Criswell Theological
Review 4.1 (1989) 119-144.
Copyright © 1989 by The
TRIUMPHALISM,
SUFFERING, AND
SPIRITUAL MATURITY:
AN EXPOSITION OF
2 CORINTHIANS 12:1-10
IN ITS LITERARY, THEOLOGICAL,
AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT
DANIEL
L. AKIN
John
E. Wood has aptly stated,
Let it be said at once that II
Corinthians fills much the same place in the
New Testament as does the book of
Job in the Old. It is a letter written
by one
whose heart has been broken by the many intolerable burdens
heaped on
him: a man struggling with a recalcitrant church and a
malignant
foe. If in Romans and Galatians we see the apostle 'proclaim-
ing' the cross with might and main, in II Corinthians
we see him 'bearing'
the cross,
and bearing it triumphantly.1
Classically,
2 Corinthians has been divided into three major sections:
chaps. 1-7, 8-9, and 10-13. Conceptually and
stylistically challenging,
2
Corinthians 10-13 are perhaps the most intriguing
chapters not only
of this book, but of the entire Pauline corpus.
They contain a re-
sounding affirmation of his apostolic
authenticity and authority in the
face of fierce opposition at
heart and soul of the apostle is laid bare. Yet their
importance does
not stop here. Included are clear and pointed
characteristics of what
1 J. E.
Wood, "Death at Work in Paul," EvQ 54 (Tuly-September
1983) 151.
120
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
constitutes true spirituality and tangible evidence
of progress in Chris-
tian maturity. In addition,
technical questions of literary form, lin-
guistic device, and conceptual
framework add excitement to the
exegete who approaches these chapters seeking to
bridge the horizons
of Paul's day and his/her own. At the apex of these
chapters both
structurally and theologically is 2
Corinthians 12:1-10, "Paul's vision
of paradise and affliction of pain." The
purpose of this study will be to
analyze this text in light of its greater
context biblically, historically,
and theologically. A synthesizing and summarizing
of present-day
research and study will be the guiding principle
which will be
followed.
I. Matters of Introduction
Literary Composition
The literary problem of this epistle
which has received the great-
est attention is the
relationship of chaps. 1-9 to 10-13. That chaps.
10-13
constitute a self-contained unit of thought is almost universally
acknowledged. Further,
the abrupt change in tone between chaps. 9
and 10 is equally evident. These observations have
led scholars to a
number of theories of compilation which will be
briefly noted.2
(1) 2 Corinthians 10-13 constitutes
what is called the sorrowful
letter alluded to in 2 Cor
2:3-4. Therefore, 2 Corinthians 10-13 is
chronologically prior to 2 Cor 1-9. Textually and historically this view
is problematic.
(2) 2 Corinthians is a unity. This
view is supported textually and
historically, but must deal with the
abrupt change in tone between
chaps. 9 and 10.
(3) 2 Corinthians 10-13 was written
sometime after chaps. 1-9 as
a separate letter. This view adequately accounts
for the change of tone
between chaps. 9 and 10 but faces the same
difficulties as view one.
2 This issue is dealt
with in all critical commentaries with various conclusions
being reached. The reader is referred to the
following for adequate discussions of the
issue: C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (New
(1965)
56-69; F. F. Bruce, I and II Corinthians (London:
Oliphants, 1971); M. J. Harris,
II Corinthians (EBC 10; ed. F. E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976); P. E.
Hughes,
The Second Epistle to the Corinthians
(NICNT;
1962);
C. Kruse, II Corinthians (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1987); A. Plummer, A
Critical and Exegetical
Commentary of the Second Epistle of
thians (Edinburgh:
T. and T. Clark, 1915; repr., 1978); A. Plummer, The Second Epistle
of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (
repr. 1923). Our brief
survey will summarize the presentation of D. A. Carson, From
Triumphalism to Maturity: An Exposition of II Corinthians 10-13 (
Baker, 1984).
Akin:
TRIUMPHALISM, SUFFERING AND SPIRITUAL MATURITY 121
(4) 2 Corinthians is formally
unified from its origination but
chronologically separated at chaps. 9 and 10 as to the time of writing.
II Corinthians is a fairly long
letter: few could manage to write it at a
lengthy
single sitting. . . . Paul may well have received additional news
bad news
about the Corinthian church, before he had finished the letter;
and if so,
this would account for the abrupt change of tone at the
beginning
of chapter 10. In short, after finishing the first nine chapters,
but before
actually terminating the letter and sending it off, Paul receives
additional
bad news, and therefore adds four more chapters of rebuke.
II Corinthians is thus a formally
unified letter, but does reflect a sub-
stantial change of perspective in the last four
chapters.3
In light of these historical,
textual, and literary observations, view
four seems reasonable and therefore the position we
advocate.
Discourse and Thematic
Structure
There is remarkably little study
which has been conducted in this
area. However, tentatively and for the sake of
further study, the views
of J. F. Austing are
offered as an initial presentation of the discourse
structure of 2 Corinthians 10-13.4 Austing argues from discourse analy-
sis that "II Corinthians 10:1-13:10
constitutes a single high-level gram-
matical unit called a
division."5 Within this division Austing
identifies
three suprasections
identified semantically and propositionally as fol-
lows: (1) 10:1-18-Paul establishes his authority
against all opposition.
(2)
11:1-12:19-Paul presents his qualifications. (3) 13:1-10-Paul ex-
presses his hope that the Corinthians will
repent.
Austing
expands this three-fold sectioning to a six-fold, and then
proceeds to summarize propositionally the
division via its separate
sections in what he identifies as a theme line
analysis or summary
statement of the division:
Division 10:1-13:10--My authority is
something the Lord gave me
upbuild you not to tear you down.
Section10:1-11—When
I am present, my authority is powerful
BECAUSE (grounds;
advance along theme line)
Section 10:12-18--My limit is that
which God assigned me, to come as
far as you
3
4 J. F. Austing, The Theme-Line
of Second Corinthians (Ph.D. thesis, University
of
5 Ibid.,
136.
122
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
AND
Section
11: 1-15--The reason you should bear with me is your danger of
being led astray from devotion to Christ
THEREFORE (I BOAST THAT) (result and
advance)
Section
11:16-12:10--My chief external qualification is my weakness.
THE REASON FOR BOASTING (reason and
advance)
Section
12:11-21--The reason for speaking of myself is your edification
AND
Section
13:1-10--My motivation in writing while absent is that I may not
have to use the Lord's authority severely when
present.6
Austing
expands his analysis by arguing that the organization of
this division can be arranged chiastically
as follows:
A. Warning (10:1-18)
B. Reasons
for apology (11:1-15)
C.
Apology (11:16-12:10)
B.' Reasons
for apology (12:11-21)
A.' Warning (13:1-10)7
Austing notes,
Along with this chiastic or cyclical
organization there is linear progres-
sion. The thought moves from the false apostle cause
of the Corinthians'
problem in
the first three sections (10:1-11:15), through the minister's
ministry of
apologetics (11:15-12:10) to a final appeal for an appropriate
response in
the last two sections (12:11-13:10)8
He
also observes that if the unity of 2 Corinthians is accepted, division
10-13
can be viewed as a natural continuation of division 2:14-7:4,
especially as viewed against the context of Paul's
opposition at
In
division 2:14ff. the opponents are attacked (1) via negative anti-
thetical statements (2:17; 4:2),
(2) by indirect references to their
doctrine (3:7-11), (3) then by direct
identification (5:12; cf. 11:18).
The rationale behind the theological
argument is to persuade the waver-
ing Corinthians to respond to Paul and not throw
their lot with the false
teachers.
Appeals to the Corinthians from Paul's proper manner of life
6 Ibid.,
149.
7 Ibid.,
150.
8 Ibid.,
150-51.
Akin:
TRIUMPHALISM, SUFFERING AND SPIRITUAL MATURITY 123
and his
sufferings for them also serve to explain the rationale behind Paul's
argument
(2:17; 4:2, 15; 5:11; 6:3-10). These appeals foreshadow the
content of
11:16-12:18 in particular.9
Through discourse analysis, Austing sees as the apex of 2 Corin-
thians 10-13, chiastically structured, Paul's apologia in 11:16-12:10.
From
a literary and theological perspective this insight, I believe, can
be confirmed. Especially is
12:1-10, the text to which we shall give
primary attention, often argued to be the climax
and primary focus of
2
Corinthians 10-13, keeping in mind of course its vital relationship to
11:16-33.
Literary Form of 10-13
Second Corinthians 10-13 is now
generally understood as a Paul-
ine polemic or apology,
vented against recent and disruptive intruders
at Corinth.10 Paul, in what is often designated as a “fool's
speech,”
(11:1-12:10)
refutes these interlopers with a counterattack of sarcasm,
comparison, irony, and self-praise.11 Forbes, building upon the in-
sights of Betz12 yet not following him
uncritically, argues that Paul,
9 Ibid.,
152.
10 The position of this
paper is that the opponents of Paul are Palestinian Christians
engaged in a purposeful and deliberate
anti-Pauline mission. They are to be identified
with the superapostles of
2 Cor 11:5; 12:16, but not with the
helpful and detailed discussions of this issue
the reader is referred to C. K. Barrett,
"Paul's
Opponents in II Corinthians," NTS
17 (1971) 233-54; Carson, Triumphalism to
Maturity, 21-27; E. E. Ellis,
"Paul and his Opponents," Christianity,
Judaism, and Other
Greco-Roman Cults (ed. J. Neusner;
Legitimitat des Apostels" ZNW
41 (1942) 31-71; repr. in
Das Paulusbild in der neueren
deutschen Forschung (ed. K. H. Rengstorf;
11 See W. Baird,
"Visions, Revelation and Ministry: Reflections on II Cor.
12:1-5
and Gal. 1:11-17," JBL 104 (1985) 653; R. Martin, II
Corinthians (WBC 40;
Word,
1986) 390-94; R. P. Spittler, "The Limits of
Ecstasy: An Exegesis of II Corinthians
12:1-10,"
Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic
Interpretation: In Honor of Merrill C.
Tenney (ed. G. F. Hawthorne;
12 See H. D. Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische
Tradition: Eine exe-
getische Untersuchung zu
seiner "Apologie"
2 Korinthen 10-13 (Beitruge zur his tori-
schen Theologie
45; Tiibingen: Mohr, 1972) iv-157. This study of 2
Corinthians 10-13
defines the literary form of this text as an
apology which is not formally apologetic at
all. Paul in actuality renounces rhetorical
apologetics, according to Betz, and chooses
rather to appropriate a tradition of philosophical
apologetics which is rooted in the
Socratic tradition. Betz convincingly
identifies parallels of this tradition and Paul's
"fool's speech" in the areas of irony and parody.
However, it is our opinion that his
form-critical conclusions go beyond
the legitimate use of form-critical methodology.
First,
his allowing the "form" to determine "content" moves him to
reject the historical
reality of the paradise rapture. This is an
unwarranted and harmful interpretive move.
Second,
while Betz has discovered genuine parallels, his next step of arguing for
Pauline
dependency upon the tradition remains speculative at best and highly doubtful.
124
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Responding to his opponents' characterisation of him as inconsistent, and
hence as a
flatterer, and to the invidious comparisons of his opponents,
attacks the
whole convention of self-advertisement by means of a re-
markably subtle and forceful parody of its methods.
He characterises his
opponents
as pretentious and fraudulent, while laying before the Corin-
thian congregation a powerful statement of his own
apostolic position
and
authority. I will not attempt to prove that Paul is directly dependent
on any of
our literary sources, but rather that he makes use of conven-
tions which they also utilise.
. . .13
Spittler adds to these observations when he says,
The narrower context of the '
10 may be called), has been
identified by Windisch as the 'fool's speech'
(Narrenrede)
spanning 11:1-12:13. The major significance of this 'fool's
speech'
lies in Paul's use of it as a polemic instrument: he engages in
self:-praise
only as a fool, but then he (and by designed implication,
they) no
longer speaks Kata Kyrion
(11:17). The issue of apostolic
authority
that thus emerges may, with Kasemann, be taken as the
major
underlying
theme in 10-13, and that theme. . . figures prominently in tpe
paradise
pericope.14
Martin
adds to these insights when he says,
Evidence seems adequate to justify
the conclusion that in Paul's apologia
he is
calling on the idioms and expressions currently being used at
devices
used by philosophers in their debate with the sophists.15
McCant furthers the discussion in the area of genre
when he notes,
"Nowhere
is the proliferation of genres more evident than in 2 Corin-
thians" 10-13.
Autobiographical data are predominant in these four
chapters and it has been identified as Socratic
apology, apologetic or
polemic autobiography, but more accurately as
ironic apology."16
McCant narrowing the scope of his study notes,
Within an integral part of the
apostolic apologia, is another literary form:
the foolish
discourse. . . . The fool's discourse, a device used by the
For
a balanced evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of Betz see A. T.
Lincoln,
"Paul
the Visionary: The Setting and Significance of the Rapture to
thians 12:1-10," NTS 25 (1979) 204-20.
13 C. Forbes,
"Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul's Boasting and the Con-
ventions of Hellenistic
Rhetoric," NTS 32 (1986) 2.
14 Spittler, "The Limits of Ecstasy," 259.
Sources cited by Spittler are H.Windisch..
Der Zweite Korintherbrief
(
Apostels,"
15 Martin, II Corinthians, 300.
16 J.
W. McCant, "Paul's Thorn of Rejected
Apostleship," NTS.34 (1988)
551-52.
Akin:
TRIUMPHALISM, SUFFERING AND SPIRITUAL MATURITY 125
Platonic Socrates against the
Sophist, allows Paul effectively to employ
kauxh<sij. In the fool's
speech Paul employs other forms. Peristaseis are
provided in
11:23-29 (thirty specific times) and 12:10. In both cases they
fulfill the
principle: 'If I have to boast I will boast of what pertains to my
weakness'
(11:30). Judge suggests that 11:32-33 is a conscious parody of
the
criteria for the Roman award of the corona
muralis and Betz has
found two aretalogies in 12:1-10 which use parody, a literary form in
the
foolish
discourse. A "Himmelfahrt parodiert'
is given in 12:2-4 and a
'Heilvngswunder
parodiert' in 12:7-10. These are forms within forms
and irony
(sometimes even sarcasm!) is employed throughout as a rhe-
torical device.17
Without
endorsing all of McCant's observations (especially
his appar-
ent approval of Betz's
form-critical conclusions), his comments serve
well in pointing out the multifaceted genres and
literary devices
which Paul has masterfully woven together in the
concluding chapters
of 2 Corinthians.
Historical context
C. Forbes has provided a "brief
sketch" which serves well in
aiding us to understand the Sitz im Leben of
Paul at
summarizing Forbes sketch one can frame the
following context.
At some point during Paul's initial
ministry at
offered financial support, possibly by an
influential member(s) at the
church at
tance of such an offer
problematic and so Paul felt it necessary to
reject the offer (1) so as not to become a burden, and
more impor-
tantly (2) to avoid
compromising his position and fostering the flames
of factionalism. By way of an alternative
suggestion Paul proposed
that the model of relationship he desired with the
Corinthian congre-
gation would be (1) that of a
parent and his children whose position is
therefore affirmed by his paternity, and (2) that
of an ambassador
whose position is affirmed by his sender, and not
those to whom he is
sent. Despite his motivational integrity, his
refusal of assistance was
met with hostility and scorn, and a shaky
relationship which had
existed from the start (cf. 1 Cor 2:3ff.) was made worse. Forbes points
out that Paul's first two chapters in 1 Corinthians
revolve around the
dialectic of weakness and power, folly and wisdom
which he ob-
served in the Lord Jesus (1:18-25), in the Corinthian
church (1:26-31),
and also in his apostolic ministry (2:1-5). It is
significant to note at this
point the importance of these themes in 2 Corinthians
10-13, especi-
ally 12:1-10.
17 Ibid.,
552.
126
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
In the midst of this unhealthy
context, the Palestinian interlopers
arrived on the scene probably flaunting
themselves and seeking letters
of commendation. Already prepared for and engaged
in an anti-
Pauline
agenda, these Judaizers of a Palestinian wing found
the
situation at
interlopers ("super apostles" as Paul
calls them in 11:5 and 12:11)
formed an alliance with the opponents of Paul, and
together they
carried on the anti-Pauline polemics in
increasing intensity. Paul was
accused of being inconsistent, strong when
absent but weak when
present. Possibly accusations of insincerity
were leveled, as well as
evaluations of inferiority with respect to
eloquence, personality, and
spiritual experiences. Such a context historically
reconstructed informs
our background understanding of 2 Corinthians
10-13.18
Theological context
Within 2 Cor
12:1-10 and its immediate context several important
theological motifs are present which assist us in
our exposition. These
include the development of a weakness
Christology, the foundation
of apostolic authority, a rebuke of an
over-realized eschatology, the
Christian
life, and the proper place of boasting. This latter
subject is
related to practical theology, yet it is an
equally significant concern of
the apostle. We shall briefly comment on each of
these in final prepa-
ration for our analysis of 12:1-10.
(1) Weakness Christology. In 2 Cor 12:1-10
Paul reluctantly
"boasts" about visions and revelations though he finds
little benefit in
such activity. Though he has been "raptured into
a]rrhta r!hmata, "unutterable
utterances," he could not and would not
boast in his present self (vv 2-5) after the manner
of his opponents.
He
could legitimately boast (he would be telling the truth), but he
"refrained," fei<domai,
because his authority rested in his public, con-
sistent words and witness, and
not in the ecstatic experiences of a
previous day (vv 6- 7a). His thorn in the flesh
was an instrument of
instruction concerning the sufficiency of divine
grace (7b-9a). Further,
Paul
learned (paradoxically, yes!) that at the center of the Christian
life was the principle that perfection (maturity)
comes through weak-
ness, power through humility. This principle itself
is grounded in a
weakness Christology (cf. 13:4), and is that
which gives validity and
significance to 11:23-33, and
counteracts the mindset and claims, of
the interlopers at
Christology
only of du<namij,
"strength," the apostle rightly operated
within the scope of a Christology of a]sqenei<a, "weakness."19 M. Harris
18 Forbes, "Comparison," 552; cf.
also
19 Spittler, "The Limits of Ecstasy," 266.
Akin:
TRIUMPHALISM, SUFFEffiNG AND SPIRITUAL MATURITY 127
provides a helpful and balanced perspective of
this spiritual principle
when he states, "Both weakness and power
existed simultaneously in
Paul's life (note vv 9b, 10b), as they did in
Christ's ministry and death.
Indeed,
the cross of Christ forms the supreme example of 'power-in-
weakness'."20 Thus it is in the
context of a weakness Christology that
Paul
understands and builds his theology of Christian apostleship and,
indeed, the Christian life.
(2) The Foundation of Apostolic Authority. The basis of Paul's
apostolic authority, as we see, is closely
related, indeed rooted in his
weakness Christology (as is his rebuke of
over-realized eschatology
and the proper exercise of boasting). Martin
summarizes the perspec-
tive of Paul when he says,
Paul's weaknesses--whether exhibited
in his suffering for the Gospel or
centered in
the thorn in the flesh--have been his criteria for true apostle-
ship. He
has entered into the fray, not in order to boast of his own
achievement,
but to boast of his weakness. By doing so he has offered
the
Corinthians an alternative to the opponents that harass him. The
alternative
is strength-based-on-weakness, a theme no doubt foreign to
the
opponents of Paul, but one that expressed the heart of his Gospel of
a crucified
Lord. . . . His weakness is the power of the crucified.21
In
this same vein Forbes adds,
For Paul apostolic authority is the
authority of the Gospel itself, mediated
through the
apostle. Since the Gospel is the message of the 'foolishness'
and
'weakness' of God himself (I Corinthians 1:18-25), the apostle, if he
is such at
all, embodies that foolishness and weakness. That is to say, his
life and
work bear the marks of the death of Christ: the physical
sufferings
and the social stigmata which we find enumerated in the
'catalogues
of humiliation.' The pattern is not confined to the apostle, but
it is
preeminently exemplified in him. His congregations are to imitate
him in his
'weakness' as he imitates Christ. Apostolic authority, the
embodiment
of the power of the Gospel in the person of the apostle, is
the
eschatological power of God, which is characteristically revealed
'in
weakness'. This is what his opponents, in their arrogance, have
forgotten.22
Forbes identifies, I believe, the
crux of the matter when he comments
on 12:8-9 by saying, “This then, is why Paul will not
boast of anything
except his 'weakness,' his humiliations and
sufferings: they are to him
the surest marks of his commendation by the
suffering Messiah.”23
Spittler adds his affirmation to these
observations when he comments:
20 Harris, II Corinthians, 347.
21 Martin, II
Corinthians, 394.
22 Forbes,
"Comparison," 22.
23 Ibid.,
21.
128
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
"The
opponents authenticate their apostolic authority by pneumatic
demonstration; Paul paradoxically
accredits his own authority by a
recital of weakness, thus aligning himself with
his Lord who was
crucified from a position of astheneias (13:4)"24
(3) Correcting Overrealized Eschatology. The triumphalism of
Paul's
opponents, as well as their apparent preoccupation with ecstatic
experiences, gives evidence of an over-realized
eschatology in
Contrasting
Paul's paradise vision with the mystery religions,
makes an important point which applies also to Paul's
enthusiastic,
existential, eschatological opponents:
In distinction from the mysteries,
for Paul this experience of heaven had
no soteriological function as a rebirth elevating him to a
higher existence.
There is no hint that he looked at
it as the point of arrival in his search
for
salvation or as that which produced a oneness with the divine and a
share in
God's immortal being. Rather it came to him as someone who
was already
a 'man in Christ', and that he was granted such an extraordi-
nary
personal assurance of the reality of the heavenly dimension through
vision and
revelation was purely of grace.25
Concerning Paul's mystic experience
recorded in 12:2-4, Stewart
notes,
Even in the apostle's own career, it
was quite exceptional. This was not
the level
on which he habitually lived. The rapture and ecstasy came and
passed. . .
. Paul himself--this is the point to be emphasized--would
have been
the first to recognize and insist that such experiences form
only a
comparatively small part of the soul's deep communion with God
in Christ.
. . . It was in the daily, ever-renewed communion, rather than
in the
transient rapture, that the inmost nature of Christianity lay.26
Verse
12:6 embodies the essence of Paul's thinking on this issue when
he informs the Corinthians that it is his present
and continuous public
life and proclamation (note the use of the present
tense) which is his
critical concern, and also his criterion for
vibrant and genuine Chris-
tian experience.
(4) Legitimate boasting in the Christian life. McCant
points out
that Paul's
'Boasting in weakness' is a parody
of boasting and is thus ironical. Under
no
circumstances does Paul wish to engage in what Plutarch calls peri-
autologi% (Paul uses kauxh<sij); it is not pleasing to
the Lord (11:17).
24 Spittler, "The Limits of Ecstasy," 262.
25 Lincoln,
"Paul the Visionary,"217.
26 J. Stewart, A Man in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker,
Reprinted 1975) 161-62.
Akin:
TRIUMPHALISM, SUFFERING AND SPIRITUAL MATURITY 129
Since it is forced on him, he will
boast 'inoffensively;' and unwittingly he
is consonant
with Plutarch's rules for avoiding the offensiveness
of
self-praise.27
McCant goes on to show that while Paul's use of
"boasting" is consis-
tent with the principles set forth by Plutarch, such
may be only
coincidence. He further adds more importantly that
one should not
neglect the OT as a possible source for the
apostle's ideas and methods
in this area.28 Having laid this
contextual foundation, McCant pro-
ceeds to identify in 2
Corinthians 10-13 aspects of boasting which
may properly be termed "principles of Paul's
theology of boasting."
McCant argues that though Paul does not systematize
them, he
does indeed advocate certain and specific principles
for boasting
(kauxh<sij), a word which in its
various forms appears 24 times in
2 Corinthians, 19 alone in chaps. 10-13, five in 12:1-9.
Note the fol-
lowing observations.
Eight Principles of
Paul's Theology of Boasting
(1) Apologetic kauxh