering the exceptional character of the revelations. Therefore, to keep me from being too elated, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I appealed to the Lord about this, that it would leave me, but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.” So, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities for the sake of Christ; for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.

Before we get into the verse-by-verse analysis, there are some questions we need to ask ourselves:

• Why was Paul given the revelation?

• Why was Paul given the revelation instead of the other apostles?

• Why was Paul not permitted to tell anyone?

• Why was Paul not permitted to tell the other apostles?

• What was Paul told?

• Why did Paul wait 14 years to mention it?

• What happened 14 years earlier that might explain why he was given the revelation then, and not earlier or later?

• Why did Paul tell the Corinthians about it?

• Why did Paul not the Galatians (7 years earlier) or the Romans (two years later)?

• Why did Paul not tell the Corinthians about it during his time with them or in his earlier letters?

• Why did Paul not tell the other apostles about the revelation until now?

• Why did Paul say he heard something if he was not allowed to tell what he heard?

• Why did Paul need a thorn?

• What's wrong being being "too elated"?

• What was the thorn?

• Was the thorn a warning? a counterbalance? a muzzle? a reminder? a lesson?

• Is "a messenger of Satan" the same thing as Satan himself?

• Does "revelations" hint that this happened more than once? Or he was told more than one thing?

• Did the thorn cause Paul pain? embarrassment? weakness? doubt? grief? weariness? disgust?

• Did the thorn cause others to think less of Paul?

• If this is the first time Paul mentions the revelation, did anyone even know he had a thorn?

• Why would Paul tell his critics about the thorn if it could be used against him?

• Why would Paul tell anyone about the thorn if it was an embarrassment?

• What is it about “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness” that makes the thorn tolerable to live with?

• Why did Paul not already know that “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness”?

• If “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness” is what Christ wanted Paul to learn, why wasn't the thorn removed? He learned it, right?

• Did the other apostles already know that “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness”?

• If not, didn't they need to learn it too?

• Why, after 14 years, had Paul still not learned his lesson so the thorn could be removed?

• Was the thorn removed later, once Paul did learn it?

• Was Paul violating the spirit of “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness” by telling people about his visit to the third heaven?

• Is “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness” something we need to learn only if we are given a revelation?

• Is “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness” something people who are too elated need to learn?

• Can we get by without believing that “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness” if we never have a revelation or a thorn?

• Why wasn't Peter overly elated by his vision of the sheet being lowered from heaven with the animals?

• Why wasn't John overly elated by his Revelation?

• Why weren't Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Ezekiel, and Daniel overlay elated by their visions and revelations?

• Why were people given visions and revelations for two thousand years but no one was given a thorn except Paul?

the conclusion

So you don't have to read to the end, the conclusion is summarized here. The full explanation is quite lengthy (but necessary) so it is good to tell you beforehand what you're in for.

The revelation is given to Saul while he is relatively unknown. It is around the time that Barnabas sends for him, to help with the new church in Antioch. It is because the revelation was given to Saul that Paul can make the cryptic remarks, "I know a person in Christ", "I know that such a person", "On behalf of such a one I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast." Back then he was young and enthusiastic: chomping at the bit to get into the race. This young idealistic, untouched-by-the-years Saul is someone an older Paul can be proud of. It was an admirable thing that a young man could do what Saul did.

The time of the revelation is not as important to Saul as it is to the super-apostles: Peter, John, and James. From Pentecost Peter and John were running strong, but within a few years they slowed down. "Fourteen years ago" Peter was imprisoned by Herod and rescued by the angel of the Lord. This miraculous intervention on behalf of the Rock was his last one. God had been spending a lot of time and energy on Peter, but lately Peter had been hesitating and resisting. After his release from prison he left Jerusalem, and the work. His release from prison is the last we hear of Peter for years, and coincidentally is also the first time we hear of James as being someone important to Peter.

Paul highlights "fourteen years ago" to awaken the super-apostles to what they were back then—and what they had been before. This was their hinge point. Peter left the work, John had left years earlier, and James, who saw the opening, stepped onto the stage. James would soon be the leader of the church in Jerusalem.

Paul mentions the revelation at this time because it is the height of his conflict with the super-apostles. It was first exposed 7 years earlier, when James sent people to Antioch and Peter retreated from the Gentiles when he saw he was being watched. Paul lashed out in anger and publicly called Peter a hypocrite. This could not have been received well. Humiliation can be a good thing if it works, but more often than not it turns out badly.

This might have been the occasion for the giving of the thorn. It is right to defend the sheep and it is right to insist on a pure Gospel, but anger clouds the mind and drives you to blindly do things you regret once you regain full control of yourself. Making an enemy of Peter and James was not a good strategy. Thinking that the Pillars would bow to a younger brother was not smart. Stupid in fact. His strategy in 1 Corinthians is better and has a chance of succeeding. Include Peter as a worker; put the blame for what was happening on himself. Lay out the truth so the church, and Peter, can correct themselves, but don't point the finger at anyone. Let the truth sink in: Each builder must choose with care how to build on the foundation. Consider your own call brothers: not many of you were wise, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. I laid a foundation and someone else is building on it. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute. Though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to decide between one believer and another? Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?

Paul is outraged that the Pillars follow him around, upsetting the churches. He yearns for them to help! How remarkable it would be to travel together, preaching Christ, building up the Church, walking together, talking together, admiring one another. Instead, he is charged with cleaning up after them. They walk in, expecting people to fall all over themselves that an actual member of the Twelve and an actual brother of Christ deems this church worthy to receive them, and of course the people do. But they stir up problems instead of solving them. When Paul needs someone to put things back in order he must call on Barnabas or Timothy or some other non-Pillar. He can expect the Pillars to do nothing. A man is sleeping with his father's wife and no one sees this as a problem?! People are abusing the Lord's Supper and questioning the resurrection, and the Pillars have no answer?! If they are there, "fixing Paul," can they not fix the other problems too? The worship services are confusion as people talk over one another in prayer and prophecy and tongues, and they do nothing?! Are they even attending the church's worship? Or do they go to the synagogue?

From the time of Galatians until 2 Corinthians Paul has been denouncing the Pillars and super-apostles: his two characterizations for the same people. They would come in after he had left an area and turn the people toward them, which meant away from him. In their eyes, the Jews were the people of God. The Gentiles could be added on, but the Jews were first and the Gentiles were second. (James' statement in Acts 21.25 is condescending in the extreme. Even after 9 or 10 years he considers the Jerusalem Council decision binding on Gentiles everywhere, forever.)

The apostles didn't require the Gentiles to become Jews: they didn't want them to become Jews! Because of this prejudice, their Gospel was tinged with a dark border, and their Spirit was not the Spirit that broke down the dividing line and made the two groups one. They were, to put it simply, snobs. Condescending, parochial, monumental snobs.

Israel was the nation of God and everyone else lived in one of the provinces. They were religious imperialists. Until now no Jew had authority over a Gentile except inside their own nation. Now that their religion extended outside Israel, they extended their authority to take in everyone who claimed the name of Christ. If you were a Christian, the capital-A Apostles were your bosses.

Paul was helpless against them. They were the ones who had lived with Christ. They were at his crucifixion, they witnessed the empty tomb, they saw the risen Christ, they saw him ascend to heaven, and they were at Pentecost. Paul, by comparison, was nothing.

Then there was James: the actual brother of Christ, who grew up with him, was at Pentecost, and was someone Jesus had appeared to following the resurrection. When Peter, James, and John showed up, people listened. Of course their message was flawed, their tactics were underhanded, and even being in the Gentile areas was wrong for they had told Paul he was to go to the Gentiles and they would go to the circumcision.

They considered their agreement binding on Paul but not on themselves. Paul was careful to be correctly submissive in their territory, but they were free to do whatever they wanted in his territory. The ones who would not go to the Gentiles to proclaim the Gospel would go to proclaim a different gospel. Paul was beside himself. Peter stepped off the path 14 years ago. James never was on the path. None of them had any right to be in the Gentile areas. They certainly had no right to take their Jewish version of the Gospel to the newly sprouting, tender churches that had no choice but to be impressed by imposing presence of the super-apostles.

Paul writes to the church at Corinth about the revelation because he knows the super-apostles are there. He is writing to them. He has learned to no longer call them out publicly, but he can write to them, through the church in Corinth, to wake them up to what they are doing.

A couple years later Paul returns to Corinth for a short visit and writes to the believers in Rome from there: undoubtedly with Corinth a heavy weight on his heart and mind and spirit. Paul knows his next stop is Jerusalem and that something bad will happen there. Romans is a massively important letter. It is Paul's only letter to Jewish believers, it is his only letter where he says that the Jewish branch has been cut off and the Gentile branch has been grafted in its place, and it is his last letter before leaving for Jerusalem: to be flogged or arrested or imprisoned or whatever.

Paul knew what going to Jerusalem meant: the denouement of his conflict with James and Peter. They certainly knew of his letters to Corinth. Whether they had taken the correction and gone back to Jerusalem to stay, or whether the letters had only fanned the flames, was impossible for Paul to know. But he knew he would never come back this way again, and he knew that nothing good awaited him in Jerusalem.

It was time.

He wrote the letter.

The plan of God is a carefully arranged orchestra. Each note must be played at the right time, at the right strength and tempo and duration, by the right instruments, with all other instruments being silent. A note that must not be played at one time must be played at another.

For years Christ sternly told people not to talk about him in public but later told his disciples their job was to do nothing but talk about him. We don't know what God told Paul, or when, but we do know that in the work of God "never" does not mean "never", but "until we get to that stanza":

Matt 16.20

He sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

but, Matt 28.19-20

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.

Luke 4.40-41

He laid his hands on each of them and cured them. Demons also came out of many, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Messiah.

but Luke 24.46-47

Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

John 7.3-6

His brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing; for no one who wants to be widely known acts in secret. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” (For not even his brothers believed in him.) Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here."

but, John 20.31

These are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.

Jesus had three-ish years to work with the Twelve. During those years he would not incite the Jews because it would make his work too difficult. But as he set his face toward Jerusalem, then he needed to incite the Jews. Before he needed to live; now he needs to die. The rules that used to apply must now not be used and rules that used to be forbidden are now required. What once was right is now wrong; what once was wrong is now right.

Jesus could not announce he was the Messiah until the Jews would be driven to put him on the cross, on exactly the right day. When Jesus said his hour had not yet come, he meant exactly that: there was an hour. One day too early or one hour too late would not have worked. The orchestration required the first note, the last note, and every note in between to be precise in timing and volume.

Paul was prevented from telling what he heard at the wrong time, but now it was the right time. It was in Jerusalem that the conflict would come to a head. He would walk into the lion's mouth: certainly a mob, probably imprisonment, possibly death. The things he could not say before, now must be said.

From Corinth, before he left for Jerusalem, he wrote. He wrote of things that until then could not be said, because as heated as the resistance was against him, saying it in precise terms would have made it impossible for him to work. Now this stanza of the music has reached its end. He tells the elders from Ephesus he will never see them again. It's time to start the next verse.

He writes the letter. He sends it so the truth is recorded for the Church. He sends it to the farthest point from Jerusalem he can. There isn't even a church there yet. But there are believers there: the next frontier. Paul may never get there, but he wants to make sure something of him does get there, so he writes to them, to lay the foundation. If he is able to lay the foundation that is Jesus Christ, then there is a chance it will withstand whatever else is added to it.

He is blunt with them. He calls his writing bold, but no: it's harsh. He must be that way because they are Jews and they must understand the truth: their branch is broken off. A new branch is grafted in. But their branch is holy. The rejection is not final. Israel will be restored.

Knowing this, their only proper response is gratitude, humility, acceptance, love, and joy. Knowing this, their only proper response is to present themselves as living sacrifices. Refusing the plan of God is illogical, unspiritual, stupid: kicking against the goads hurts only you.

He ends by asking them to join him in earnest prayer to God on his behalf, that he might be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea, and that his ministry to Jerusalem would be acceptable to the saints. He wasn't. It wasn't. It would be five years before he arrives in Rome.

As it turned out, Paul's arrest in Jerusalem did not lead to his death, but it did lead to a major change in his relationship with the other apostles. Ironically, Peter being released from prison is the first time we hear of James as anyone important and Paul being put into prison is the last time we hear of James as anyone important. It is also the last time we hear of the conflicts between Paul and the other apostles. From that time on, things are different.

One reason could be that with Paul in prison the other apostles could relax. They had been useless for the past ten years. If it hadn't been for Paul they would have done nothing at all, but of course the energy he provoked in them was not for the good but for the bad. Paul's arrest allowed them to return to a life without conflict. But the other possible reason is that later an ominous awareness settled upon them: they had done a bad, bad thing. They did not return to his churches while he was in prison and did not hound him any longer: they knew they had gone too far. They could not be happy with their victory. They had no stomach for continuing the fight.

Another possibility is that after Paul's arrest his churches were aroused against the super-apostles and they refused to be impressed with them any longer. This is speculation; there is no proof for it. One thing we do know is that Paul did not change his message, so if anything changed, it was the Pillars.

Regardless of the reason, after his arrest Paul never mentions any problems with the Pillars or super-apostles again (but he never says anything good about them either).

Paul was right to stand up for the Gospel and his churches, but he was wrong to call Peter out publicly in Antioch and then to write about it to the church in Galatia. He was right about the facts but wrong about the method. How he handled the super-apostles in his letters to Corinth was the better strategy: indirectly: protecting his sheep but not poking the wolves.

Paul's thorn was his inability to control his anger and resentment. He tells us his struggle in Rom 7. He calls it evil. Twice. In 2 Cor 12 he calls the young Saul someone he can boast about, but in Rom 7 he detests this body of death that saddles him. He is powerless against it. He knows that the resentment and indignation he feels when his churches are set upon by the super-apostles is wrong but it nevertheless overwhelms him every time. It leaves him sleepless and unable to eat; it clouds his mind and darkens his soul. He hates it. He asks the Lord to take this thing off him, but Christ says no: I will not allow you to love your children less, and I will not allow you to love Israel but not the apostles. Are they Hebrews? Yes. Are they Israelites? Yes. Are they descendants of Abraham? Yes. Are they ministers of Christ? Yes. Do they preach out of selfish ambition? Yes. Do they intend to increase your suffering? Yes. What is that to you? Follow me!

The apostles were not given this revelation because God had given all the revelations they needed and they paid no attention. The revelation came at exactly the time of Peter's last rescue. God was starting over. God did not allow Paul to tell anyone because there was work to do. Christ refused to remove the thorn because Paul knew what love was (1 Cor 13) and he knew that the demand of Christ was to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, and love your enemies. Christ would not allow Paul to not love, and he would not allow Paul to stop. The only way out is through.

But, Christ would show him a more excellent way. The eye cannot say to the hand or the head to the foot, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable. God has arranged the body to give the greater honor to the inferior member. So Paul, you are the inferior member! You have the greater honor. My honor. There is no reason that your powerlessness before the Pillars should stop you. You said you wanted to be close to me. Now you complain that it's too difficult? The answer is there, in front of you: if you can't tolerate the path, get off.

Your groaning is your salvation. What if you weren't groaning?

Knowledge does not conquer the mind's ability to dredge up evil thoughts, but if we know it's evil we have a chance of doing something about it. Step one: admit you're an addict. Until you do that, you're not just an addict: you're a hopeless addict. You must hate it. Hating it keeps it in its place. Hating it keeps it in the basement. Not hating it lets it out and your life is over. It is possible to carry this dead corpse, as wearying as that is, but if you lie down in helplessness, that's it.

Being an addict means you fight the thing that wants to drag you into its darkness. Being an addict means you know how deadly serious your problem is. Being an addict means you get through this day so you can get up tomorrow and live another day as an addict. Paul was helpless against the resentment and indignation, but he knew what it was and he knew it was evil. He was an addict, but he was not a hopeless addict. The awareness of the evil underbelly of his indignation was enough to control his reactions to the super-apostles. It was his job to keep the flame from becoming a bonfire. He could not protect his people if there was an all-out war. He must keep his outrage in check if he was going to finish the course. He can never again again humiliate Peter. The only one he can humiliate is himself.

Christ did remove the thorn: by putting Paul in prison. Once he was in prison his battle with the super-apostles was over. He would never again have to deal with the indignation and helplessness of his churches being visited by the super-apostles.

Some years later he would write to the church in Ephesus, from Rome: these people who he said he would never see again and wept as they separated for the last time. Paul tells them:

This is the reason that I am a prisoner for Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles—for surely you have already heard of the commission of God’s grace that was given me for you, and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words.

Paul's revelation is Romans 9-11. Paul says this mystery was made known to him by revelation: not just that that he was commissioned to go to the Gentiles but also that ("as I wrote above in a few words") Christ has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances and has created a new humanity—one in place of the two—that has access in one Spirit to the Father and is built into a holy temple. The message is clear: there is one body, one Spirit, one Father, one temple. There is no Jew or Gentile. More than that, it is this truth that is the reason for his imprisonment: an imprisonment that happened when James exposed him to the Jews.

From Rome he would also write to the church in Philippi:

I want you to know, beloved, that what has happened to me has actually helped to spread the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to everyone else that my imprisonment is for Christ.

James considered that getting rid of Paul was the answer to their problem, but Paul says his imprisonment is for Christ. Then in ch 2 he tells the Philippians that he is sending Timothy and Epahproditus because they will genuinely care for their welfare, and Paul knows of no one else who will. Paul knows of no one else. Who will genuinely care for them.

In Col 10.11 Paul lists some names (including John Mark) and says "These are the only ones of the circumcision among my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me." These are the only ones of the circumcision who have been a comfort to Paul.

The thorn is gone. A deep sorrow remains.

who were the super apostles and the false apostles?

Identifying the super-apostles and false apostles is an important part of understanding the letters of Paul to Corinth. Who they are is the reason for Paul's mention of the revelation, and probably the thorn, and probably his statement, "when I am weak, then I am strong".

There is a reluctance to identify the super-apostles as Peter and James et al. The suggestion is often summarily dismissed as improper and not worth a serious reply. It is worth a serious reply. Everything in Paul's letters must make sense. Especially in 2 Corinthians, and most particularly in chapters 10-12 (which some see as a separate letter: no problem), there must be a single thread that connects everything:

10.2 the accusation that he is acting according to the flesh: the same accusation as in Galatians, which did involve Peter and James (at least through his people)

10.8 Paul's insistence that he is building up and not tearing down (which means his opponents are not building up but are tearing down, which would infer they had a responsibility to build up and to not tear down: something that would not be true of a false apostle.)

10.8 I will not be ashamed: taken from Gal 1, which involved Peter and James.

10.12 Those who commend themselves (they either tell people why they should be listened to or accept the commendation of people who say they should be listened to: more likely of people who can claim a commendation than to people who cannot,)

10.12 They measure themselves by one another (why would this not be an allusion to the Pillars?)

10.13 We will not boast beyond limits (which means, they do, which means they have a limit they are not observing, which would not be true of truly false apostles)

10.13 We will keep within the field that God has assigned to us (which means they do have a field God has assigned them, which would not be true of truly false apostles, and also means have no right to be in Paul's assigned area)

10.14 We were not overstepping our limits when we reached you (which means they are overstepping their limits, which means they have a limit, which would not be true of false apostles)

10.15 We do not boast in the labors of others (which means, they do, which points back to 1 Cor 3.6: I planted, Apollos watered... and they didn't plant or water)

10.16 without boasting of work already done in someone else’s sphere of action: a dig at them, both because they have a sphere of action, which they are neglecting, and because they have no right to be in Paul's, and especially to not take credit for what he has done.

10.18 It is not those who commend themselves that are approved, but those whom the Lord commends. Paul is there by the Lord's command; they aren't. Why would they imagine this would get them God's approval? This would be more meaningful to a true apostle than a false one.

11.4 if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus: the same accusation as in Galatians, which was Peter and people from James. It is likely that Paul would use the same language for the same issue involving the same people.

11.4 or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received: the same accusation as in Galatians

11.4 or a different gospel from the one you accepted: the same accusation as in Galatians

11.5 I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles: meaning, he is regarded as being inferior to them. It is likely that "super" is not the church's estimation, but Paul's: ironically. And if it is ironic, then it could not be said of a false apostle. The term "false apostle" stands on its own, as obviously derogatory.

11.6 I may be untrained in speech. Is Apollos with them?

The Greek of Peter, James, and John would not have impressed anyone. We don't know for certain they even spoke Greek with any degree of fluency. Greek was common, but to uneducated Jewish laborers: not so much. Aramaic was their family language. Israel had been Greek-speaking for 200 years, but Koine Greek: the Greek of daily conversation. The Greek of Athens and Corinth, especially in written form of philosophical debate, was higher. Paul was a Pharisee (highly educated) and a Roman citizen, but he was not Greek. There is no reason to think he attained the standards esteemed by educated Greeks.

It is possible that "I may be untrained in speech" is an acknowledgement of the people's disappointment in him, not that the super-apostles were more trained. Paul's emphasis is on knowledge: substance over style. In this he claims no lack. Still, it does seem that in some way the people were not disappointed with the speech of the super-apostles and were disappointed with the speech of Paul.

11.6 we have made this evident to you. His lack of training does not acquit them. They got the point.

11.9 I did not burden anyone. Paul loudly claims it would be unseemly for him to take payment from them for his work on their behalf (also in 1 Cor 9.15). In 1 Cor it seems that they refused to pay him and he took this as a rallying cry for his place as a servant. The farmer and the priest get their rightful living from their work, and even the ox shall not be muzzled, but Paul insists that payment robs him of his right to be called a servant, and he refuses to give that up for such a measly sum as money.

In 1 Cor the message is more clear: they withhold payment either because they don't consider him worth the money or because their thoughtlessness means it never crosses their minds that they owed Paul for doing something they never asked for. That could be because of their unfamiliarity with Jewish/Christian forms of religious tradition. It is understandable that someone coming into their city, establishing a new place of worship, and then expecting to be paid for it would be a novel thing, and possibly not so easy to accept.

When Paul says he robbed other churches to serve them, it means those other churches saw their role in the work of God correctly. They helped, not because it was a payment for services rendered, but because they understood they were not the last place on earth God intended to reach. When Paul asks in 1 Cor 14.36 "Did the word of God originate with you? Are you the only ones it has reached?" he might be alluding to this thing that annoys him so greatly. The Corinthians see themselves as the reason for the church existing. They have no inkling of the world outside themselves and care nothing for the welfare of others. Their lack of thoughtfulness for Paul is part and parcel of their lack of thoughtfulness for the rest of the church. They are narcissists. Their gravity keeps Paul in their orbit. Wherever he goes they remain the center of his attention.

11.12 And what I do I will also continue to do, in order to deny an opportunity to those who want an opportunity to be recognized as our equals in what they boast about.

Paul has never taken anything from the church at Corinth, but the super-apostles show up and the church is falling all over itself to meet their needs. If Paul takes even one penny from the church they will not be able to say he took something. He adamantly refuses to do that (also in 1 Cor 9.15) because he refuses to give the super-apostles relief from their treatment of the church. If they were sincere they would give instead of taking. This is Paul's challenge to them: if you want something to boast about, boast that you preach the Gospel free of charge. He is willing to allow them that boast if they are willing to do it.

Paul probably would not issue such a challenge to false apostles. Everyone knows that they are in it for personal gain. But the true apostles should know the gift of God is a gift, and even though the ox is not to be muzzled, it is perfectly fine for the ox to refuse, because it is too easy for the ox to take more than his share.

11.13-15 For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness. Their end will match their deeds.

Now, everything falls apart. All the logic that has fitted together so well up to v 12 now means nothing, because Paul switches from the label "super-apostles" to "false apostles". It would be nice if we could assign this to another author, as in 1 Cor 8 where Paul is repeating back to the Corinthians what they wrote to him: all of us possess knowledge; no idol in the world really exists; there is no God but one; food will not bring us close to God. It would be nice, but it cannot be, because in 1 Cor those extracts from their letter are always followed by Paul's "but...". In 2 Cor 11 there is no "but". There is no way to attribute this to someone else. Paul says it, and he says it of the same people he has been talking about until now.

In Gal 2.4 Paul makes a clear distinction between the false apostles and Peter, James, and John. Paul does dismissively call them "acknowledged leaders" and "acknowledged pillars", but he does not call them false. Of course that was in Jerusalem. And he wrote Galatians from Antioch. How Paul acted in Jerusalem (their territory) and Antioch (on the border) would have been different from how he acted in Galatia (his territory).

Paul does use shocking language in Gal 1.9: "If anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!" Also, in 1 Cor 16.22 Paul says, "Let anyone be accursed who has no love for the Lord." Paul is not saying Peter is accursed and he is not saying that anyone who does not love the Lord should be accursed. (Anyone outside the church should be accursed?! Certainly not.) Paul must mean something other than what we think "accursed" means.

Here, in 2 Cor 11.13, Paul says it flatly: such boasters are false apostles, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ, ministers of Satan. Can we move this to another letter? Until now Paul has been talking to the super-apostles through church; can he now be talking to someone in the church? Peter certainly did not travel alone. Was there someone in the party who allied himself with the apostles but had no right to take the title? Paul has been taking about the boasters in v 12 "who want an opportunity to be recognized as our equals". What does "our equals" mean? Is Paul drawing a circle around himself and the other apostles and calling anyone outside that circle who takes the name "apostle" a false apostle? Paul could not be saying Timothy or Apollos are "our equals", unless he is no longer talking about apostles. Maybe Paul is including Timothy and saying that the travelers with Peter don't even come up to Timothy's level, though they boast as if they do. Maybe Paul is so indignant because even Timothy is being dragged into it.

Paul could not be talking about fellow travelers or representatives because the matching is always between himself and other apostles who are true apostles but have elevated themselves above by virtue of their position within the Jerusalem leadership, and physical closeness to Christ. The assistants or representatives would not pose a threat to Paul. Assistants or representatives could say whatever they wanted and Paul would not be terribly concerned about it. The weight of the problem is directly tied to the weight of the super-apostles. Paul would not be stressed by a lightweight. He is stressed because these people are heavyweights. They pack a bigger punch than he does.

But it does hearken back to v 3: as the serpent deceived Eve by its cunning.

11.23 Are they ministers of Christ? I am a better one. Paul says they are ministers of Christ. How is he only "a better one" if they are false apostles?!

Paul's sufferings

Paul's sufferings in comparison to theirs

False apostles would not have any sufferings to compare to Paul's. Paul is not saying he has suffered and they haven't: he is sayiung he has suffered more. The reason for saying that is that there was a time when they exulted in their sufferings. There was a time when they stepped into the lion's mouth without fear. But not in the last 14 years! Paul mentions the time to awaken them to this shameful fact: they stopped 14 years ago.

Peter was in Antioch.

Peter was probably in Galatia if Paul's letter was to make sense to the people there.

People from James came to Antioch.

People from James probably came to Galatia, if Paul's letter was to make sense to the people there.

Peter was probably in Corinth, since there was a Peter group in 1 Corinthians.

James devised the plan to keep Paul in Jerusalem, and in public.

They did not come to his defense.

Paul never mentions them as helping him so even the slightest degree.

Paul often says he has no one other than ... or ... or ... he can trust. Why can't he trust the apostles?

Weak: not just weak: powerless. The opposite pole of power. Powerless against them, but also powerless against himself.