" Super-Apostles" of 2 Corinthians 10—13?

13 Pages·2007·0.86 MB·English

Who Were the " Super-Apostles"
of 2 Corinthians 10—13?
DOYLE KEE
Geneva Switzerland
Much of Paul's writing was polemic in nature. Much of the instruction
to Christians and warnings against apostasy arose out of the need to
respond to opponents of the Christian system. Such is the case in the
Corinthian correspondence. An understanding of these opponents
results in a better understanding of the message being presented in the
letters. Both NT history and NT theology are heavily related to the
question of the opponents of early Christianity. This opposition and
criticism of Paul's work and message revolved around two poles:
conservative Judaism and syncretic paganism. There is no question of
the existence of these two destructive forces in early Christianity. The
questions that are raised relate to the relationships between the two in
terms of whether they worked in concert or in opposition.
Who were the adversaries of Paul and of his work in Corinth? To
whom does he address the stinging rebukes of 2 Corinthians 10—13?
What was the method of their attack and how did Paul respond to it?
How did Paul characterize these opponents? These are some questions
addressed. Finding responses to them will make more understandable
what Paul is saying in chapters 10—13.
Palestinian Jews?
The evidence which gives a clear picture of these opponents is
scarce. There are, however, enough indications which give some
direction in arriving at a conclusion. Scholars such as Barrett con
clude that they were Judaizing Jerusalem Jews, who constituted a rival
apostolate to Paul's, backed by all the prestige of the mother church1.
"C. K. Barrett, "Paul's Opponents in 2 Corinthians," NTS, 17 (1971), 233-54.
65
66 Restoration Quarterly
One who affirms this position can point to the clear evidence that the
opponents were Jews and that it was their Jewishness that Paul singles
out for mention: "Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So
am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I" (11:22). It is suggested
that they knew Jesus after the flesh and that this would indicate that
they came from Palestine, more particularly from Jerusalem2. Käse
mann espouses the view that the description of "superlative Apostles"
used by Paul in 11:5 and 12:11 is in fact a reference to the genuine
and original apostles in Jerusalem3. There are not many who follow him
in this opinion. Another variation of this position is that the intruders
in the church at Corinth were Judaizers, organized and fostered by
implacable anti-Pauline emissaries from Palestine.4 These are identified
as the ones who followed in the tracks of Paul in Achaia as they did
in Galatia. It is valid to affirm that sometime between the writing of
the 1st and 2nd canonical letters to Corinth intruders arrived in Corinth
to instigate opposition to Paul and his teachings. Is it valid, though, to
identify these adversaries with Palestinian Jews from Jerusalem?
It seems completely unwarranted to us to suppose that these
opponents of Paul came from Jerusalem and that they bore credentials
from any of the apostles. It is true that they were Jews, but there is
no real evidence that they were Palestinian Jews. Even as we know in the
case of Paul, one could be a "Hebrew" without being from Jerusalem
(11:22). It is ¡important to point out that in this long denunciation
of the adversaries, Paul at no time indicates that they had the support
of the real apostles or the church in Jerusalem. In fact, in considering
chapters 10—13 in the context of chapters 8—9, it would seem that they
would not have been from Jerusalem, because they showed no interest
in the welfare of the needy Christians there. If this lack of interest
was simply because of disagreement with the theological motivation of
the collection, it would seem logical that some suggestion of that
opposition would have been a part of the criticism of Paul. If these had
been authentic emissaries from Palestine, it would not be likely that
Paul would describe them as ministers of Satan (11:15), especially at
the moment when he was urging the Corinthians to contribute for
relief of the poverty-stricken Jerusalem church.
Related to the question of whether these adversaries came from
'Philip Hughes, Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Wm. B. Eerdman's, 1971), p. 357.
»Ernst Kásemann, "Die Legitimität des Apostels,' ZNW (1942), 45 ff.
4Roy Bowen Ward, "The Opponents of Paul," RQ, 10 (1967), 189.
The "Super-Apostles" 67
Jerusalem is the problem posed by the existence of Paul's opponents in
the Galatian letter. Are these underminers of Paul's teaching to be
identified with the intruders at Corinth? If we affirm that they are,
then we must give more credence to the supposition that they came
from Jerusalem. The opponents in Galatia identify more realistically
with those who tried to divide the work in Antioch (Acts 15:1). This
identification, however, is problematic in Galatia. The apparent presence
of libertinistic tendencies in the Galatian church is difficult to reconcile
with the main argument of the letter directed against orthodox
Judaism. Without going into detail about these Galatian opponents of
the gospel that Paul preached we conclude with Robert Jewett5 that
there were two groups against Paul in Galatia. One was a libertinistic
group and the other a group of Jews claiming support from the
Jerusalem pillars. The agitators were imported and the libertines were
home grown (5:21; 3:2-5, 14 and 4:6). Setting aside the question of
the libertines for the moment, we conclude that the opponents in
Corinth were not the same as the Judaizers in Galatia. There is no
reference in 2 Corinthians 10—13 to circumcision. It is inconceivable to
us that the Judaizers of Galatia would have omitted this from their
teaching. If they had demanded circumcision, why would Paul have
ignored the issue when it dominated the direction of his attack in the
Galatian letter?
Hellenistic Jews?
We are led to affirm that though the adversaries of Paul at Corinth
were Jews, they were not Palestinian Jews. It is not too far afield to
describe Christian Judaism in three categories. These are named by
Barrett as conservative Judaism, liberal Judaism, and revolutionary
Judaism.6 The first of these categories would be that which would be
identified with the Judaizers who came from Jerusalem to Antioch
and later to Galatia. They must be considered Christian Jews because
they not only reverenced Jesus and taught in his name, but believed in
his messiahship and in his resurrection. These affirmations, though,
were made in the framework of classical Pharisaic Judaism. For
example, though agreeing that God would accept the Gentiles, these
Judaizers would not eat with them. Secondly, there would be those who
would retain and perhaps even exaggerate certain aspects of fundamental
'Robert Jewett, "The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation/' TXS, 17 (1970-71),
198-212.
'Barrett, 253.
68 Restoration Quarterly
Judaism, but who at the same time desired to create some kind of
syncretic relationship with pagan and Greek thought. These Hellenistic
Jews would try to make a stronger impression in a non-Jewish context
by adopting a gnostic framework of thought and by having the ecstatic
accompaniments of pagan religion. They enforced their commendatory
letters by visions, inspired speech, and other types of external behavior.
The position they tried to maintain showed their hypocrisy. Paul saw
them as the servants of Satan, pretending to be apostles and servants of
righteousness, making the worst of both worlds. They were neither
honest Jews nor honest Christians. The third category, revolutionary
Judaism, would be the category of Paul. He no longer promoted the
Law as the center of external practice, but Jesus as the base of an
interior faith. This position of Paul comes out clearly in his reaction of
these intruders at Corinth.
Having excluded above conservative Judaism, we are left with
liberal Judaism as the category into which these adversaries at Corinth
are placed. Alio concludes that, though Judaizers, they were not of
Palestinian origin but that they came from a background of Greek
culture and were thus probably Hellenistic Jews of the Diaspora.7 They
must have been Greek-speaking Jews, or they could not have preached
to Corinthian Christians (compare this idea with Acts 21:37, 40;
22:2). It is Allo's opinion that the doctrine they preached was a kind of
syncretistic Jewish-pagan-Christian gnosticism. Barrett gives this state­
ment as a final footnote on this question: "That Judaizing Christian
Jews thus accommodated themselves to the Hellenistic criteria imposed
by those who examined their claim to apostleship must have contributed
to the development of Gnosticism. It is unlikely that it happened only
in Corinth."8 This latter point is reasonable. There is basis to believe
that the heresy Paul fought against at Corinth was related to the one
that occasioned his concern (perhaps about the same time) a tColossae.
This would be a type of Christian Gnosticism that adapted the
Christian gospel of the risen Christ to the Gnostic myth of the
"Redeemed-Redeemer" and took over the Gnostic views of th eworld and
of man. The author of the article on Gnosticism in the Interpreter's
Έ. B. Alio, Saint Paul: Seconde epitre aux corinthiens (2nd ed., Paris, 1956),
p. 241. More recently, a similar view has been supported by D. Georgi. In 1965 he
published his Heidelberg dissertation, Die Gerner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief.
(Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1964). This is a large book, and its subtitle (Studien zur religiösen
Propaganda in der Spatantike) shows the broad field in which Dr. Georgi sets the
particular problems of 2 Cor.
•Barrett, 254.
The "Super-Apostles" 69
Bible concludes: "It is probable that Jewish Christian Gnostics were
a third force very early in Christian history along with 'Judaizers' and
'Hellenists.'"9 Whether this was so in terms of Christian Gnosticism
being a distinct force during the latter half of the first century is still
a debatable point.
Not too distant from the above position is that of K. Lake, who
considers that the opponents of Paul at Corinth were not Judaizers,
but "spirituals."10 They accounted themselves as pneumatics and were
inspired by a desire to go still further than Paul in the direction of
freedom from the Law and to lay even greater stress on the spiritual
nature of Christianity. We will see in the more detailed discussion
concerning Gnosticism that this conclusion has validity. There was at
least a type of Gnostic who exalted his own philosophy of knowledge
(gnosis) against the knowledge of God (10:5) and who gloried in
fleshly wisdom (1:12). These spiritualists sought proof that Christ spoke
in Paul, and this they understood, recalling the old valuation of
glossolalia to which 1 Corinthians bears witness, to mean the
phenomenon of inspired speech. A natural accompaniment of this was
an interest in visions as a validation of apostolic status.
Our conclusion, then, is that the adversaries of Paul in Corinth
were Hellenistic Jews who were propagating what we call "spiritual
gnosticism." This, though, can be misunderstood because of a con
fusion as to exactly the identification of the "Christian Gnostics" of
the early church. For this reason it is worthwhile for us to make a short
study of Gnosticism and then to place this study within the framework
of 2 Corinthians 10—13.
Gnosticizing Elements
Opinions vary as to whether Gnosticism was part of the Corinthian
complex with which Paul had to deal. Walter Schmithals maintains
that the apostle's adversaries in most of his churches were Gnostics1.1
But this involves reading too much into Paul's correspondence. A
more moderate statement is more acceptable than the extreme view of
Schmithals. There is no evidence of the mythological or speculative
soteriology that is a feature of many Gnostic systems. On the other
»Floyd Filson, "The Second Epistle to the Corinthians," The Interpreter's Bible
(New York: Abingdon, 1953) Vol. 10, pp. 265-425.
,0K. Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul (London: Rivington, 1911), pp. 219-232.
"Walter Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Korinth (Gôttingen, 1956).
70 Restoration Quarterly
hand, though, there are Gnostic phenomena to be noted. The self-
glorying of the opponents indicates perfection. The man filled with
the Spirit has an impressive appearance and can display powerful
manifestations—features present among the opponents.
The Gnosticism that has attracted the attention of scholars has been
generally the movement that appeared within the Christian religion.
Most earlier writers on the subject have regarded it as a purely
Christian movement, a perversion of the Christian faith into a specula
tive theology. This traditional theory considered Gnosticism as the
contamination of the Christian system by the introduction of Greek
philosophy.
There are, however, certain difficulties in the present study of
Gnosticism. For one thing, it has proved impossible to identify a
single source from which the movement could be said to take its
origin. Nor is there definitive agreement on terminology. In research
ing back from the framework of the second century Christian
heresy one can find elements of Gnosticism in the NT itself, in the
writings of Philo of Alexandria, and in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the
area of dogmatic history, Gnosticism is still considered the heresy of
the second century. In the broader area of religious history, however,
"Gnosis" is something much wider and more comprehensive.
In terms of the Corinthian correspondence, how do we view
Gnosticism? One method is to make a distinction between Gnosticism
on the one hand and Gnosis on the other. This may seem artificial
but it does help to eliminate some confusion. We would, then, con
sider Gnosticism as the known Christian heresy of the second
century. Gnosis (with a capital G) we consider as the whole complex
of ideas that belong to the general gnostic movement. As Ellis has
said, "We must be careful to avoid the tendency to convert parallels
into influences and influences into sources."12 In this sense we can
speak of an incipient Gnosticism in the NT period, particularly at
Corinth, but how much of the Gnosticism that later developed was
already present at any given stage is still unclear. Perhaps further
light will be shed on this question when discoveries like the Gnostic
library at Nag Hammadi13 are studied in detail.
12Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), p. 82.
"In 1945, 13 codices containing some 49 Gnostic documents were discovered in the
vicinity of Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt. Written in^Coptic, they date from the
middle of the third century A.D^ and apparently rest on Greek originals.
The "Super-Apostles*' 71
Gnosticism professed to be based on "knowledge" (gnosis), but not
as that word is now commonly understood. Its knowledge was always
a mystical supernatural wisdom. The true understanding of the universe
was possible only by means of this wisdom. A candidate gained the
possibility of being saved from the evil world of matter by knowing
this wisdom. Thus it had a developed doctrine of salvation. Along
with Christianity, the mystery religions had similar salvation systems.
Gnosticism, in its development, took into its system of thought many
elements from these diverse sources. This syncretism was a basic
characteristic. The problem that this poses for the student of Gnosticism
is that no single, defined type can by systematized. At times, it would
seem to have been mystical. For certain classes, it would have
magical elements dominating, and for others philosophical strains
would stand out.
Gnosis, as previously denned, was pre-Christian in its origin, and
it was in existence as far as gnostic principles were concerned before
the beginning of Christianity. Such principles can be identified in both
Jewish and non-Jewish writings. It was represented in what is known
as the Hermetic literature of Egypt.14 It had astral elements which
may be traced back to Babylonian religious conceptions. It had a
dualistic view of the universe which could be of Persian origin.
Perhaps its most fundamental conception, the wholly evil character
of the phenomenal world, was due to a combination of the Platonic
theory of the contrast between the real spiritual sphere of ideas and
this visible world of phenomena. This was interpreted in terms of
Persian dualism: the one good, and that to which man strives to
return, the other wholly bad and the place of his imprisonment. This
system taught that the world of matter is evil. But there is more to
the universe than can be detected personally. This "otherness," the
creator and ruler of this world, cannot be the otherness of good, but
it must be an inferior and imperfect being, the demiurge. Salvation is
being freed from the phenomenal world. It is being freed from the
planetary spirits who control this world. The means of obtaining this
salvation is "knowledge" (gnosis), a mystical, spiritual enlightenment.
The one who is initiated is brought into communion with the world of
spiritual realities.
14The Egyptian god "Thoth," which the Greeks identified with Hermes and to which
they sometimes gave the title of "Three times great," was, according to tradition, the
scribe of the gods and the divinity of wisdom. Thus he is considered the author of
religious books—the "Hermetic literature." Cf. A.-J. Festugieres, Corpus Hermeticum
(Paris: "Les Belles Lettres," 1960).
72 Restoration Quarterly
This is where ideas from Christianity enter the system. The person of
Christ was adapted to give a definite and concrete center to the
theory of an enlightening saving knowledge. The unknown and all-
perfect God was previously unknown. Christ made him known. This
illumination that came from Christ enabled all "spiritual" men, men
who were capable of receiving it, to be led back to the realm of the
good God. Up to this point the system is not too heretical. Since
the material world, however, is evil, Christ could not have had a real
incarnation. Thus the Gnostics explained his appearance as either along
Docetic (ghostly) lines, or as simply a temporary indwelling of the man
Jesus, or as an apparent birth from a virgin mother without partaking
of material nature. The God of the OT was the creator of this
visible, evil world. Thus he could not have been the God whom Christ
revealed, but simply an inferior demiurge.
Why would this system of thought create division within Christianity?
This is explained by the fact that the Gnostics taught that not all
Christians possess this saving knowledge. This knowledge was con
sidered to be a secret teaching imparted by the apostles to their closer
disciples, a "speaking wisdom among the perfect" (1 Cor. 2:6). In
Corinth Paul preached a certain gospel, a certain Jesus, by a certain
Holy Spirit. His adversaries preached another. Theirs was preached
according to a special knowledge (11:5) that Paul did not even want to
claim that he had.
Our judgment is that Gnosticism as a recognized system did not
exist in the first century, that is, as a Christian heresy. It does seem
clear to us, though, that gnostic principles, coming in from both
Jewish and pagan sources, are fought in the NT. Much of the writings
of John are to be understood in this context as well as certain writings
of Paul. Colossians is a good example of the latter. Here in
2 Corinthians we find, too, a much better understanding of what Paul
is combatting by recognizing his opponents as promoters of gnostic
principles. To speak of Gnosis in Corinth and then to interpret the
teaching of Paul's opponents by a wholesale introduction of ideas
from the second century systems is to run the risk of seriously
distorting the picture. We do affirm, though, that the principles
taught by these intruders provided fertile ground for the heretical
system that did later develop. Our understanding, then, of 2 Corinthi
ans 10—13 will be based on the conclusion that Paul's opponents, these
super-apostles, were Hellenistic Jews who were preaching another
gospel and another Jesus based on syncretic, gnostic principles.
The "Super-Apostles" 73
Corinth: Fertile Ground for the Interlopers
According to Acts 19:1 Apollos spent some time in Corinth. He was
a powerful speaker and so impressed the church that a certain group
arose who were distinctively known as followers of Apollos. These
would have been more than likely the Greeks in the church. It seems,
however, that Judaic Christians had come and these had been just as
acceptable to the Jewish members as Apollos had been to the Greeks.
Because of their influence and because of the personal appearance of
Peter at Corinth or because of his reputation, a Cephas party arose in
the church. This party, the ecclesiastical ancestors of those who subse
quently vented their hatred of Paul in the Pseudo-Clementines, openly
disclaimed the authority of Paul. One can imagine them saying,
"Cephas is the real head of the apostles, and therefore of the
Christians. Paul is a presumptuous interloper and his conduct to
Cephas at Antioch was most unbecoming. Who is this Paul, any
way? He is not an apostle at all, but an unauthorized innovator. He
has been a persecuting Sanhedrist, and he is an apostate Jew. What
had he been at Corinth? A preaching tentmaker, nothing more.
Cephas, other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, when they
travel around are accompanied by their wives or by ministering
women, and they claim the honor and support which they are due.
Why has Paul not done the same? Obviously, because he feels the
insecurity of his own position. Compare this Paul with Cephas! Very
different has been his preaching from that of Cephas at Pentecost!
It is the speaking with tongues—not mere dubious doctrinal exhorta
tion—which is the true sign of spirituality . . ." We can imagine
another set of Judaizers entering the Corinthian scene. This group
was led by one man in particular1.5 To this group not even the name
of Cephas was satisfactory. They called themselves the followers of
Christ and disdained any other name. The leader of this group
prided himself on having seen the Christ, perhaps in a vision.
Visions were important to him. He was recognized as the leader of the
'One man seems to have been the ringleader of the opposition (10:7, 11) and to have
made himself especially obnoxious to the apostle. In all probability he was the offender
of chapters 2 and 7. Paul must have been the one offended. What was the offense?
It may be that the accusation in the first letter had been taken in a particularly
offensive way, or that someone had incriminated the morality of Paul, or perhaps
even more, had explained Paul's vision on the road to Damascus as the work of
Satan. Regardless, the Corinthians knew what Paul was speaking of. In spite of the
personal character of the offense, the crisis produced affected the relation of Paul with
the entire church.
74 Restoration Quarterly
"Christ party." These ideas provide a possible framework for the
problem of division as considered by Paul in the first chapter of
1 Corinthians.
It is possible that this Christ party of 1 Corinthians may have
persisted and formed the nucleus around which these newcomers
built up their formidable opposition. If this party was composed of
Christians with Gnostic tendencies, then the visiting missionaries who
had arrived with letters of recommendation16 were able to cultivate a
fertile field. It must be added that it is not even clear that these
intruders formed a party. One can conjecture with likelihood, never
theless, that the fact that Paul in 13:20 bears down on internal
division indicates the problems were divisive and that this could
have been a follow-up of the old factions dealt with in 1 Corinthians.
In principle, the attention would center on the "Christ party." The
intruders coud attract some of the stubborn members of the "Cephas
party" by their Judaism and, by their Gnostic affinity, those who came
from the "all is permitted" party (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). Thus we
consider it more than just probable that the "Christ party" rested
in the shadows and was reconstituted in the middle of the intrigues
raised by these foreign preachers. The "men of Christ" of
2 Corinthians considered that they represented Christ better than Paul.
We can understand the dilemma of the Corinthian Christians.
They were confronted by two rival apostolates. It was not inappropriate
for them to wish to determine which is true and which is false. The
difficulty, as pointed out by Paul, is that they used the wrong criteria.
They looked for written commendations from high authority and for
ecstatic phenomena. Besides the divisions that might have remained
from the schismatic problem dealt with in 1 Corinthians, there is
another way to divide the Corinthian church: 1) There would have
been those who would have normally remained faithful to Paul but
did not know how to respond to the forceful, and what seemed to be
"It should be pointed out that a letter or recommendation (3:1) does not necessarily
imply a delegating of authority. It is unwarranted to conclude that these letters were
recongnized as coming from some high authority and thus must have come from the
apostles. It would be just as reasonable to suppose that, since they made a favorable
impression on the Corinthian church, they were sent by other Hellenistic churches. The
impression is that these adversaries were itinerant preachers and the letters may have
been from the churches which they had recently visited. They could have come from
churches with a Judaic background, churches where a mystique or "liberal" Judaism
mixed with Gnostic tendencies, to the detriment of the doctrine of salvation by the
cross.