11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers,11:16 I say again, let no one think me foolish.
masquerading as Christ's apostles.
11:14 And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light.
11:15 It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also masquerade as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.
Today this is rather politically incorrect in Christian circles. For you hurt people's feelings in doing so. But this is Biblical Christianity as Paul and Jesus practiced. On the other hand, there are those today who go to the other extreme and seem to do nothing but make fun of other people, not for their edification, but seemingly just to make themselves feel superior. If you are going to criticize others, what are you doing for their benefit?
Paul earned the right to criticize the Corinthians, having risked his life for them and raising them as a parent would his children, looking for their edification. If we criticize churches or other Christians, let's spend a few years minstering to them as well. It's easy to wield the sword when you have no intention of healing the wounds. But spend a good amount of time developing relationships and then try and bring in rebuke and see how difficult it is. Paul was risking his relationship with the Corinthians in doing so. For no one likes to be humiliated or spoken to in such a condescending manner. This is a struggle that parents face in raising their children. Whether to rebuke when necessary and risk losing their trust and love or not rebuke and risk losing their soul and their respect. One can learn much both from Paul's relationship with the churches in the New Testament and God's relationship with Israel in the Old.
There are many who use the word "Jesus", but have in their mind an image of a Jesus who is significantly deviant from the Jesus of the Apostles. For example, the Jesus of the old production "Jesus Christ superstar", is not the Jesus of the Bible. Nor is the Jesus as many liberals portray him. And it is not simply the teachings of Christ that define Jesus, but also his person and nature. In the book of 1st John, John writes against a cult who claimed that Jesus came as a spirit and not as a physical man, and he calls them antichrists. But even in the more orthodox evangelical communities today, you may find versions of Jesus which are a distortion of the Biblical Jesus in some ways. And these get propagated through institutionalism and the leaven of human dogma, which hinder ordinary Christians from questioning the validity of such versions of Jesus.
Implied is the validity and indeed the duty of Christians to be allowed to practice a bit of healthy skepticism when hearing messages about Jesus. If preachers demand that others gullibly accept whatever they say without question, such a demand is contrary to what the Bible teaches and what the apostles practice. Even Jesus himself said, "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does." John 10:37 (niv) And John writes, "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."1John 4:1 (niv) So if some teacher makes such a demand of you, you know that he's already off.
It's unfortunate that preaching has become so much of a one-way conversation, as impersonalize lectures go. For even if the preacher is saying the right things in his own mind, because of the lack of feedback, his audience may get a much different impression of the message, particularly if he uses vague and imbiguous terms and illustrations. Thus some preaching is like a piece of modern art in its lack of clarity. What kind of a Jesus gets communicated in such a process is often quite subjective. Thus such preachers may have in their mind the correct version of Jesus, but what get's communicated may be a deviant version of Jesus. Preaching Jesus ambiguously with lack of clarity may have the same effect as preaching a false Jesus explicitly. The objective of communcation is to get what is in your mind into someone else's mind. You may understand what you are saying. You may interpret what you are saying a certain way. But if the other person hearing you interprets your words differently, you have not communicated the message. But if you allowed no feedback, then you would never know that.
How tolerant should we be towards other gospels and other versions of Jesus? I can tell you that even in the more orthodox Evangelical circles there is a variety of gospels and versions of Jesus. But these usually vary on what some reckon as minor points. So to what extent should we divide over these different versions of Jesus? I'm not sure, but unity in the Christian community should be centered around the Biblical Jesus and his message. Demanding unity around a deviant form of Jesus is not Biblical unity but rather is promoting divisiveness.
Because of the emphasis on pluralism in this country, ecumenical unity is one thing preached by the "angels of light" today. "Let's avoid talking about what we don't agree on and only talk about what we agree on, and pretend to be united." Sounds like a good message, but it's from the devil. Sounds like a message of light, but it demands people walk in darkness. Ecumenical pluralism draws people away from the Bible and from seriously applying it to life. For if you study it and apply it, you will inevitably run into conflicts with other people.
There are many examples of this. For example, if you've concluded from the Bible that Jesus teaches that remarriage after divorce is adulterous, then if you've been divorced, you may have decided not to remarry. But you may very well run into a Christian who has remarried after divorce. Now you can share your version of Jesus with him, and mostly likely experience a bit of disunity. Or you can not share and pretend to be united. Applying the Bible to life will bring disunity, but that disunity is healthy. And a man's enemies will tend to be the members of his own household. But that's the Christian life.
Ecumenical pluralism does not promote unity but division by allowing the leaven of false ideas to propagate in the Christian community. Whatever is popular is seldom correct and the true believers may only be a remnant of the visible church. Unity around the popular opinion may not be unity around the Biblical Christ. But under such pluralism objections are not allowed. Objections are considered divisive and therefore sinful.
vs 5 By "chiefest apostles" (kjv) or "super-apostles" (niv), Paul is not referring to the 12 apostles in this context. For in verse 13 he calls these people false apostles. So he's just being sarcastic in calling them super-apostles. That is how they think of themselves and how they want to be thought of.
vs 6 Who did Jesus chose to be his apostles? Did he chose those who were theologically trained and eloquent in speech. No! He chose fishermen. He chose tentmakers. He chose ordinary people. To do God's ministry, you don't have to go to a seminary to earn a degree. You don't have to be a full time professional preacher. It is true that Paul had studied the law under Gamaliel. And no doubt many an institutional leader today would have chosen Paul to be the apostle to the Jews, being a Pharisee and considering his background, and would have chose the Galilean apostles to be apostles to the Gentiles, since they they were closer to Gentiles culturally. But Jesus did just the opposite!
Whatever your background, education and personality may be, Jesus may likely chose you to do just the opposite of what you think you are suited for in ministry for the kingdom of God. For his power is perfected in our weakness.
vs 7 As a principle of ministry, Paul tries to avoid receiving financial support, especially from young Christians, and certainly not from unbelievers. Although he does write that such ministers do have the right to get payed.
"In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast." 1Cor 9:14,15But Paul doesn't want his message to be affected by suspicions of greed. And he wants to serve as an example to follow. And what example is that? To act responsibly, not being an unnecessarly financial burden to others.
"For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow." 2Thess 3:7-9And he wants to be able to give, rather than receive.
"In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive." Acts 20:35But professional clergy get paid for their ministry and thus are not in an ideal situation to act as a model as Paul did. Paul's model of Christian ministry in which ordinary lay-Christians are viewed as ambassadors for Christ, has been suppressed through the centuries through institutional elitism. Thus in post-Biblical historic Christianity, lay people have generally been treated as simply stupid sheep uncapable of doing anything more than paying the professional elite ministers to do the ministry. But lay-people have also been accomplices in such a mentality, since it allows them to be lazy as they pretend to be stupid sheep, since it appears to free them up from responsibility. But Paul teaches and practices hard work.
vs 8-9 On the other hand, there were times in which Paul did receive support from others, just as he supported his ministry team through his tent-making profession as he mentions to the Ephesian elders.
"You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions." Acts 20:34And he calls them to follow his example in this and be givers rather than receivers of financial support. But there are times when jobs cannot be had, or that there is just too much ministry work to do. He speaks of "robbing" other churches. For there is a contemptuous attitude towards receiving money for one's Christian ministry. And Paul's other writings on this matter reveal his attitude as well. But of course he doesn't think of it as literally robbery, but his speaking by hyperbole.
By why does he treat the Corinthian church this way in particular? Because of their spiritual immaturity, as 1Corinthians reveals their immature attitude and practices. Thus just as a parent doesn't want to be supported by his little children, so Paul also views it as inappropriate and even harmful to their growth to be financially supported by the Corinthians.
vs 12 One might infer either that these false apostles are trying to become financially supported clergy in the Corinthian church, or that Paul also avoided getting paid for his ministry there so that such apostles could not slander him, accusing him of a greedy motivation for his Christian service there.
vs 20 This is quite interesting! Didn't Jesus reckon as virtuous to tolerate being exploited? For didn't he say:
"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." Matt 5:39-41 (niv)But Paul seems to speak sarcastically against such behavior in saying:
"you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face." 2Cor 11:20 (niv)Implying that these are not things that Christians should tolerate. How do we reconcile this paradox? Jesus was speaking proverbially using a hyperbolic form of speech quite common to proverbs. But as such it is incorrect to interpret him literally. For when we interpret the Bible, we must take into account the sense in which it is written. We must take into account figures of speech.
This is not to say that there are not occasions in which the literal application of Matt 5:39-41 is appropriate. But we see even Jesus not following a literal interpretation of his own saying. For when he was struck, rather than turn the other cheek, he responded, "If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" Joh 18:23 (niv)
This has broad implications in the Christian community. To what extent should a wife or children (Or a husband or father for that matter) put up with being abused? To what extent should Christians put up with being abused by the society? And to what extend should Christians put up with being abused by other Christians? Jesus did not make it easy for his enemies to kill him. They wanted to kill him even at the beginning of his ministry, but he escaped, as also did Paul from Damascus in verse 32,33
vs 22 reveals that the enemies, these false apostles, that Paul is dealing with are not greek Gnostics, but rather Jews. Probably the same group of the circumcision he deals with in Galatians.
vs 23+ Are they servants of Christ? Of course he's speaking rhetorically in a derogatory manner. Yes, they pass themselves off as servants of Christ, but they are not really servants of Christ. So also in Jesus' parables which talk of servants. There are those who make themselves out to be servants. And then there are those who actually are servants.
Should we boast about our trials in Christian ministry? Should we boast about are innate love for other Christians? Remember that Paul is saying that he should not have to make such boasts, but if that's what will win him a hearing, then OK. He certainly has much to boast of, but it is apparent that he is normally reluctant to make such boasts. For the object of faith which he preaches is not himself, but Christ. And to boast of oneself can get in the way of preaching Christ.
vs 29 It is appropriate to have an inward anger when people are led into sin. Lack of such an anger is not Biblical grace or mercy, but simply a licentious toleration of sin.
The Boston Christian Bible Study Resources Edition: Apr 12,2004