Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Corinthians 11:5
For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
5. For I suppose ] The connection of thought seems to be as above. If they had been preaching another Gospel, you might have borne with them, but when preaching the same Gospel they can arrogate no superiority over me, for I am on an equality with the very highest.
I was not a whit behind ] Rather, I have not fallen short in any way, i.e. I neither have been, nor am now, in the least inferior.
the very chiefest apostles ] Cf. ch. 2Co 12:11. Most modern editors render by “these surpassers of the Apostles” (Alford), “those Apostles extraordinary” (Plumptre) (literally, the overmuch Apostles), regarding the Greek as ironical and interpreting the passage as referring to the false teachers. Chrysostom and the ancient interpreters refer it to St Peter and the rest of the twelve. But possibly there is no personal reference at all. St Paul may mean that no Apostles existed anywhere, however great they might be, who could claim superiority over him. Cf. Gal 2:6; Gal 2:9. Robertson has some interesting remarks on the common interpretation: “Some cannot understand the feeling which prompts an expression like this. Shallow men would call it egotism, vanity, folly, as if egotism consisted only in speaking of oneself. True Christian modesty is not the being ignorant of what we are, neither does it consist in affecting ignorance. It consists in this in having a high and sublime standard set before us, so that we feel how far we are from attaining to that.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For I suppose … – I think that I gave as good evidence that I was commissioned by God as the most eminent of the apostles. In the miracles which I performed; in the abundance of my labors, and in my success, I suppose that I did not fall behind any of them. If so, I ought to be regarded and treated as an apostle; and if so, then the false teachers should not be allowed to supplant me in your affections, or to seduce you from the doctrines which I have taught. On the evidence that Paul was equal to others in the proper proof of a commission from God; see notes on 2Co 11:21-30.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 5. I was not – behind the very chiefest apostles.] That is: The most eminent of the apostles have not preached Christ, ministered the spirit, explained and enforced the doctrines of the Gospel in a more powerful and effectual manner than I have done.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The apostle, doubtless, meaneth those that were the true apostles of our Lord. those who were immediately sent out by him to preach the gospel, behind whom the apostle was not, either in respect of ministerial gifts and graces, or in respect of labours, or in respect of success which God had given him in his work. One method that false teachers used to vilify Paul, was by magnifying some others of the apostles above him, and preferring them before him; which makes him, both here, and in Gal 2:1-21, and Rom 11:13, to magnify his office, by showing them, there was no reason why they should make a difference between him and other apostles; for he had the same immediate call, was intrusted with the same power, furnished and adorned with the same gifts, in labours (as he elsewhere saith) he had been more than they all; nor had God been wanting in giving him success in his labours, proportionable to the chiefest of them: so as he was not a whit behind them.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
5. ForMy claim is superior tothat of the false teachers, “For,” c.
I supposeI reckon[ALFORD].
I was notGreek,“That I have not been, and am not.”
the very chiefestapostlesJames, Peter, and John, the witnesses of Christ’stransfiguration and agony in Gethsemane. Rather, “those overmuchapostles,” those surpassers of the apostles in their ownesteem. This sense is proved by the fact that the context contains nocomparison between him and the apostles, but only between him and thefalse teachers 2Co 11:6 alsoalludes to these, and not to the apostles; compare also the parallelphrase, “false apostles” (see on 2Co11:13 and 2Co 12:11)[ALFORD].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For I suppose I was not a whit behind,…. This is very modestly expressed by the apostle; for he does not assert, and in a haughty and confident way affirm, but only supposes, or thinks that this might be admitted, that he was not inferior to, or did not come short of, in gifts, grace, and usefulness,
the very chiefest of the apostles: such as Peter, James, and John; who seemed to be pillars, were eminent apostles, of great note among them, and such as Christ, in the days of his flesh, took particular notice of. This he says, not to exalt himself, but to show, how weakly and injudiciously the Corinthians acted in setting up the false apostle above him; or else these words are spoken ironically, and design the false teachers, who vaunted so much of their gifts, learning, eloquence, and usefulness; and extolled themselves at such a rate, as if they were , “greatly above the apostles”; and therefore he jeeringly calls them
the very chiefest of them; and yet thinks fit to put himself at least, upon an equality with them: one manuscript reads, “the chiefest of the apostles among you”; and the Ethiopic version seems to have read you.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Apostle Asserts His Claims. | A. D. 57. |
5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. 6 But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been thoroughly made manifest among you in all things. 7 Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? 8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. 9 And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself. 10 As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia. 11 Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth. 12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
After the foregoing preface to what he was about to say, the apostle in these verses mentions,
I. His equality with the other apostles–that he was not a whit behind the very chief of the apostles, v. 5. This he expresses very modestly: I suppose so. He might have spoken very positively. The apostleship, as an office, was equal in all the apostles; but the apostles, like other Christians, differed one from another. These stars differed one from another in glory, and Paul was indeed of the first magnitude; yet he speaks modestly of himself, and humbly owns his personal infirmity, that he was rude in speech, had not such a graceful delivery as some others might have. Some think that he was a man of very low stature, and that his voice was proportionably small; others think that he may have had some impediment in his speech, perhaps a stammering tongue. However, he was not rude in knowledge; he was not unacquainted with the best rules of oratory and the art of persuasion, much less was he ignorant of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, as had been thoroughly manifested among them.
II. His equality with the false apostles in this particular–the preaching of the gospel unto them freely, without wages. This the apostle largely insists on, and shows that, as they could not but own him to be a minister of Christ, so they ought to acknowledge he had been a good friend to them. For, 1. He had preached the gospel to them freely, v. 7-10. He had proved at large, in his former epistle to them, the lawfulness of ministers’ receiving maintenance from the people, and the duty of the people to give them an honourable maintenance; and here he says he himself had taken wages of other churches (v. 8), so that he had a right to have asked and received from them: yet he waived his right, and chose rather to abase himself, by working with his hands in the trade of tent-making to maintain himself, than be burdensome to them, that they might be exalted, or encouraged to receive the gospel, which they had so cheaply; yea, he chose rather to be supplied from Macedonia than to be chargeable unto them. 2. He informs them of the reason of this his conduct among them. It was not because he did not love them (v. 11), or was unwilling to receive tokens of their love (for love and friendship are manifested by mutual giving and receiving), but it was to avoid offence, that he might cut off occasion from those that desired occasion. He would not give occasion for any to accuse him of worldly designs in preaching the gospel, or that he intended to make a trade of it, to enrich himself; and that others who opposed him at Corinth might not in this respect gain an advantage against him: that wherein they gloried, as to this matter, they might be found even as he, v. 12. It is not improbable to suppose that the chief of the false teachers at Corinth, or some among them, were rich, and taught (or deceived) the people freely, and might accuse the apostle or his fellow-labourers as mercenary men, who received hire or wages, and therefore the apostle kept to his resolution not to be chargeable to any of the Corinthians.
III. The false apostles are charged as deceitful workers (v. 13), and that upon this account, because they would transform themselves into the likeness of the apostles of Christ, and, though they were the ministers of Satan, would seem to be the ministers of righteousness. They would be as industrious and as generous in promoting error as the apostles were in preaching truth; they would endeavour as much to undermine the kingdom of Christ as the apostles did to establish it. There were counterfeit prophets under the Old Testament, who wore the garb and learned the language of the prophets of the Lord. So there were counterfeit apostles under the New Testament, who seemed in many respects like the true apostles of Christ. And no marvel (says the apostle); hypocrisy is a thing not to be much wondered at in this world, especially when we consider the great influence Satan has upon the minds of many, who rules in the hearts of the children of disobedience. As he can turn himself into any shape, and put on almost any form, and look sometimes like an angel of light, in order to promote his kingdom of darkness, so he will teach his ministers and instruments to do the same. But it follows, Their end is according to their works (v. 15); the end will discover them to be deceitful workers, and their work will end in ruin and destruction.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
That I am not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles ( ). Perfect active infinitive of , old verb to fall short with the ablative case. The rare compound adverb (possibly in use in the vernacular) is probably ironical also, “the super apostles” as these Judaizers set themselves up to be. “The extra-super apostles” (Farrar). Also in 12:11. He is not referring to the pillar-apostles of Ga 2:9.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The very chiefest apostles [ ] . Lit., those who are preeminently apostles. Not referring to the genuine apostles, but ironically to the false teachers, the false apostles of ver. 13. Compare ch. 12 11. Farrar renders the extra – super apostles.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For I suppose,” (logizomai gar) “For I calculate, reckon, or consider;” really this is my conclusion.
2) I was not a whit behind,” (meden husterekenai) “to have come behind (in) not one thing or matter,” Gal 2:1-6.
3) “The very chiefest apostles,” (ton huperlian apostolon) “the hyper or chiefest apostles;” perhaps referring to Peter, James, and John, Gal 2:8-10.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
5. For I reckon that I am. He now convicts them of ingratitude, by removing the only thing that could serve as an excuse for them, for he shows that he is on a level, even with the chief of the Apostles. The Corinthians, therefore, were ungrateful (812) in not esteeming him more highly, after having found him, by experience, to be such; while, on the other hand, the authority that was justly due to him, they transferred to persons of no value. For the sake of modesty, however, he says that he reckons so, while the thing was known and manifest to all. His meaning, however, is, that God had honored his Apostleship with no less distinguished marks of favor, than that of John or Peter. Now the man that despises the gifts of God, which he himself recognizes, cannot clear himself from the charge of being spiteful and ungrateful. Hence, wherever you see the gifts of God, you must there reverence God himself: (813) I mean, that every one is worthy of honor, in so far as he is distinguished by graces received from God, and especially if any advantage has redounded to thee from them.
(812) “ Monstroyent bien en cela leur ingratitude;” — “Showed clearly in this their ingratitude.”
(813) “ En quelque lieu que nous apperceuerons les dons de Dieu, il faut que la il soit honore de nous, et que nous luy portions reuerence;” — “Wherever we recognise the gifts of God, he must there be honored by us, and we must give him reverence.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(5) For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.The verb with which the sentence opens is the same as the I think, I reckon, which characterises these chapters, and which, being characteristic, ought to be retained. I reckon I have not fallen short of those apostles-extraordinary. The whole tone of the passage ought to have made it impossible for any commentator to imagine that the words referred to Peter and James and John as the pillars of the Church of Jerusalem (Gal. 2:9). Of them he speaks, even in his boldest moments, with respect, even where respect is mingled with reproof. He is glad to remember how they gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. He presents himself at Jerusalem a few months after writing these words, and almost submissively follows the counsel which James gives him (Act. 21:26). It is, accordingly, simply the insanity of controversy to imagine that these words have any bearing on the question of the primacy of St. Peter. Those whom he holds up to scorn with an almost withering irony, as apostles-extraordinary (he coins a word which literally means, these extra-special or over-extra apostles), are the false teachers, claiming to stand in a special relation to Christ, to be His Apostlesperhaps, also, to have a double title to the name, as delegates of the Church of Jerusalem. Of these he speaks more fully in 2Co. 11:13.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
5. I am justly jealous at this for the following reason:
I suppose Literally, I reckon myself not to have been at all inferior to these over-much apostles.
The allusion, as the best scholars now agree, is not to either of the twelve apostles, but to the pretended and pretentious apostles, whose preaching is characterized in the last verse. The over-much apostles is an epithet which characterizes the assumption of the party.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘For I reckon that I am not a whit behind the very highest ranking apostles.’
In view of this he feels it necessary as their ‘father’ to establish his position and authority. He wants them to know that he is in no way an inferior Apostle, a second class one. His teaching and authority is equal to that of ‘the very highest ranking’, Peter, James and John and the other Apostles. So he is a top-ranking Apostle and to turn from his teaching is to turn from the true Gospel. He is thus superior to his opponents, who are not of the highest ranking Apostles, and he should therefore be heeded.
The fact that Paul here claims equality with ‘the highest ranking Apostles’, and not superiority confirms that the twelve are in mind here. Had he sarcastically intended ‘these superlative Apostles’, i.e. his opponents, he would surely not simply have claimed equality.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Paul is not inferior to the “great apostles”:
v. 5. For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
v. 6. But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been thoroughly made manifest among you in all things.
v. 7. Have I committed an offense in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the Gospel of God freely?
v. 8. I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.
v. 9. And when I was present with you and wanted, I was chargeable to no man; for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied; and in all things I have kept myself from being burden so me unto you, and so will I keep myself. The apostle here proceeds to take up the reasons why his apostolic authority was being questioned by the false teachers, namely, that he was not a trained orator, and that he had not claimed support from the congregation at Corinth. With biting sarcasm he writes: I think that in not one whit have I been behind the very superior, these superfine apostles. The false teachers not only claimed apostolic rank, but attached an extravagant importance to their persons and rights. The longer he considers the matter, Paul declares with another ironical thrust, the more he is convinced that his apostolic authority was fully on a level with that claimed by these false teachers.
Taking up, now, the first charge, that he is rude, bungling, uneducated, uneloquent in speech, that he lacks professional training, he lets that stand; it is true, he speaks in plain, unadorned phrase, he does not strive after polished elegance of expression, which appeals more by the sound than by reason of its content. But he maintains that he is not rude, unlearned, in his knowledge and understanding of divine things, of the sound truths of the Gospel. As a matter of fact, Paul was a forceful speaker, Act 19:12; Act 22:1; Act 24:10; Act 26:2; but he purposely avoided the glittering methods of the professional speakers. And this method of his had been effective, as is proved by the fact that in everything he has made the knowledge of God and spiritual things manifest among all men toward the Corinthians, or, by a slightly different construction: He and his fellow-workers have been everywhere made manifest as such that know the truth of God.
So far as the second charge was concerned, Paul asks: Or have I committed a sin in humiliating myself that you might be exalted, because without charge I preached to you the Gospel of God? Do they consider it such a grievous wrong that he waived his right to maintenance, that he humbled himself in their midst, making his living by his own hands, while at the same time exalting them in spiritual privileges by committing to them the glorious message of salvation? Will they insist upon deeming it a fault that he charged them nothing for his maintenance while he worked in their midst? Has he disgraced the apostolic office by descending to servile labor for his own support? Are they going to complain because they have been treated with such exceptional kindness? Surely they would not think of being so foolish! Note that in the expression “preaching the divine, precious Gospel without charge” there is a most effective contrast between that which is free and that which is of the highest price and value.
Paul frankly states: Other congregations I despoiled, accepting wages from them, that I might minister to you. He purposely uses the strong term “robbing” or “despoiling,” in order to awaken shame in their hearts. From other congregations he accepted wages for services performed for a livelihood, and all the while he was doing service for the Corinthians. Other Christians contributed to his maintenance, in order that the believers of Corinth might make headway in spiritual welfare. How humiliating for them! And Paul further explains: And being with you and suffering want, I was a burden on no man; he did not bring his financial troubles to their attention, he did not rely upon any one in Corinth for his support. For his lack the brethren that came from Macedonia supplied, probably Silas and Timothy, Act 18:5; Php_4:15 . Consequently in everything he kept himself from being burdensome to the Christians at Corinth, and this he intended to continue, as he shows in the nest paragraph. His argument here is: If it was right that he, in the midst of wealthy Achaia, gave a proof of his selflessness, although this redounded to the disgrace of his opponents, then his accepting of assistance from the Christians of Macedonia could not have been wrong, since the latter thereby brought a willing and cheerful sacrifice for the glory and praise of the Gospel.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
2Co 11:5 . You might well tolerate it , Paul had just said ; but every reader who knew the apostle could not but at once of himself feel that he did not mean it so, that the meaning at his heart was rather: then you would be very far wrong in tolerating such novelties; that he thus in the way of ironical censure makes it palpable to his readers that their complaisance towards the false apostles was the ground of his anxiety expressed in 2Co 11:3 . Hence he now by [321] at once gives a reason for the censure of that complaisance so disparaging to his own position as an apostle, which is conveyed in the ironical . This does not refer therefore to 2Co 11:1 , but to what immediately precedes, in so far, namely, as it was not meant approvingly (Hofmann), but in exactly the opposite sense. Hofmann groundlessly and dogmatically replies that the reason assigned for an ironical praise must necessarily be itself ironical. [322]
] censeo , I am of opinion. Rom 2:3 ; Rom 3:28 ; Rom 8:18 , al.
] in no respect have I remained behind . Comp. on Mat 19:20 . Rckert without reason adds: “ i.e. in my action .” The , in no respect a stronger negation than the simple (Khner, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 10), excludes any restriction to some mere partial aspect of his official character. The perfect exhibits the state of the case as at present continuing to subsist (Bernhardy, p. 378): to stand behind . In 2Co 12:11 the conception is differen.
] The genitive with a verb of comparison. Comp. Plat. Pol. 7, p. 539 E. See Matthiae, p. 836. Comp. Kypke, II. p. 265. , overmuch, supra quam valde , is not preserved elsewhere in old Greek, but is found again, nevertheless, in Eustath. Od. i. p. 27,35: , . Similarly we have ( 2Ma 8:35 ; 2Ma 10:34 ; Strabo, iii. p. 147), (Kypke, Obss. II. p. 267), , etc., as well as generally Paul’s frequent application of compounds with (Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 351). But whom does he mean by ? According to Chrysostom, Theodoret, Grotius, Bengel, and most of the older commentators, also Emmerling, Flatt, Schrader, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holsten, Holtzmann ( Judenth. und Christenth . p. 764), the actual summos apostolos , namely, Peter, James, and John (comp. Gal 2:9 ). But Paul is not contending against these, but against the false apostles (2Co 11:13 ); hence the expression: “ the over-great apostles ,” which is manifestly selected not (Chrysostom), but with a certain bitterness, would be very unsuitable here (comp. on the other hand, 1Co 15:9 ; 1Co 9:5 ) if the old apostles should be simply incidentally mentioned, because they were possibly placed high above Paul by his opponents. [323] Rightly, therefore, Richard Simon, Alethius, Heumann, Semler, Michaelis, Schulz, Stolz, Rosenmller, Fritzsche, Billroth, Rckert, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Osiander, Neander, Hofmann, Weiss, Beyschlag, and others have followed Beza’s suggestion (comp. Erasmus in the Annot .), and understood the Judaistic anti-Pauline teachers to be the pseudo-apostles (2Co 11:13 ; 2Co 11:22 ), whose inflated arrogance in exalting themselves over Paul is caricatured. Nevertheless they are not to be considered as the heads of the Christ-party (comp. on 2Co 10:7 ).
[321] , adopted by Lachm. on the testimony of B only, and approved by Rckert, appears after in ver. 4 as an alteration, because no reference was seen for the . With there would result the quite simple course of thought: “ If indeed I mean, however ,” etc., not as Rckert would have it, that Paul passes from the justification of the intended self-praise given in vv. 2 4 to the self-praise itself.
[322] Without conceding this arbitrary assertion, observe, moreover, that ver. 5 also has a sufficiently ironic tinge. Comp. 2Co 4:8-9 . See also Klpper.
[323] The immediately following would also be quite unsuitable, since every other apostle, at least as much as Paul, was .
REMARK.
The reference of our passage to Peter, James, and John was supported among the earlier Protestants from polemical considerations, for the comparison in itself and the plural expression were urged against the primacy of Peter. See Calovius, Bibl. ill. p. 505. In defence of this primacy, it was maintained by the older Catholic writers that the equality referred to preaching and gifts, not to power and jurisdiction. See Cornelius a Lapide.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
Ver. 5. The very chiefest apostles ] Either he meaneth those pillars, Peter, James, John, &c., Gal 2:6 ; or the false apostles, whom he styleth chiefest by an irony, because they sought to bear away the bell, and be counted prime preachers.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
5. ] See above. ‘Seeing that there is but one gospel, and they and I profess to preach one Jesus and impart one Spirit, they have no such claim: mine is superior’): for I reckon that in no respect do I fall short of (the perf. sets forth the past and present truth of the fact) these overmuch Apostles .
. has very commonly been taken to mean bona fide ‘ the greatest Apostles ,’ i.e. Peter, James, and John, or perhaps the Twelve : but (1) this hardly seems to suit the expression , in which I cannot help seeing, with De W., some bitterness: (2) it would be alien from the spirit of the passage, in which he institutes no comparison whatever between himself and the other Apostles , but only between himself and the false teachers . (3) had any such comparison been here intended, the ‘punctum comparationis’ would not have been, personal eminence in fruits of apostolic work and sufferings , still less, seeing that the other Apostles were unlearned also, the distinction which immediately follows, between an , and one pretending to more skill, but priority of arrival and teaching in Corinth. (4) the expression 2Co 11:13 , seems to me to refer to, and give the plain sense of, this ironical designation of . (5) the same expression ch. 2Co 12:11 appears even more plainly than here to require this explanation. The above explanation is that of Beza, Michaelis, Schulz, Fritzsche, Billroth, Rckert, Olsh., Meyer, De Wette.
is not found in classic Greek: but Wetstein cites from Eustath [15] Od. . p. 27, 35: , . Meyer instances as analogous, ( 2Ma 10:34 ), ( , Demosth. 228. 17), and the frequent use by Paul of compounds of . It has been the practice of Protestant Commentators (e.g. Bengel, Macknight) to adduce this verse against the primacy of Peter, and of the Romanists (e.g. Corn.-a-Lapide) to evade the inference by supposing the pre-eminence to be only in gifts and preaching, not in power and jurisdiction. All this will fall to the ground with the supposed reference to the other Apostles.
[15] Eustathius, Bp. of Antioch, 323
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
2Co 11:5-15 . HE IS NOT INFERIOR TO HIS ADVERSARIES ALTHOUGH ( a ) HE IS NOT A TRAINED ORATOR (2Co 11:6 ), AND ALTHOUGH ( b ) HE DID NOT CLAIM MAINTENANCE FROM THE CHURCH (2Co 11:7 ). THIS WAS NOT THROUGH WANT OF AFFECTION FOR THEM, BUT THAT THERE MIGHT BE NO ROOM FOR CAVIL.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
2Co 11:5 . . . .: for I reckon that I am not a whit behind these superfine Apostles ; you receive them gladly; why not me? He then proceeds to refute the two reasons which were assigned for the disparagement of his apostolic authority, viz. , ( a ) he had none of the arts of a trained rhetorician, ( b ) he had not claimed maintenance from the Church of Corinth, which he had a right to do, if of genuine “apostolic” rank. , “these superfine Apostles” is thus, as at 2Co 12:11 , an ironical description of the (2Co 11:13 ) against whom he is contending. The A.V. and R.V. render “the very chiefest Apostles,” i.e. , the original Twelve, who received their commission directly from Christ, and especially Peter, James and John; but to introduce any mention of them here would be irrelevant, and would interrupt the argument (they were ), not to speak of the fact that seems always in Greek literature to be used in an ironical sense.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
suppose = reckon.
was . . . behind. Greek. hustero, See. Cor. 2Co 1:7.
not a whit = in nothing. Greek. medeis. Whit is the O. E, wiht (wight), a person or thing.
very chiefest. Greek. huper (App-104) lian (exceeding). Farrar translated “extra-super
apostles. App-189. This is said ironically of the claims of those who decried him.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
5.] See above. Seeing that there is but one gospel, and they and I profess to preach one Jesus and impart one Spirit, they have no such claim: mine is superior): for I reckon that in no respect do I fall short of (the perf. sets forth the past and present truth of the fact) these overmuch Apostles.
. has very commonly been taken to mean bona fide the greatest Apostles, i.e. Peter, James, and John, or perhaps the Twelve: but (1) this hardly seems to suit the expression , in which I cannot help seeing, with De W., some bitterness: (2) it would be alien from the spirit of the passage, in which he institutes no comparison whatever between himself and the other Apostles, but only between himself and the false teachers. (3) had any such comparison been here intended, the punctum comparationis would not have been, personal eminence in fruits of apostolic work and sufferings, still less, seeing that the other Apostles were unlearned also, the distinction which immediately follows, between an , and one pretending to more skill,-but priority of arrival and teaching in Corinth. (4) the expression 2Co 11:13, seems to me to refer to, and give the plain sense of, this ironical designation of . (5) the same expression ch. 2Co 12:11 appears even more plainly than here to require this explanation. The above explanation is that of Beza, Michaelis, Schulz, Fritzsche, Billroth, Rckert, Olsh., Meyer, De Wette.
is not found in classic Greek: but Wetstein cites from Eustath[15] Od. . p. 27, 35: , . Meyer instances as analogous, (2Ma 10:34), ( , Demosth. 228. 17), and the frequent use by Paul of compounds of . It has been the practice of Protestant Commentators (e.g. Bengel, Macknight) to adduce this verse against the primacy of Peter, and of the Romanists (e.g. Corn.-a-Lapide) to evade the inference by supposing the pre-eminence to be only in gifts and preaching, not in power and jurisdiction. All this will fall to the ground with the supposed reference to the other Apostles.
[15] Eustathius, Bp. of Antioch, 323
Fuente: The Greek Testament
2Co 11:5. , for) The particle connecting the discussion with the proposition [the subject he proposed to discuss]. The sum of Pauls boasting is here stated and repeated, ch. 2Co 12:11.- , the very chiefest) such as James, Kephas, John [distinguished for their high privilege in being witnesses of the transfiguration of Jesus.-V. g.], or even the other survivors of the twelve, Gal 2:2, not merely such as those, who are called apostles in a wider sense, i.e. I am as much an apostle as he who is most so. Peter has no title to any preference. [Act 26:13; Act 26:16; Gal 1:16.]
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
2Co 11:5
2Co 11:5
For I reckon that I am not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.-He had shown all the powers that the very chiefest of the apostles, Peter, James, and John, possessed. God had given his testimony to Paul as an apostle as fully as he had to them. He was behind them in no qualification, and greatly surpassed them in the extent of his labors and sufferings for the cause of Christ.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
I was not: 2Co 12:11, 2Co 12:12, 1Co 15:10, Gal 2:6-9
Reciprocal: Num 12:3 – above Job 12:3 – But I have Job 13:2 – General Job 15:9 – knowest Mat 20:27 – whosoever Act 15:2 – the apostles Rom 1:1 – called 1Co 1:1 – an 1Co 9:1 – I not an 1Co 15:9 – the least 2Co 11:23 – I am Gal 2:8 – the same Gal 2:11 – I withstood
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Co 11:5. In this verse ,Paul begins to show some reasons why they ought to “put up” with him. He not only was an apostle, but ranked with the very chiefest apostles.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
2Co 11:5. For I reckon that I am not a whit behind the very chiefest apostlesor (according to others, and the margin of the Revised Version) those pre-eminent apostles. In this last case, pretended but false apostles (those of 2Co 11:13-15) are meant; but to us it appears pretty clear that the reference is to the real apostles, as Peter, James, and John (see Gal 2:9). That disparaging comparisons between them and our apostle had been made at Corinth, is beyond doubt; and those who were doing this were the same party that were holding up James, Cephas, and John as pillars to the disparagement of Paul among the Galatians. We cannot doubt that it is these very chiefest apostles whom he here reckons himself not behind. Indeed it is a known fact, that the extreme zealots of this Jewish partywho eventually left the Church and formed a sect of their ownconsidered our apostle as the great corrupter of the pure, primitive Jewish type of Christianity, by letting in upon it a flood of uncircumcised Gentiles (see Stanleys introduction to this Epistle). And if the language here used still seems too strong to be applied to real apostles, the language applied to them in speaking to these same Corinthians in his First Epistle (1Co 15:10) will be found sufficiently similar.
[1] The Revised Version renders it espoused, because another word for betrothed is commonly used in the New Testament. But since two acts are here clearly distingushed, and espousal certainly answer to the secondthe presenting of the Church to Christ, as remaining true to Him here below, the first must correspond to the formal betrothaland all the more as the word here used () undoubtedly means to bring together, which may apply to the one act as well as the other.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. The great modesty of the apostle in this expression; I suppose I was not a wit behind the chiefest apostles. He might have said he was equal with them, and in some sense superior to them, even the most eminent of them, Peter, James, and John. Indeed the apostleship, as an office, was of equal honour in all the apostles; but even amongst them, some had more excellent gifts, and greater enlargements, and did more signal services than others. Thus one of those stars differed from another in brightness and glory.
But, observe, 2. Before whom it is that St. Paul thus compares himself with the chiefest apostles: it was not before the true, but the false apostles, that he makes this modest boast. He did not contend with any of the apostles of Christ for the upper hand, nor say, I am not behind any of you, or I am better than any of you; but he only gives check to those false apostles who undervalued him, and poured contempt upon him. He who said at another time, I am not worthy to be called an apostle, says here, I am not behind the chiefest apostle.
From whence we learn, That the ministers of Christ may stand upon terms of credit with those that vilify their persons, disparage their function, and discredit that honourable work which God hath called them unto. Though all ambitious contending with others is odious, yet no man ought to betray either the truth of God or his own integrity, lest he should be counted contentious. He purchases the opinion of an humble and peaceable minister too dear; who either pays the faith of God for it, or his own credit: something of reputation being absolutely necessary in a minister, to render his labours successful.
Observe, 3. The objection which the false apostles, those proud boasters of their eloquence, made against St. Paul, namely, that he was rude in speech. That the apostle had some imperfection in his speech or utterance, is the opinion of many. Others affirm, that he was an eloquent preacher, from Act 19:12 where he is compared to Mercurius for it; but he did not think fit, in his ministry, to use the Grecian flaunting way in ostentation thereof, that so the power of the gospel might not seem to be placed in human wisdom. “However, says the apostle, though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; if my language has nothing extraordinary in it, yet sure nothing can be objected against my skill in the mysteries of salvation. But I need not tell you of this, who have had the proof of it in my ministry amongst yourselves.”
Note, we hear, The manner and methods of St. Paul’s preaching; it was grave and serious, pious and ardent, plain and profitable. No doubt he could have acted the orator in the pulpit, as well as most: But he chose rather to speak close and home to the consciences of men, in a plain and familiar style, delivering all his evangelical and apostolical precepts so plainly, that the weakest capacities might understand and receive them. Plain truths, without any art or varnish, may be conveyed with more warmth and vigour to the conscience, than all the charms of human eloquence from the most fluent and popular tongue.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Verse 5 Apparently some were claiming to be “super” apostles in Corinth. Paul was equal to all of them.
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
For I reckon that I am not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. [I can not think that you receive these rival teachers and professed apostles as so much superior to me, for I am not behind these super-apostolic apostles. Paul is not here comparing himself with the twelve, but with these spurious apostles at Corinth. Paul reveals his emotion by the use of that strange word which is translated “very chiefest.” It means “out-and-out,” “extra-super,” “overmuch,” a term he would have never applied to the twelve. It is as though he said, Though these men claim to be apostles a hundred times over, yet I can certainly take my place in the front ranks with them.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
The "eminent apostles" were probably the false apostles who claimed to be eminent rather than the other genuine apostles. [Note: Hughes, pp. 378-80; Richard Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, pp. 1245-7; Plummer, pp. 298-9; Tasker, pp. 148-9; Barnett, pp. 50708; Martin, p. 337; Wiersbe, 1:669.] The context supports this interpretation as does the rare term translated "eminent" (NASB, Gr. huperlian apostolon, lit. "exceedingly beyond apostles"). It is perhaps a term more appropriate to phonies claiming apostleship than to genuine apostles. However this term may have been one that Paul’s critics used to describe the Twelve in contrast to Paul (cf. 2Co 12:11-12). [Note: Bruce, pp. 236-7; Hodge, p. 256; Kent, pp. 164-5; Harris, p. 386; Lowery, p. 580.] By elevating the Twelve exceedingly they effectively denigrated the apostle to the Gentiles. Whichever view is correct the meaning is clear. Paul’s foes were claiming that he was an inferior apostle.
This is the third reason the readers should bear with Paul (2Co 11:1). He claimed that he was not inferior to these "super-apostles."