03 Paul’s Leadership Ethos in 2 Cor 10–13: A Critique of 21st Century Pentecostal Leadership

---

Introduction

In a previous edition of APS, Dr. Shane Clifton addressed fellow Pentecostal scholars with the challenge of being more than mere academics, and to courageously and wisely engage their society and Christian culture as "agents of change."[1] He called them to be 'prophetic voices' endowed with the opportunity and responsibility "to reflect upon socio-historical practices with a critical eye," by recognising what "common sense assumptions and habits may not, in fact, make sense" anymore in our culture.[2] He differentiated such a task from plain 'negativity' or 'criticism', describing it rather as "faithful criticism" set on confronting "'cherished convictions and slogans' that we believe have become ideological nonsense, and that are propagating and sustaining corruption and injustice."[3] Among the 'hot topics' that he deemed deserving of an open and honest debate within Pentecostalism, he identified one in particular that resonated with me: "centralising trends in ecclesiology and the authority of the pastor." [4] Indeed, at about the same time as Clifton's editorial went to press, I had just completed and submitted an Honours thesis on the topic of Paul's leadership ethos and paradigm as implied in the text of 2 Corinthians 10-13, which I intended as a critique of the over-popularisation and adoption of secular, corporate leadership values and methods by Pentecostal and Charismatic leaders.[5] This present article aims to provide a succinct summary of this research and seeks to draw some relevant applications for our modern setting. It is hoped that it will respond to the editor's call to engage, both with courage and wisdom-and I would add, with Christ-like humility-in a 'faithful critique' of the current cultural status quo on leadership.

Methodological Considerations

Tackling the topic of leadership is no easy task: for a number of reasons, the scholarly journey can be both lonely and perilous. First, writing a critique of the possible deviances and excesses of any 'establishment', be it political or ecclesiastical, is never without its risks. Secondly, such a research project faces numerous methodological hurdles. Consider, for instance, that a clear definition of the concept of leadership cannot be easily formulated, as there exists no consensus in the human and social sciences regarding "concepts such as 'power', 'authority' ... 'legitimacy'," ideas which somehow all undergird the notion of leadership.[6] As J. H. Schütz puts it, power, and by extension leadership, "seems to slip through our fingers when we attempt an analysis of it"; it "resists our efforts to tease it into the open."[7] To make matters worse, the usual Hellenistic terms for 'leader' or 'leadership' (archon, hegoumenos) are never employed in the New Testament to describe what we would deem to be leadership roles in the church, a fact which, in itself, is suggestive of the early church's outlook on the question.[8] From the onset we are forced to recognise that any research into the concept of leadership from a New Testament perspective risks being hopelessly anachronistic, a caveat which should make us all the more aware of our possible hermeneutical biases as well as cause us to follow specific methodological steps. The New Testament authors, Paul in particular, never set out to compose a précis of their theology on leadership (i.e., the '10 Essential Laws of Successful Leadership,' as many of our contemporaries would like to have it). Most of the New Testament writings are ad hoc, occasional epistolary documents relating to specific circumstances which treat specific issues as they arose in early Christian communities. None of them were written as systematic treatises on the topic of leadership, which implies the need to adopt a hermeneutical stance that will seek to discern implicit, rather than explicit, evidence regarding Paul's leadership ethos, as if somewhat buried underneath the textual surface for the 'exegetical archaeologist' to uncover. Against these initial considerations, it seems methodologically sensible and coherent to adopt a socio-historical and exegetical approach, laying aside from the start any modern theoretical model of leadership.[9] After locating Paul and the concept of leadership within its first-century Greco-Roman context, I shall then examine his leadership ethos and perspective as may be inferred from his response to the accusations and criticisms levelled against him in Corinth. I shall conclude with a brief invitation to critical self-reflection and to the adoption of a more christophoric style of leadership.

Leadership in First-century Corinth: Ethos and Social Distinctives

As we begin our enquiry into the concept of leadership from a first-century A.D. perspective, it is not superfluous to stress initially how extremely different ancient Corinth must have been from any twenty-first century Australian city at both demographic and socio-cultural levels. This is a fact often neglected in contemporary preaching and popular literature. By the time of Paul's visit, Corinth had been a Roman colony for about a hundred years and was thus thoroughly Greco-Roman in its socio-cultural outlook. Much of its architecture, civic institutions, and cultural customs followed after a Roman pattern. Strategically situated on the Achaian isthmus at a cross-road between north-south and east-west trading routes, it boasted a bustling and highly competitive commercial market. "Not for everyone is the voyage to Corinth,"[10] did the proverb indeed advise, which not only referred to the sexual promiscuity of the city but also to "the danger of losing one's shirt in the intense cutthroat competition" of this "boom town."[11] As might be expected, Roman society's usual struggle for social prominence was very pronounced in Corinth, perhaps even more so than in any other Roman cities, as the new colony offered unique opportunities for economic advancement and upward social mobility to an ambitious population of veterans, plebs, and freedmen. (Freedwomen would have certainly not benefitted from the same opportunities as their male counterparts). As for its cultural and religious influence, it had reached international dimensions with its renowned biennial Isthmian games and its many temples attracting visitors from all over the Mediterranean world.[12] Important for us to note at this point is the significant sophistic revival that seems to have taken place there from the mid-first century onwards, and which must have had an important impact on the life of the early Christian congregation.[13] Undeniably, these Greco-Roman cultural forces would not have failed to shape the leadership ethos of the Corinthians. Thus, much like in Rome itself, leadership would have been fiercely competitive. Ever since the early days of the Republic leadership positions had been a source of honour and a means to social promotion along the cursus honorum.[14] The entire Roman society itself revolved around a social "hierarchy of prestige and standing . . . in which official rank was a vital criterion of ranking."[15] Reflecting society's obsession with personal glory and self-aggrandisement -what Cicero called 'amore gloriae'- civic leaders were characteristically 'full of themselves', hopelessly boastful and arrogant, and always praising their own accomplishments and merits.[16] Humility and modesty, which are intrinsic Judeo-Christian values, were discarded altogether as "boasting itself became an activity worthy of honour," something which the populace expected and by which it esteemed a man. Rarely would they exalt women.[17] As E. A. Judge notes, in such a context "self-admiration . . . was absolutely de rigueur," and every opportunity to increase one's glory was to be exploited, be it through financial benefactions, military prowess, sportive achievements, or rhetorical eloquence. The only "assurance of immortality" the Romans could claim was the "undying memory of posterity."[18] As such, personal ambition unavoidably became "the very stamp of nobility," as Judge puts it, and "to fail to cultivate one's own reputation was to lose respect for one's merits."[19] To use Tacitus' words, "name contemptu famae contemni virtutes" ('in the scorn of fame was the scorn of virtue').[20] What is more, due to its inherent connection to wealth and social status leadership was essentially reserved for the élites. It was indeed only accessible to the 'wise, well-born and powerful' (cf. 1 Cor 1:26), those of considerable wealth who could provide a down-payment upon appointment to the unremunerated offices of aedile or duoviri, as well as honour their 'election promises' with regular public benefactions by erecting or maintaining public facilities, financing gladiatorial fights or other public entertainments.21 Should they be elected to the office of curator annonae (in times of extreme famines) or of agonothetes (the prestigious position of organizer of the Isthmian games), they would have also been expected to subsidize inflated grain prices at their own expense, or to provide financially for the logistical organisation of the games and upkeep of its many Roman visitors. In either case, it was a sure way for any politician to gain wide-spread popularity. Still more could be said about the religious character of civic leadership or its prerequisite for rhetorical competence, but space restrains us. We must now turn our attention to our passage to try to discern how Paul's leadership ethos and paradigm might have differed from that of his socio-cultural environment.

Summary of the Criticisms Levelled Against Paul

As even a cursory reading of 2 Corinthians 10-13 would reveal, the passage is highly polemical and rhetorically-charged, which compels us to initially adopt an exegetical methodology along the guidelines recommended by J. M. G. Barclay.[22] A 'mirror-reading' of the passage, by which the text answering Paul's adversaries is used "as a mirror in which we can see reflected the people and the arguments under attack," allows us to discern some of the main arguments behind the polemic.[23] Verses 10:1-2, 7, 10, and 11:5-6 in particular are revelatory of the criticisms or accusations that were expressed against Paul:[24] his persona was deemed debased and servile ('kata prosopon tapeinos', 10:1); his physical appearance weak ( 'parousia tou somatos asthenes', 10:10); his performance as an orator amateurish and inconsistent with his letters, which appeared too barus ('burdensome, demanding, severe') and ischuros ('assertive, authoritative') ( 'ho logos exouthenemenos', 10:10; 'idiotes to logo', 11:6). No matter how exaggerated or distorted these disparaging comments were -and invectives were often inflated or purely invented- it makes no doubt that in the eyes of his opponents, and of some of the Corinthians at least, Paul represented the very "antithesis of the persuasive, forceful and eloquent orator." He was a 'befuddled preacher' who failed to meet the basic sophistic standards of the professional rhetors (cf. 1 Cor 2:1-5), and a 'crooked apostle' who was intent on defrauding the Corinthians ( 'hyparchon panourgos dolo'; 12:16-17).[25] As verses 11:7-9 and 12:11-17 further disclose, Paul had also come under serious accusations of misappropriation and mishandling of funds, and had seriously offended the Corinthians by rejecting their financial assistance, and hence their amicitia ('friendship'). He did this by engaging in manual labour as a low-wage earner-an activity which some of the status-conscious Corinthians would have most likely deemed too menial and servile to pursue (11:7-9; 12:13-16).[26] Interestingly, none of the attacks to which these passages allude appear to have been immediately theologically-related, so that T. B. Savage is quite right to conclude that "the criticisms have cultural overtones," for "they reflect the social prejudices of the day."[27] Paul, then, seems to have fallen short of some of the socio-cultural standards of leadership that the Corinthians were so desperate to have him display: wealth, status, power, charisma, self-confidence, eloquence, and physical elegance along Hellenistic standards, were all disappointingly missing from his apostolic portfolio.[28] Furthermore, as Betz and Winter have suggested, being aware that culturally-conditioned onlookers could have too easily viewed him as an itinerant philosopher or a sophist, Paul may have deliberately avoided placing value on what they deemed most essential.[29] Indeed, he does seem to have intentionally shunned away from their modus operandi and "flamboyant and self-assertive behavior," as well as avoided their ostentatious style of rhetoric which, although pleasing to the fastidious ears of the Corinthians, was too often devoid of any meaningful content, power or virtue.[30] If Betz and Winter are right, then Paul's ministry approach must have constituted a very stern critique of the demeanour, ethos, and abusive commercialism of his sophistic contemporaries. By implication, it might also represent a severe critique of our own Pentecostal culture, in which homiletical eloquence, or charismatic personality, have somehow become pinnacle attributes of 'successful' and 'effective' leadership. In light of such evidence, one could ask what sort of reception Paul, as the 'bogan-apostle' he appears to have been, would get in our churches and conferences if he was to pay a visit? Would he be given the front stage or would he be an embarrassment to us as well? The question is worth pondering for a moment, as we progress to examine more closely Paul's rhetorical response, and so attempt to discern the alternative leadership paradigm he advocated in defense of his own apostleship.

Paul's Understanding of Apostolic Authority

Paul's response to the mounting opposition in Corinth begins in 10:1 with notorious abruptness and in a most emphatic of manner ( 'Autos ego Paulos parakalo'; 'I myself, Paul, am appealing to you').[31] Employing a frightening vocabulary borrowed from the semantic field of warfare, he warns the Corinthians of his determination to lay siege to any mental fortress ('ochuromaton'), that is, any reasoning, thought or intellectual process ('logismous, noema'), that arrogantly and defiantly rises itself against the knowledge of God and refuses to submit to Christ (10:4b-5).[32] This is some of the fiercest language to be found in Paul's letters. So much so that one could be excused for momentarily considering Paul as behaving like a ruthless tyrant-"an irritated chief" as one commentator put it- now vying to re-ascertain his authority over the Corinthians.[33] Yet, this might be overlooking the intensely personal nature of his appeal and the reluctance with which he resorted to his authority to punish and reprimand in the first place ('deomai de to me ktl.', 10:2). [34] Indeed, as authoritative as it may sound, his address resolved into a conciliatory entreaty that relied on pathos (viz., emotions; cf. 'parakalo, deomai') and derived from the meekness ('prautes') and gentleness ('epikeia') of Christ rather than open rebuke. Paradoxically, however, his Christ-centred humility constituted no warrant for him to remain so passive as to let heretical troublemakers disseminate false rumours about him and lead the Corinthians astray (cf.11:3-4). As he later explains in 13:10, if his epistles sounded rather barus and ischuros, it was so he may avoid a more direct, and thus painful, confrontational visit later on (cf. 12:20-21). Furthermore, as he explicitly states twice in 10:8-9 and 13:9-10, his concern ultimately lay not in their destruction but in their edification ('eis oikodomen kai ouk eis kathairesin hymon'), that is, in their growing in spiritual maturity in Christ.[35] This passage thus perfectly illustrates what Clarke has generally observed: that, for Paul, "the context of humility, vulnerability and service set a context for the exercising of authority," the ultimate objective of which was to bring the Corinthians to perfect obedience to Christ that they may be firmly established as a community (10:6, 8).[36] In a sense, then, Paul advocated a "constructive use of authority," not seeking to "strengthen his hold over the Corinthians, but only to strengthen their grip on the gospel."[37] Such a noble and selfless pastoral intention forbids the reader from considering him as unnecessarily harsh or authoritarian, for overall he appears free from any self-interest or personal ambition (whatever his detractors might have thought). Herein seems to lie what, according to Paul, constituted the essence of apostolic authority.[38] It is an axiomatic principle which, I would contend, is what should also inform our understanding of Paul's perspective on leadership and authority. Incidentally, what may appear at first as a brief excursus leading up to the main argumentation in chapters 11-12 actually provides us with invaluable insight into what Paul perceived to be the origin of apostolic authority (Christ); its basis (the meekness and gentleness of Christ); and its ultimate purpose (the edification of the church).

Paul and Hellenistic Encomiastic Conventions.[39]

Having unequivocally answered the charge that he is inconsistent in his dealings with the Corinthians in 10:11, Paul then moves on to the next issue on his agenda: the self-commendation ('ton heautous sunistanonton') of certain personalities who dare to measure themselves by themselves ('autoi en heautous heautous metrountes') and compare themselves to themselves ('kai synkrinontes heautous heautois', 10:12). It seems that Paul's retenue begins to fade here, as he now portrays his detractors in an almost satirical light, as self-important figures totally absorbed in their own praise-nothing, mind you, particularly unusual among the Greco-Roman élite or professional orators.[40] Notice for instance the exaggerated accumulation of the terms synkrino ('to commend [oneself]'; twice in 10:12), sunistemi ('to compare [oneself]';10:12, 18 - twice), and kauchaomai ('to boast'; 10:13, 15, 16, 17 - twice), or the extensive use of the reflexive pronoun heautou ('oneself') which is found six times in verse 12 alone. Whoever these opponents were, what is certain is that they harboured an unwholesome sense of superiority about themselves, as the ironical designation 'hyperlian apostoloi' (literally, 'super-duper apostles') found in 11:5 and 12:11 further suggests. Yet Paul will have nothing of their pretentious game, as he emphatically asserts in 10:12-13. It is sheer nonsense, he argues, and those indulging in such self-adulation lack understanding ('ou suniasin'; 10:12)-a litotic way to mean that they are utterly foolish-for they are measuring themselves by the wrong standard, viz. , their own self (cf. heautou in 10:12), rather than God's kanon (cf. 10:13, 15, 16 ). Paul shows no restraint in expressing his aversion towards the basic Hellenistic cultural conventions that were periautologia ('self-praise'), kauchesis ('boasting'), and synkrisis ('comparison'), which were almost always accompanied by invectives and disparaging comments against one's adversary. In this case, the self-assertive behaviour of Paul's detractors was almost certainly aimed at demeaning him as an apostle and leader of the Corinthian community.[41] But also, in view of 10:13-15 and the repeated use of the terms metron ('measure'; 10:13 - twice) and kanon ('canon, standard'; 10:13, 15, 16), which evoke the concept of jurisdiction, geographic or otherwise, or better and more abstractly, the idea of sphere of influence, assignment or service -it is rather obvious that they were intent on taking the credit for Paul's own accomplishments in Corinth, and literally sought to claim the congregation for themselves (cf. 10:8, 15a).[42] Paul's response was not long in coming: he unleashed with ironical fury a veritable rhetorical tour-de-force, the so-called 'Fool's Speech'. But first, he needed to redefine appropriate boasting along biblical lines, thereby radically shifting the Corinthians' cultural perspective. Unlike Plutarch (ca. 1st cent.) who in his famous discourse 'On praising oneself inoffensively' tolerates periautologia ('self-praise') when aimed at the defense of one's reputation or to spur others to emulate virtue, for Paul (as indeed the Septuagintal tradition reinforced, cf. Jer 9:22-23) proper boasting is that which is done in kurio ('in the Lord'), that is, in a way that revels in the Lord's character attributes and achievements, including those accomplished "in and through the lives of his servants" by the grace and power of God (cf. 12:9).[43] Such boasting is neither offensive nor blasphemous since its object and content fall within biblical ethical boundaries, and since it ultimately glorifies God. By way of contrast, the Hellenistic custom of boasting at the expense of another "by exalting one's self, one's pedigree, abilities, and achievements (cf. 11:13, 18, 21-23)" is altogether anathema.[44] Similarly, it is authorization and commendation from the Lord that is legitimate (11:8; cf. 10:8), and not that which comes from oneself and is directed unto oneself (10:12). In this way, this passage serves to further enrich our understanding of Paul's leadership ethos and the salient difference he envisaged between Christian leadership and Greco-Roman leadership. A genuine apostle or Christian leader should be characterized by humility and modesty, as opposed to pride, overconfidence, and independence from God. Even more fundamental for us to notice here is that Paul's quote from Jeremiah (9:22-23) serves strategically as the crux interpretum through which the so-called 'Narrenrede' ('Fool's Speech') of 11:1-12:11 is to be understood. As we shall see in our next section, what Paul was about to do -to emulate his opponents by boasting beyond what is proper- would indeed be foolish and thus ironically reveal the ludicrousness of his detractors' attitude.

Paul's Foolish Boasting and Apostolic Paradox

In 11:1, an important shift takes place in Paul's rhetorical argumentation as he signals the commencement of his indulging in a little aphrosune ('foolishness'). Initially, it is important for us to note how the term aphrosune itself, and its associated cognate aphron ('fool'), strikingly echo the popular concept of the moros ('fool'), "the lower class buffoon" of the Hellenistic theatrical tradition whose foolishness "consisted in a weakness or deficiency of intellect, often coupled with a physical grotesqueness."[45] The dominant use of these two terms, as well as Paul's appropriation of the role of the aphron throughout the section, provide us with a significant clue as to his rhetorical strategy.[46] That Paul did not actually consider himself to be a fool, other than a fool for Christ (cf. 1 Cor 1: 18-21; 4:9-13), is self-evident and requires little elaboration. Indeed, in 11:16 he will insist that he is not to be considered an aphron in any way (cf. also 11:17, 21; 12:11). Rather, it seems more likely that he adopted the role of the aphron for the opportunity it afforded him to resort to eireneia ('irony') in an unrestricted and devastating way, so as to ridicule his opponents for the very thing in which they prided themselves (to paraphrase Pseudo-Aristotle), and to exacerbate their lack of sophrosune (viz., their insufficient moderation, self-control, and reasonableness).[47] Indeed, "[w]hat made the role of the fool so attractive," L. L. Welborn explains, "was the freedom it permitted for the utterance of a dangerous truth."[48] Speaking as a 'fool', Paul was thus able to challenge the arrogant sense of superiority of his opponents and of the Corinthians. Such bold, theatrical impersonation of the moros seems to have been motivated by the foolish behavior of the Corinthians themselves, who cheerfully tolerated such heretical impostors (cf. 'kalos anechesthe'; 11:2-4). For it seems that they thought themselves more phronimoi ('wise') than they actually were (11:19; cf. 1 Cor 4:10), and 'gladly' ('hedeos') put up with presumptuous characters ('tis epairetai'), 'pompous parasites,' who sought to enslave them ('hymas katadouloi'), exploit them ('katesthiei'), ensnare them ('lambanei'), disgrace and insult them ('eis prosopon hymas derei'; cf. 11:19-20).[49] These intruders, Paul warned, were but pseudapostoloi ('false apostles'), deceitful workers ('egratai dolioi'), whose pretence as apostles of Christ and servants of righteousness mimicked, quite predictably ('ou thauma, ou mega oun'), their evil master, the devil himself, who could so easily disguise himself as an angel of light (11:13-14). In essence, by virtue of their erroneous preaching and abusive ministry, he estimated these men to be nothing less than ministers of Satan whose modus operandi was "the antithesis of pastoral service," and whose end was doomed (11:15b).[50]

At 11:16, Paul's rhetorical argumentation reaches an important new stage of development. So "embarrassed by the necessity thus thrust upon him" to compare himself to his opponents, he first pauses to offer a second prodiorthosis and to warn his audience that what is about to unfold is but sheer foolishness (cf. 11:1).[51] Now "Paul does not mean to boast only to a small extent; he will boast as much as he can."[52] Thus he alerts his audience that he is not speaking kata kurion ('according to the Lord') anymore but ('alla') in complete aphrosune ('foolishness') as he undertakes this kauchesis ('boasting'; 11:17), which is but kata sarka ('according to the flesh'; 11:18) and to his own atimia ('shame'; 11:21). One can almost hear the shiver in Paul's voice at the idea of boasting in a way that will displease his Lord. Having thus forewarned his audience, he then takes this synkrisis to a new level of audacity and intensity (11:21). In whatever ways they have boasted, so will he now match their foolishness (11:21). Do they claim to be of pure Jewish stock, to belong to the Israel of God, and to partake of YHWH's covenantal promises as descendants of Abraham? So does he. On all three counts he matches their self-confidence in the flesh, their ethnic and religious pride, that which, ironically, he himself "now considered . . . 'shit'" (cf. Phil 3.8).[53] He pursues in his foolishness, now to the point of insanity ('paraphronon lalo', 11:23). Do they dare proclaim themselves as servants of Christ? He 'loses' it altogether: so is he, to a much greater extent than they ('hyper ego')! In labours, imprisonments, floggings and "mortal dangers," he is exceedingly ('perissoteros'), above and beyond ('hyperballontos'), superior to his adversaries as a servant of Christ (11:23).[54] Five times chastised by the Jews (possibly for his messianic views; 11:24), thrice beaten with rods (most likely at the hands of Roman authorities), once stoned, thrice shipwrecked (11:25), constantly in danger wherever his missionary ventures took him, and at the mercy of all (11:26).[55] In arduous toil, sleepless nights, hunger, thirst, fasts, in daily afflictions and privations he surpasses them all (11:27). And this is without mentioning the day-to-day pressure of his pastoral responsibilities and spiritual concern for all the churches, his compassionate bearing with those who are weak and his righteous indignation at those who sin (11:28-29)-burdens which none of his adversaries were bothered to carry. Of such humiliations and failures will he boast, if it is necessary, for these demonstrate his weaknesses; these represent his "unparalleled suffering in Christ's service," he solemnly insists with an oath (11:30-31; cf. 12:5).[56] What is most striking with this apologia is how Paul deliberately lays aside the usual encomiastic conventions of his day with its assortment of claims to honourable achievements and everlasting glory.[57] Instead, he expands on a Peristasenkatalog, a literary device very familiar to the philosophers, which he concludes in a completely anti-climatic fashion with perhaps the most humiliating incident of all, that which would have made any Roman leader jostling up the cursus honorum blush with shame.[58] When in Damascus, he was let down the wall to escape the king Aretas and/or the Jews, an episode which Judge has understood as representing a parody of the corona muralis, the highest military reward for a legionary, and which Welborn has astutely read as the fool's final derisory flight commonly found in the theatrical tradition in which "the runaway is a fool of the basest sort-thievish, clownish, and recreant."[59] Whichever interpretation is preferred, these two verses certainly figure as "the climax of the speech from the standpoint of irony."[60] His parody of his opponents' presumptuousness is not over, however. Since it is necessary to boast in order to impress the Corinthians ('kauchasthai dei'), though it is by no means profitable ('ou sympheron men'), he must now come to ecstatic visions and revelations received from the Lord while taken up to the third Heaven, paradise itself (12:1)-a rare and much coveted experience for any apocalyptic Jew.[61] Such boasting has however become so blasphemous to him, so distressing and intolerable, that he now deflects any personal attention away from himself (cf. 12:5).[62] This is the climax of the paradox, something that represented the most authoritative endorsement for any Jewish charismatic leader (or twenty-first century Pentecostal leader) and earned him the respect, if not admiration, of any pneumatically-inclined and/or apocalyptically-minded audience (cf. 1 Cor 14). Yet here it is a source of embarrassment to him, as something which motivated him to exert great public discretion.[63] Unlike the rest of Jewish apocalyptic literature, Paul simply refuses to elaborate on the ineffable words that he has heard and which he is not permitted to divulge (12:2-4).[64] It almost seems as though he has now reached the limit of his foolishness and cannot transgress biblical propriety any further (cf. 10:17-18). Thereby he teaches a very stern lesson to those who might have thought that such 'extraterrestrial' revelations could have authorized him to feel superior or develop his own personality cult in the way his detractors seem to have done (cf. 12:6). "Me genoito!" ('perish the thought!') is his most emphatic reply. Such "esoteric visions … do not afford a legitimate basis for evaluating apostolic authority," as M. J. Harris rightly points.[65] To think otherwise would have been to forget the purpose of his skolops ('thorn in the flesh') given him by God, that angel of Satan afflicting him day and night despite repeated, earnest prayer.[66] Remarkably, for Paul that which might have caused his opponents and some of the Corinthians to belittle him in the first place as a weak and insufficient servant of Christ, is precisely that of which he would rather boast (12:5, 9; cf. 10:1, 10), as if "diabolical affliction" was a proof that he was "a worthy servant of God."[67] Thus, he insists twice in 12:5 and 12:9, he will only ('ei me') boast of that which exhibits his own weakness, that the charis and dynamis of Christ may rest upon him and be glorified through his life and ministry (12:9; cf. 13:4).[68] For these are amply sufficient and made perfect through his weakness; they are an ever-present, comforting reality that enables him to accomplish his apostolic commission. It is for this very reason (dio, 12:10) that he can endure, indeed delight in, the many afflictions he has suffered on behalf of Christ; that is, the insults ('hybreis'), calamities ('anagkai'), persecutions ('diogmoi') and trials ('stenocheriai') enumerated in 11:23-27. For he has understood a most extraordinary paradigm: 'when he is weak, then he is strong' (12:10). " '[I]n the midst of weakness' . . . Christ's power reaches its plenitude," Harris aptly paraphrases.[69] With such a remarkable paradox Paul brings his foolish discourse to a dramatic conclusion. "Gegona aphron" ('I have become a fool'), he confesses. But he was compelled by the gravity of the situation and the passivity of the Corinthians to commend and defend him (12:11).

Concluding Remarks

As we conclude our succinct exegesis, we note again how Paul has very cannily turned the table on his adversaries, satirizing their "unadulterated self-eulogizing" as utterly foolish and their comparison to one another in the service of Christ as "totally preposterous."[70] Likewise, we note how, with relentless and disarming eireneia ('irony'), Paul has made a mockery of the Hellenistic encomiastic conventions of his day as he deliberately (to quote Chris Forbes) "fills them with material that reverses their effect," amplifying what he should minimize, and minimizing what he should amplify, so that his boasting becomes a sheer parody of Greco-Roman self-exaltation.[71] Yet, in an astonishingly counter-cultural manner, he finds in his afflictions neither a reason to lose personal glory or honour, nor an omen of ill-fortune, for he had come to view them as "the badges of honor" of legitimate and effective service in Christ (cf. Gal 6:17), "la preuve de sa fidélité spirituelle au Christ."[72] Similarly, he has not found in his extraordinary endurance a reason to raise his own ethos or boast of his superior resilience, which for the ancient moralists was the "mark of real character," but instead consciously emphasizes that "[h]is serenity and endurance are … the work of God," so that "his boasting of his hardships in 2 Corinthians is 'boasting of the Lord.'"[73] Paul therefore differs dramatically from the Stoic or Cynic philosopher, the civic leader or military ruler of his day, for, as an apostle of Christ, he finds his sufficiency, his source of power and authority, neither in the wisdom of philosophy nor in the personal glory derived from wealth, social status and rhetorical finesse, but in Christ alone, in his sufferings, death and resurrection. Indeed, it is only when Paul is weak, that he is truly strong by virtue of Christ's power in him (12:9-10; cf. 13:4); it is only as he shares in the sufferings of Christ that he can experience the power of his resurrection (cf. 1:5; 4:7-12; Phil 3:10); it is only as he experiences all the afflictions of his life and receives divine comfort that he can offer pastoral solace to the Corinthians (cf. 1:4-6). Such is the paradigm (of "the suffering apostolic existence") by which he lived his life and conducted his ministry which, along with the other extraordinary miracles, signs and wonders, constituted the real semeia, the real evidence, of his genuine apostleship in Christ (cf. 12:12).[74] And such is the "praiseworthy paradigm for Christian existence" that he has sought to establish and have his audience embrace throughout 2 Corinthians.[75] This, it is perhaps superfluous to stress, is of tremendous significance for a proper understanding of Paul's paradoxical personality and leadership style. These few chapters depict to us Paul as a leader who deliberately, almost meticulously, undermined the leadership ethos of both his opponents and of his Greco-Roman environment by upholding Christ's crucicentric leadership paradigm as supreme over all. They draw for us the intimate portrait of a non-triumphalist apostle who perfectly incarnated a christophoric expression of leadership. While it seems obvious to state that Paul's circumstances greatly differed from those which affect western ministers in the twenty-first century, it is nonetheless not hermeneutically unsound to reinforce the universal applicability of his christocentric, crucicentric leadership paradigm. In particular, his strategic subversion of the secular, egotistical leadership norms of his day represents a potent challenge to the model of the self-sufficient, self-confident, self-assertive and self-made leader oftentimes enthroned as paradigmatic for Western church leaders. At the same time, it addresses us with a powerful caveat: despite their supposedly guaranteed effectiveness, modern secular standards of leadership never ought to constitute the primary canon of Christian leadership, lest the contemporary church, much like the Corinthian congregation in the first century, be swayed away from the Gospel and from pure devotion to Christ.

----

Notes:

1. Shane Clifton, "Editorial: The Courage to be Prophets," in Australasian Pentecostal Studies12 (2009): 2-8.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. This unfortunate trend is not only affecting the Pentecostal world, but Catholic and Evangelical critics have also voiced their concerns. See for instance Andrew Purves, The Crucifixion of Ministry: Surrendering our Ambitions to the Service of Christ (Downers Grove: IVP, 2007); Donald A. Carson, From Triumphalism to Maturity: A New Exposition of 2 Corinthians 10-13 (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1984); Henry J.M. Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership (New York: Crossroad, 1989). My original selection of the pericope of 2 Cor 10-13 also deserves a brief justification. Firstly, the limited size of my thesis restrained me from dealing with the entire Pauline corpus, let alone the whole New Testament. Secondly, as a succinct literature review revealed, too many studies on the question of leadership had focused their attention on the first few chapters of 1 & 2 Corinthians, much to the detriment of 2 Cor 10-13.

6. Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), 125.

7. John H. Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 187.

8. Andrew D. Clarke, A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership (London: T & T Clark, 2008), 1-2. Cf. also Schütz, Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 34. The only times the terms archon and hegoumenos are used in the LXX and the Greek New Testament are to refer to Jewish or Roman leaders in military or civic contexts, as well as demonic powers.

9. Thus I diverge from the methodological stance of Holmberg and Schütz who initially sought to analyse Paul's leadership paradigm along Weberian lines, an approach which I deem anachronistic. And indeed, at the end of my thesis I concluded that Paul's leadership style stood at the antipodes of the Weberian model of charismatic leadership, since Paul categorically refused to be "considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities"-to borrow Weber's definition of charismatic authority. See Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (New York: Bedminster Press, 1968), 241.

10. "ou pantos Andros en Korinthon esth' ho plous." Strabo, Geo. , 8.6.20c. Cf. a similar proverb in Horace, Epistulae 1.17.36: "non cuivis homini contingit adire Corinthum."

11. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "Corinth," in D.A. Freedman et al (eds.), ABD vol. 1, 1134-1139.

12. C.K. Williams II, "Roman Corinth" in Timothy E. Gregory (ed.), The Corinthia in the Roman Period, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 8 (Ann Arbor: Michigan University, 1993), 31-46; E.R. Gebhard, "Isthmian Games," in T.E. Gregory (ed.), Corinthia, 78-94; Donald Engels, Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990), 92-120.

13. See mainly Bruce W. Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-Claudian Movement (Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).

14. The cursus honorum (literally, 'the course of honours') corresponded to the succession of official positions and public honours bestowed on aspiring politicians in both the Roman Republic and the early Empire. Thus it represented some sort of career pathways to the most powerful and distinguished civic offices.

15. J. Lendon quoted in Andrew D. Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 41.

16. Cicero, Pro Archia poeta 11.28. Cf. Plutarch, Mor. 539 A.

17. Timothy B. Savage, Power Through Weakness: Paul's Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 24; Edwin A. Judge, "Contemptu famae contemni virtutes: On the Morality of Self-advertisement among the Romans," in The First Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament Essays (ed. James Harrison; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 59-65.

18. Edwin A. Judge, "The Conflict of Educational Aims in New Testament Thought," in Journal of Christian Education, vol. 9, n.1 (1966), 32-45.

19. Ibid.

20. Tacitus, Ann. 4.38.

21. See Andrew D. Clarke, "Another Corinthian Erastus Inscription," in Tyndale Bulletin 42.1 (1991): 146-151; David W. J. Gill, "Erastus the Aedile," in Tyndale Bulletin, 40, no. 2 (1989): 293-301; and John K. Goodrich, "Erastus, Quaestor of Corinth: The Administrative Rank of ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως (Rom 16.23) in an Achaean Colony," in New Testament Studies, vol. 56 (2010): 90-115.

22. See for more details John M.G. Barclay, "Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test case," in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31(1987): 73-93.

23. Ibid., 74.

24. For a brief tabulation see Maurice Carrez, "Réalité Christologique et Référence Apostolique de L'Apôtre Paul en Présence d'une Eglise Divisée (2 Co 10-13)," in L'Apôtre Paul: Personnalité, Style et Conception du Ministère (ed. A. Vanhoye; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), 163-4.

25. Winter, Philo and Paul, 158; Laurence L. Welborn, Paul, the Fool of Christ: A Study of 1 Corinthians 1-4 in the Comic-Philosophic Tradition (T. & T. London: Clark International, 2005), 92-9.

26. Cf. Acts 18:3, 1 Cor 4:12. Cf. also Ronald F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul's Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 52-65; Peter Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul's Relationship with the Corinthians (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987), 177. On the Greco-Roman aristocracy's contempt of manual labor see Plutarch, Per. 2; and Cicero, Off. 1.150.

27. Savage, Power Through Weakness, 12. Cf. Edwin A. Judge, "Paul and Classical Society," in Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E.A. Judge (ed. David M. Scholer. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 96-7.

28. Cf. Andrew D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6 (Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2006), 24-6 & 38-9; Clarke, Serve the Community, 41-9; Judge, "Contemptu famae," in First Christians (ed. James Harrison), 59-65.

29. See Hans D. Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1972), 117; Winter, Philo and Paul, 252-5.

30. C. K. Barrett, "Paul's Opponents in II Corinthians," in New Testament Studies 17 (1971): 233-254. Cf. Winter, Philo and Paul, 163-6 & 231-9; Duane Litfin, St. Paul's Theology of Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 174-21. On the financial abuses and ethical deviances of the sophists see also the critiques by Philo in Her. 304-5; Agr. 96; Mos. 2. 212, Congr. 127, Post. 150; Plato, Prot. 313 C-E; Soph. 231D-E, 233A-C, 235A-B, 241B; and Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32.11.

31. This is the second of only two instances in his letters where Paul is this much emphatic (cf. Gal 5:2, 'Ide ego Paulos').

32. Notice the terms strateuometha ('wage war,'10:3), and strateias ('warfare,' 'military campaign,' 10:4), hopla ('weapon,' 10:4), ochuromaton ('fortress,' 'stronghold,' 10:4), kathairesin ('destruction,' 'demolition,' 10:4), kathairountes ('tear down,' 'destroy,' 10:4), aichmalotizontes ('to take captive, prisoner,' 10:5).

33. Jean Héring, The Second Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (London: The Epworth Press, 1967), 69.

34. Paul could have actually employed more authoritative terms such as epitimao, epitasso, diatasso, paraggello, as he did in 1 Cor 7:10, 17; Philem 1:8.

35. Note how Paul's unnecessary inclusion of the obvious antithesis 'kai ouk eis kathairesin hymon' ('and not unto your destruction') is naturally emphatic and perhaps meant to answer a charge that his heavy-handed pastoral ways were destroying the church.

36. Clarke, Pauline Theology, 102. Cf. Kathy Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (London: T. & T. Clark, 2007), 112-3.

37. Paul V. Furnish, II Corinthians (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 477.

38. Cf. Clarke, Pauline Theology, 107-8; Scott J. Hafemann, 2 Corinthians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 401.

39. These refer to the Hellenistic self-eulogising conventions.

40. See for instance Dio Chrysostom, Or. 12.5; 24.3-A 4; Epictetus 3.23.23-24; Plutarch, Mor. 539 A; 543 E-F; Herodes Atticus' inscription dedicated to his wife in which he vaunts his own glory and merit as a generous benefactor and much admired rhetor (John H. Kent [ed.], Corinth. Vol. VIII, Pt. III, The Inscriptions, 1926-1950 [Princeton, 1966], 59; #128).

41. These three devices (periautologia, kauchesis, and synkrisis) actually represented clearly defined rhetorical conventions, which were oft-used by professional rhetors. See Christopher Forbes, "Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul's Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric," in New Testament Studies, vol. 32 (1986): 1-30; Henri-Irénée Marrou, Histoire de l'Education dans l'Antiquité (Sixième Edition; Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1965), 302.

42. The lexicographic meaning of this hapax legomenon has been notoriously difficult to ascertain. For a discussion of the best evidence on its connotation as adduced from a first-century inscription see Edwin A. Judge, "The regional kanon for requisitioned transport," in G.H.R. Horsley, (ed.), New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 1 (Macquarie University: The Ancient History Documentary Research Center, 1981), 36-45.

43. Plutarch, Mor. 540 C; 541 C, E; 544 D; 545 C; 546 A; Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 710.

44. Ibid., 707.

45. Laurence L. Welborn, "Moros Genestho: Paul's Appropriation of the Role of the Fool in 1 Corinthians 1-4," in Biblical Interpretation 10, no. 4 (2002): 424. See also "The Provenance of the Concept" in Welborn, Paul, Fool of Christ, 25-33.

46. Eight of the ten Pauline instances are found in 11:1-12:11. On Paul's identification with the role of the fool see Welborn's convincing fourth and fifth chapters "Confirmation and Clarification" and "Appropriation of the Role" in Welborn, Paul, Fool of Christ, 50-116.

47. See Laurence L. Welborn, "The Runaway Paul," in Harvard Theological Review 92, no. 2 (1999): 157. See also Ps. Aristotle, [Rh. Al. ] 1434a and 1441b 23 quoted in Forbes, "Comparison," in NTS 32 (1986): 10.

48. Welborn, "Moros Genestho," in BibInt 10, no. 4 (2002): 433-4.

49. See again Welborn on Paul's derision of his main opponent as a 'parasite'. Laurence L. Welborn, "Paul's Caricature of his Chief Rival as a Pompous Parasite in 2 Corinthians 11:20," in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32, no.1 (2009): 39-56.

50. Harris, Second Corinthians, 787.

51. F.F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians (London: Oliphants, 1971), 234.

52. C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1973), 289.

53. John M.G. Barclay, "Paul among Diaspora Jews: Anomaly or Apostate?" in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 60 (1995): 113. One could reprove Barclay for being so blunt, but, political correctness aside, his translation generates in English the equivalent rhetorical effect that Paul's use of the term skubalon might have had on his original audience (cf. BDAG, 6725).

54. Margaret E. Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 722.

55. Notice, firstly, how no less than eight times is kindunois ('dangers') repeated in anaphoric fashion. The first punishment mentioned was typical of synagogue discipline and was specifically reserved for "an erring member of a synagogue"; while the second was typically Roman, as the technical term rabdizo suggests, and usually reserved for non-citizens. Furnish, II Corinthians, 516. The third affliction was a typical Jewish punishment as well, usually "a capital sentence passed on apostates, blasphemers and adulterers." Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC; Waco: Word Books Publishers, 1986), 377. Cf. Barclay, "Paul among Diaspora," 60 (1995): 117; Barrett, Second Corinthians, 297;

56. Harris, Second Corinthians, 796.

57. The contrast with Augustus' Res Gestae or the elogia fori Augusti (the "series of laudatory inscriptions beneath the statues in [Augustus'] new forum") is indeed striking. His long list of afflictions and 'counter-achievements' certainly do not compare with Augustus' "unparalleled scale of his gifts and conquests" and the "galaxy of magistracies and other honours he trailed." Edwin A. Judge, "Augustus in Res Gestae," in First Christians (ed. J. Harrison), 166. Whether Paul intentionally designed this last peristasis as a parody of such enconium is impossible to ascertain, though he could have been familiar with Augustus' Res Gestae, as the Monumentum Ancyranum found in Ankara suggests. Still, it is missing the point not to notice or exploit the striking disparity between Paul's leadership ethos and that of his opponents and/or gentile contemporaries.

58. Cf. John T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1984); 25; Marshall, Enmity, 360-1; S.H. Travis, "Paul's Boasting in 2 Corinthians 10-12," Studia Evangelica 6 (1973): 529-30.

59. Judge, "Conflict," in JCE 9, no.1 (1966), 45; Welborn, "Runaway Paul," in HTR 92, no. 2 (1999): 157. Cf. Livy 6.20.8; 10.46.3; 26.48.5.

60. Welborn, "Runaway Paul," in HTR 92, no. 2 (1999): 157.

61. C. R. A. Morray-Jones, "Paradise Revisited (2 Cor 12:1-12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul's Apostolate. Part 1: The Jewish Sources," in Harvard Theological Review 86, no.2 (1993): 183.

62. Notice Paul's use of the third person singular (cf. herpage, ekousen, 12:4), the anarthrous reference to himself (anthropos) and the demonstrative pronoun (ho) toioitos (12:2, 4, 6-7). As far as I am aware, this is the sole instance in Paul's letters where he describes himself as such.

63. It is quite probable, although impossible to ascertain, that this was the first time in fourteen years that Paul actually mentioned this incident. If that is truly the case, then his reference to the actual date ('pro eton dekatessaron') was meant to emphasize the humility of his silence and his reluctance to share about the episode.

64. He is either absolutely ignorant of the mechanics of his experience or found them totally irrelevant to his rhetorical purpose. Three times does he indeed insist 'ouk oida' ('I do not know'), two instances of which are immediately contrasted with 'ho theos oiden' ('God knows').

65. Harris, Second Corinthians, 848.

66. It is beyond the scope of this paper to investigate the nature of this affliction, which will never be determined historically. We may nonetheless assume that this skolops resulted in a permanent or semi-permanent debilitating state, as is implied by his repeated prayers and by the three present subjunctives in 12:7 ('hyperairomai'- twice, and 'kolaphize'). For further discussion on Paul's skolops see Furnish, II Corinthians, 548-9; or Martin, 2 Corinthians, 413-6.

67. S. R. Garrett, "Paul's Thorn and Cultural Models of Affliction," in The Social World of the First Christians (ed. L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 97. Paul thus literally "turns his opponents' argument on its head," for, ironically, and without them realizing, the more they "call to attention to the severity of Paul's weaknesses as a 'sick charismatic,' the more they themselves point to the exalted nature of his revelations," and thus reinforce his authority and legitimacy. Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 464.

68. The significance of astheneia ('weakness') has often been discussed and it remains unclear whether Paul meant physical, psychological, social, or even spiritual weakness. It must be stressed, however, that in context it is directly linked to his skolops, which suggests mainly physical, and perhaps at times psychological, or even mental, weakness (even if one takes skolops to refer to persecution, one must recognize that ultimately it was Paul's physical condition that was diminished as a result). Cf. Cambier's brief study of astheneia. J. Cambier, "Le Critère Paulinien de l'Apostolat en 2 Cor. 12,6," in Biblica 43 (1962): 488-98.

69. Harris, Second Corinthians, 864.

70. Ibid., 729 & 797.

71. Judge, "Conflict" in JCE 9, no.1 (1966), 39; Forbes, "Comparison," in NTS 32 (1986): 19.

72. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 387; and Cambier, "Critère Paulinien," in Biblica 43 (1962): 514.

73. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel, 59, 114-6, 206. Cf. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 8.13-16; Epictetus 3.10.7-12.

74. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel, 122. See also Jan Lambrecht, "Dangerous Boasting: Paul's Self-Commendation in 2 Corinthians 10-13," in The Corinthian Correspondence (ed. R. Bieringer; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 342; Ehrensperger's sixth chapter "Power in Weakness," in Ehrensperger, Paul and Power, 98-116; P. J. Gräbe, "The All-surpassing Power of God through the Holy Spirit in the Midst of our Broken Earthly Existence: Perspectives on Paul's Use of dunamis in 2 Corinthians," Neo Testamentica 28, no. 1 (1992): 150-1; Cambier, "Critère Paulinien," in Biblica 43 (1962): 481-518; Jerry L. Sumney, "Paul's 'Weakness': An Integral Part of his Conception of Apostleship," in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 52 (1993): 71-91).

75. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel, 122.