Introduction

The Relevance of Paul’s Writing for the Modern Disciple

This epistle commends itself to all who take Paul seriously and see in his writings the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Apostle promotes a practical religion that translates into everyday actions and conduct both in his time and in ours. He stresses the importance of forgiving others (2:10), being hopeful and encouraging in trying circumstances (4:8–10), recognizing that affliction for the kingdom’s sake is the Church’s true glory (4:8–10, 16–18; 6:3–10), and being glad to suffer for God’s cause (12:8–10). He notes the need to walk by faith and not by sight while the Christians suffer through mortality (5:7). He also encourages the Saints to be anxiously engaged in pleasing God (5:9) and warns them against being mismatched with unyielding and hardened unbelievers, even insisting that they separate themselves from such (6:14–17). He admonishes them to do what they can to take care of the poor in the kingdom (chaps. 8, 9). He cautions Church members about being overly eager to defend themselves against those who attack them but also insists that there are times when a strong defense is called for, especially when the integrity of the gospel has been challenged (chaps. 10, 11). Thus, the Apostle preaches a practical religion that is still applicable here and now.

Furthermore, he never loses sight of the eternal consequences of gospel living that modern disciples must also keep in mind. God designed such living to buoy them up and strengthen them during this time of trial and preparation. Paul’s primary push is one of reconciliation between God and the sinner such that the sinner is transformed into a Saint (5:18–21). He witnesses that all will eventually appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive full compensation for their actions, whether good or ill (5:10). Thus, he stresses the need for his readers to cleanse themselves from every defilement of the body and to make holiness complete through their fear of God (7:1). Indeed, he insists that the gospel is the fragrance of life leading to life (2:16) and notes that it is through Christ that the Saint is changed from one degree of glory (the earthly) to another degree of glory (the heavenly) (3:18). He explains that this little moment of affliction God has designed to prepare his people for an eternal weight of glory that is beyond comparison (4:17). And what makes eternal life possible? It is the ability of the Saints to see through the eye of faith beyond the transient moment to the unseen reality of the celestial world (4:18). Thus, they are to live so that what is mortal may be swallowed up in eternal life (5:4). These principles, along with the admonition that grows out of them, are as true today as they were in Paul’s day.

The Integrity of the Work

Due to its internal evidence and wide circulation, from the earliest period the Christian community has accepted 2 Corinthians as an authentic epistle of the Apostle Paul. Among modern scholars, however, it is unique in that it is the only one that some have suggested is actually a composition of pieces of at least two if not more different letters. Because the flow of the epistle seems to break at 6:14 through 7:1, not only from Paul’s usual rhetorical style but also introducing strong tones of early Jewish polemic, some scholars have argued that, at some point, someone inserted this material into a copy of the epistle. Many of these same scholars see an abrupt break in the flow between Paul’s account of his delightful and informative meeting with Titus (8:16–24) and the epistle’s discussion of the collection being made to benefit the Jerusalem Saints (8:1–15; 9:1–15). Some break this section down even further, noting that there seem to be two discrete arguments presented here, and suggest wrongly that, again, at some later point, someone inserted these two independent pieces into the text. Finally, they argue that the strident tone by which Paul defends himself in 2 Corinthians 10–13 is inconsistent with the character and language of the former portion of the epistle. They note particularly that in these chapters the harshness of his tone clashes with the conciliatory language in 7:5–16 that suggests a full reconciliation between the Apostle and the Corinthian Saints. Further, the last section seems to be a reversal of Paul’s double insistence that he will not commend himself to his readers (3:1; 5:12), which he does to a very great extent in the last three chapters. In all, some insist that at some point in the past, someone joined as many as five discrete letter fragments together, thus making up the epistle as we have it today.¹

That the current document may be a composition of several fragments pieced together at some point in the past is not beyond question. It is possible that, out of respect for Paul, certain Saints preserved fragments of his work which someone (at a later date) compiled into this rather short letter. However, such a scenario seems tenuous at best, especially when one takes Paul’s rather clamorous relationship with the Corinthians into account. Indeed, a stark piece of evidence against the notion of compilation is that, as it stands, the letter has one major theme—Paul’s defense of his authority and doctrine—that runs from beginning to end, uniting all the pieces. Given the tension between Paul and the Corinthian Saints and the pall it casts over them, it is a wonder anyone decided to preserve the epistle at all, let alone fragments. “The notion that a letter that was instrumental in cementing the bond between the church and apostle would be subject to a scissors-and-paste operation, even at a later time, is difficult to imagine. The burden of proof surely lies upon any theory of a composite letter.”² From the beginning of the Restoration to the present, Latter-day Saint leaders have assumed the integrity of this epistle; none of them, therefore, have addressed this question.

Reading the letter in its context suggests that any ostensible inconsistency or incoherence is based more on appearance than reality. Given the circumstances in which this letter was dashed off (see below), the coherent rhetoric that one finds throughout the epistle is quite remarkable. The material in each of the apparent interruptions actually fits within the whole given the thrust of Paul’s argument. That argument, as he develops it in 6:14–7:1, follows both the language and form of Jewish polemics and not only anticipates but prepares his readers for the pointed, even heated, language of 10–13. One trained, as Paul had been, would have found that kind of argument not only easy to produce but also fully effective for his purposes.³

As will be developed more fully below, the section dealing with Titus’s role in the collection for the Jewish Saints in Jerusalem, rather than being an interruption, pushes the theme of the epistle.⁴ Paul’s aim is first to cement his position as an authentic Apostle of the Lord among the Corinthians. Secondarily, he seeks to bind these branches to the larger Christian community, especially those found in Jerusalem and the surrounding area. This is exactly what the collection would do. Thus, to reinforce the success of Titus’s visit, Paul’s admonition for these Saints to complete their promised contribution seems perfectly natural. That being the case, the unusual inverted form of the admonition found in 8–9 (wherein the exhortation to give is followed by the theology of giving) actually reflects the current situation. Paul’s readers have, under his direction, for a number of months, been enthusiastically gathering materials and goods for the poverty-stricken Jewish Saints. Thus, he can say in 9:1, “For now indeed it is unnecessary for me to write to you concerning this ministering to the saints” (NR). That he now gives them further instructions on how to prepare the offering for his coming, though delayed in its development, is fully in keeping with his intent and therefore does not evidence a break in the flow of his argument.⁵

Admittedly, the break in style and tone between 1–7 and 10–13 is obvious even to the casual reader. But this too is more apparent than real because the trajectory of the argument remains the same. The calm feeling found in 8–9 is more like a pause in the storm that so marks the relationship between Paul and his readers and should not be given undue weight. Throughout the letter we find clues that, despite Titus’s success, there remains some discord between the Apostle and these Saints (3:1; 5:12; 6:1–2, 11–13; 6:14–7:1). It is true that the whole of the last section is laced with barbed sarcasm not found earlier in the letter. But its effect lies heavily on the success of chapters 1–7, where the Apostle describes and defends in some detail his apostolic mission. His thrust, as in 1 Corinthians, is the paradox of strength growing out of weakness, a theme his readers would understand but not relish. In a community enamored with prestige and power, Paul’s argument would not have found easy footing. But the Apostle never backs off from his thesis. He readily admits the “paradoxical nature of God’s work in Christ and Christ’s apostle, in which life is given in death, light in darkness, comfort in affliction,”⁶ all of which Paul develops in the forepart of his letter. Chapters 10–13 articulate with force and conviction the Apostle’s theme that God’s “power is made perfect in weakness” (12:9, NR). “This word of Christ to Paul constitutes his defense of the apostolic mission—not merely that mission in general, but the mission in Corinth. The defense of that mission constitutes the thematic unity of the letter.”⁷

Structure and Organization

If we hypothesize that the letter as it stands today closely reflects the original as dictated by Paul, we can address its themes and unity. Admittedly, the approach can be daunting, since there are various ways of attacking the makeup of the text.⁸ Given, however, that the letter was written to the Corinthian Saints, who would have highly valued a rhetorical approach and been more easily persuaded to yield to Paul’s appeal by this method, this seems the best way to examine the epistle and see Paul’s development.⁹ As such, it breaks down as follows:

1. Epistolary prescript (1:1–2)
2. Primary apologetic: Paul’s explanation of his conduct and apostolic ministry (chaps. 1–7)
   1. The Apostle’s past experience, including his gratitude for divine comfort in past afflictions (1:3–11)
   2. Transition to and development of his first theme: Paul’s self-defense
      1. The integrity of his motives and conduct (1:12–2:4)
      2. The need to treat an offender with forgiveness (2:5–11)
      3. The sweet fragrance of the ministers’ work (2:12–17)
   3. The Apostle’s second and main theme: Paul’s ministry
      1. The Apostle’s competence through God’s help (3:1–6)
      2. The greater splendor of the present dispensation of light over that of Moses (3:7–4:6)
      3. Treasure in earthen jars and the affliction of the righteous (4:7–16a)
      4. The specter of death and Christian fearlessness (4:16b–5:10)
      5. The need to be reconciled to God (5:11–6:10)
      6. An appeal to separate from unrighteousness and to live Christian ideals (6:11–7:4)
3. The meeting with Titus (7:5–16)
4. The Apostle’s third theme: Collection for the afflicted in Jerusalem (chaps. 8–9)
   1. The need for generosity (8:1–15)
   2. Titus and his companions sent to Corinth to assist in the collection (8:16–9:5)
   3. The promise for generous giving (9:6–15)
5. The Apostle’s fourth theme: A polemic against his detractors and a vindication of his authority (chaps. 10–13)
   1. His defense of apostolic authority (chap. 10)
   2. His foolish boasting (chaps. 11–12)
   3. His final warning (13:1–10)
6. Final admonition and closing (13:11–14)

There are three golden strands that run through the epistle binding it together. The first, briefly noted here but developed more fully below, is that of the authenticity of Paul’s apostolic office. Certain individuals had come to Corinth, apparently from congregations in the east, and had joined with Paul’s Corinthian detractors in denying the Apostle’s authority, denigrating his works, and spurning his doctrine. From beginning to end, Paul makes an excellent defense of his quality of life, the authenticity of his teachings, and the legitimacy of his apostolic office.

The second thread is that of Paul’s theology. When Paul’s antagonists arrived in Corinth, they brought with them what the Apostle calls the preaching of “another Jesus” along with doctrine contrary to that taught by the Lord. The result was the introduction of a different “spirit” than that which the community already enjoyed (11:4). Though the exact content of these antagonists’ teaching is blurred, certain elements do stand out. They seem to have proclaimed Jesus as a lordly figure using Moses as an example (chap. 3) of how Christians should behave and be perceived by people. They seem to have set the example of superiority themselves. Such a position flew in the face of Paul’s proclamation of strength through (apparent) weakness and a faith-filled submission to the will of Christ and authentic apostolic authority.¹⁰

Right from the beginning of the epistle, Paul proclaims that he is “an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God” and that it is from the Father and Jesus Christ, and them alone, that all grace, peace, mercy, and spiritual comfort flow (1:1–3). Further, Christ knew suffering and could therefore lift those who also suffered. Indeed, he had already so lifted Paul during one of the most frightening periods of his life (1:5–10). Further, the work of the Apostle and his associates was not to boast of themselves but to proclaim “Christ Jesus the Lord” and themselves as the Corinthians’ faithful servants for the Savior’s sake (4:5). These Saints, however, must never forget that it was God who brought forth the true light of godly knowledge and glory as manifested in the “face of Christ” (4:6). Paul and his associates were driven by love, convinced that Christ died for all “so that the living might no longer live for themselves but live for him who died and was raised up again for their salvation” (5:14–15, NR). They were also driven by another fact: “All must appear before the judgment seat of Christ so that each person may receive a recompense for the things that he or she has done by means of the body, whether good or bad” (5:10, NR). The righteous, however, have nothing to fear, for those who become one with Christ also become “a new creature” and are reconciled by Christ to God (5:17–19, NR). For those who have sinned, “godly sorrow produces repentance that leads to salvation that is without regret” (7:10, NR). He assures them that “God can provide you with every grace in abundance, so that you will always have enough of everything and have an ample means for every good work” (9:8, NR). All in all, it was the Lord who gave Paul and his companions authority to build the Corinthians up (10:8). But the one lesson Paul knew intimately came from a difficult personal experience, one he called “a thorn in the flesh.” Whatever it was (discussed below), it made him less effective in preaching the gospel, and he prayed fervently for it to be removed. In the end, it was not. The Lord’s explanation? “My power is made perfect in weakness” (12:8–9). By that means—that is, the success of the weak things of the earth—God manifests that his power and wisdom are far beyond what humankind can comprehend and that, when all is said and done, what he has determined will be done. Finally, though Christ was “crucified because of weakness,” he now lives “because of the power of God,” and those who follow him shall also “live together with him because of the power of God” (13:4, NR).¹¹

The third thread is Paul’s eschatology—that is, his view of the nature and purpose of mortality in light of his understanding of death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul. He states his core belief in 4:18–5:10. In his view, the life of the Christian in mortality is little more than a burden on the soul coupled with anxiety and fear, while life in immortality is coupled with light and power (5:2–3; see also 1:4–5). Indeed, God’s plan is for mortality to be swallowed in immortality, the promise of which has now been made certain to these Saints by the witness of the Holy Ghost (5:5; compare 1:22). But being able to see the future reward requires the Saints to walk “by faith, not by sight” (5:7). In doing so, they will please God (5:9), knowing that Christ will judge all according to their deeds (5:10). Therefore, in the present, faith, expressed in living as Christ has shown that the Christian must, is all important. The Apostle points out that it is critical that the Saints continue to yield to the “letter written in our hearts,” one “written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the Living God, not on stone tablets but on the tablets of human hearts” (3:2–3, NR; compare Jer. 31:33). He admonishes his readers not to enter into the grace of God in vain, for now is the day of their salvation (6:1–2). Behind his statement stands a tacit reminder that the day may pass and leave them behind. Indeed, the present objective is for the Saints to cleanse themselves “from every defilement of the flesh and spirit, and thereby complete our sanctification through reverence for God” (7:1, NR). One way to do so, he shows, is in generous giving to those in desperate need (chap. 8–9).

In sum, gentleness, meekness, and humility are the way of the Christian. Given this, it is easy to see that Paul would be greatly concerned with those who proclaimed “another Jesus” and brought in a “another gospel” that resulted in “another spirit” (11:4), one that placed high value on one’s station in mortality, promoted pride of position, and sought to preempt the true doctrine of Christ with one that was self-serving and spiritually destructive. In chapters 10–12, Paul challenged the views of these people and showed the true way to eternal life.

Paul’s Understanding and Use of the Old Testament

To bolster his arguments, Paul appeals to scripture directly eleven times in 2 Corinthians with more oblique references to others.¹² The text that he used, however, was not that preserved in Hebrew but one translated into Greek. Known today as the Septuagint (often denoted by the Roman numerals LXX), this work was a translation of Old Testament documents completed sometime between 300 and 100 BC. Being from Tarsus, a city in the province of Cilicia (today a portion of southeast Turkey), Paul spoke Greek and was well acquainted with the LXX. His knowledge and use of this work may have helped him during his ministry since proselytes, God-fearers, and Jews living in what is called the “diaspora” all spoke Greek and, therefore, would have preferred this version of the Old Testament.¹³ Further, both Jewish and Gentile converts would have seen the Old Testament writings as both authentic and binding. Thus, Paul often appealed to them in his teachings and directions.¹⁴

Paul was trained within the rabbinic circle (Acts 23:6; 26:5) and was thus very familiar with their way of understanding and interpreting the biblical texts. His commitment to the scriptures clearly parallels theirs. To both, the Old Testament books preserved the word and will of Jehovah. Both showed their deep reverence by quoting specific verses as accurately as possible. They also saw a coherence of the whole to the parts as demonstrated by their combining various passages to make a single point. Their reverence for the scripture, however, did not prevent them from using passages in a new context. Nonetheless, both show that they had an understanding of the larger context in which the various scriptures were found.¹⁵

But there was a point at which Paul broke from the rabbinic circle. Through the stunning incident that triggered his conversion, he realized the Old Testament was more than a catalogue of divinely inspired performances, ordinances, laws, statutes, and commandments. It was a primary source that revealed the nature, work, and ministry of Jesus Christ. He came to understand what the Book of Mormon makes very clear: God gave the Mosaic law to Israel, which demanded performances “from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God” (Mosiah 13:30). But he designed the law to do more. Through its “many signs, and wonders, and types, and shadows,” it showed to them “concerning [the Savior’s] coming.” In addition, the “holy prophets [also] spake unto [Israel] concerning his coming” (Mosiah 3:15). Though the law was full of performances and ordinances, the Book of Mormon notes, “all these things were types of things to come” (Mosiah 13:30–31). Paul’s writings show he understood the Old Testament in much the same way (see, for example, 10:6; Rom. 4:23–24).¹⁶

Paul’s use and interpretation of these texts clearly reveal his ever-deepening understanding of the revelation of Christ that he found there. Paul had made it clear that much of his understanding of gospel truths came not from human sources. He told his readers that “the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11–12). That portion of his understanding, however, seems limited to the mission and Atonement of the Lord. But this was not his only contact with the Divine that brought him understanding. He notes that “he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter” (2 Cor. 12:4). These experiences would certainly have established an expanded and divine basis for his doctrines. He told the Corinthians he had “delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4). This witness could describe in part what came from his theophany. But he goes on to say that Jesus “was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time” (1 Cor. 15:3–8). His words show that he is passing down material he received from others. It would seem, therefore, that only part of Paul’s gospel understanding came via revelation. Other sources included the scriptures and Church conventions and practices as taught and preserved by his fellow Apostles, other Church leaders, and Jewish traditions.¹⁷

Nonetheless, there was tension, because (as broad as these sources were) none covered all the situations the Church was encountering in different areas. Jesus had clearly stated that, though he had fulfilled some of the law, “till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt. 5:18). These words suggest the need for continued adherence to some aspects of the teachings of the Old Testament, but which ones? The Apostle clearly understood and taught that there was no salvific power in the law. Nonetheless, its moral teachings and admonitions as well as its guidelines for social behavior, whenever they applied to conditions met by the expanding Church, seemed in order. The decision made by the Jerusalem Council in AD 49 was helpful with a few of the major problems, but it dealt mostly with issues concerning pagan cultic practices and immorality (Acts 15:23–29). As a result, even that official declaration left much to be resolved. We see in Paul’s writings a man who cherished the word of God and used it to the best of his ability as a guide to determine doctrine and establish practices within the congregations of the Church for which he was responsible.

The proper understanding of the Old Testament, however, demanded it be read in a certain way. If it were not, then it could bring death and not life (2 Cor. 3:6).¹⁸ Paul realized that the coming of Jesus gave the Hebrew writings new importance as a window into who and what the Messiah Jesus was for the Christian community. The Apostle, with others, saw that events of both the Savior’s life and station were mapped out in the old record. Therefore, Paul freely appealed to that record as an authoritative witness to the gospel message. However, in doctrine and practice, there was a definite break between the old covenant and the new. This opened the way for the scriptures to be used as a polemical weapon, and Paul mastered the technique. In dealing with his antagonists, Paul quite deliberately painted their position as negatively as possible and then demolished it by showing that they simply did not understand the true meaning of the sacred text.¹⁹ The same was true, but to a greater extent, of the Jews themselves. Because they refused to interpret the law through the lens of Christianity, they would never come to the truth (3:14–15). Thus, Paul’s writings present a continual tension between the old and new covenants. On the one hand, he appeals to the authority of the Hebrew Bible, while on the other he insists it is a poor second if not an actually dangerous source of doctrine.²⁰

The historical situation in which the Apostle operated generated the acute tension between the two covenants. Paul, however, met that tension head-on by developing an understanding of the relationship between the two and then articulating his position. His writings show that he developed a synthesis that relied on types, such as Moses, the veil, or Eve, to provide the necessary historical value. In doing so, he showed that it was not necessary to dissolve the old covenant just because it was overshadowed by Christ.²¹ As a result, the Apostle gave proper place to both covenants.

Conclusion

The epistle as a whole shows Paul’s attempt to bring the Corinthians more closely to the Father and Son. To do this, he had to vindicate his teachings and way of life among them. That demanded that they understand his apostolic authority, for on it lay the very ground of the doctrine he taught. He therefore had to not just undercut but destroy the claims and teachings of his antagonists because their teachings were spiritually deadly. The Apostle emphasized that the life he lived while among the Corinthians evidenced that his purpose in writing was not for self-glorification, but for the glory of God and his Christ. His motivation, as he so clearly expressed, was inspired by a deep love for them.

The Historical, Geographical, and Cultural Background to the Epistle

The Geographical, Political, Social, and Economic Setting of Corinth

The Corinth that Paul came to know in AD 50–56 was a bustling but relatively new city under Roman rule. In the past, Corinth had been a wealthy maritime power allied with Sparta (sixth to fourth centuries BC) and during the third and second centuries had been part of the powerful Achaean league, a confederation of cities in the northern Peloponnesus formed as a defense against forces threatening these city-states. The Latin writer Cicero described the city during that period as “the light of all Greece.”²² In the second century, the league stood against Roman expansion into the area. However, their combined strength helped neither the Corinthians nor the rest of the Peloponnesian organization. City after city fell to Roman might. In 146 BC, under the general Lucius Mummius, Roman forces destroyed and thoroughly sacked Corinth for its role in the resistance and sold its inhabitants into slavery. Thus, “the light of all Greece” was extinguished, and for over a century Cicero’s beacon of humanity lay shattered and dark.

In 44 BC, recognizing Corinth’s strategic location, Julius Caesar authorized the rebuilding of the city. The Roman Senate named it Colonia Laus Iula Corinthiensis, “Colony at Corinth in Honor of Julius,” opened it up to settlement, and in 27 BC made it the provincial capital and thus the home of a proconsul.²³ One of the objectives the Senate had in establishing the city was “to foster a reverence for Roman power and culture,”²⁴ and therefore, as viewed from the surface, it was “geographically in Greece but culturally in Rome.”²⁵ However, a closer look at the inhabitants of the city, as it was found in Paul’s day, reveals that they found a way to negotiate the advantages of both worlds. Here one found a mixing of both Roman and Greek cultures that fared well for a city at a major crossroads in the midsection of the Mediterranean.²⁶

Though many of Rome’s colonies were developed for retired Roman soldiers, such was not the case with Corinth. It was settled mainly by poor Romans, many of them newly freed slaves. This may have been to help alleviate the pressures in Rome by giving these people a place to live and work, but the ancient authorities are silent on the subject. The promise of the settlement, however, also attracted people from Syria, Egypt, and Palestine.²⁷ Such settlers did not warm the hearts of the inhabitants of other Greek cities who panned the Corinthians as “good-for-nothing slaves.”²⁸

By Paul’s day, its population was diverse and plentiful,²⁹ but the reputation of many of its inhabitants still remained less than favorable. Indeed, the city was noted for its sexual license, its patron goddess being Aphrodite.³⁰ Some felt that its rich were sordid and corrupt. Many saw them as ungracious and even unblessed by the gods—much of this view validated because the city’s poor lived in misery.³¹ Predatory bankers were a scourge over the whole of the Roman Empire, but according to Plutarch, none surpassed those at Corinth.³² As a shipping port where grain, slaves, and other valuables moved across the Mediterranean to other harbors, the city needed large-scale commercial lending institutions. As a result, greedy, rich men thrived. In sum, throughout the city, cheating was rampant and greed was ubiquitous.

However, that is not the whole story. The wealth of the city was indeed spectacular, sustained and guaranteed by its geographical situation. It was located on the narrow isthmus that connected the Peloponnese with upper Greece and that separated the Ionian from the Aegean Sea, one of many trade waterways between Europe, Asia and Africa. Thus, in addition to being on a major road that ran north and south through Greece, it was master of two harbors: Cenchreae on the southeastern side and Lechaeum on the northwestern side. Between the two, in the sixth century BC, the inhabitants built a three-mile-long roadway called the Diolkos (δίολκος, “hauling across”), which was maintained by Corinth. Cargo and even small ships were hauled across this road, saving sailors from making the six-day trip around the Peloponnesus. Many a captain was willing to pay the expense to avoid the unpredictable, often fierce winds and bad currents that were particularly troublesome in the area of Maleae, a jutting promontory in the southernmost part of the Peloponnesus.³³ The winter winds were especially dangerous, capsizing and sinking many ships, including at least one, if not more, on which Paul sailed.³⁴

Due to the roads, the Diolkos, and harbors, merchandise of all kinds flowed into and across the area. Duties on goods transferred across this land bridge, as well as the exchange of goods, caused wealth to abound.

But trade was not the only source of wealth for the city. Every two years it sponsored the Isthmian Games, which brought in great crowds with their money.³⁵ These popular religious and athletic festivals involved such things as “musical and literary competitions, contests in public speaking, contests involving horses (e.g. chariot races, skills in chariot driving, men leaping on and off both horses and chariots), various kinds of footraces, the pentathlon, and boxing. The festival was a boon to the Corinthian economy and image as a major tourist destination.”³⁶

Further, as Corinth was the provincial headquarters of Achaia, ambassadors and other officials came to meet with the proconsul, bringing added recognition as well as income into the city. Also contributing greatly to the city’s affluence were its artists and their excellent works, many made of the uniquely blended and much-sought-after bronze, a product for which the city was renowned.³⁷ The result was that Corinth became the biggest and most powerful city in the entire region, eclipsing even Athens. All this wealth contributed to the production of splendid buildings and other facilities, including shopping areas, administrative buildings, a senate house, a library, a theater, numerous temples, gymnasiums and athletics fields, parks, fountains, and monuments.³⁸

There was also another social factor that played heavily in the development of the Church in Corinth. As noted, the widespread decadence left its mark on the soul of the city. Wealth and ease did not bring comfort and security but rather a continual and unremitting restlessness that contributed to self-promotion, glory seeking, and one-upmanship. Success and applause took on disproportionate importance.³⁹ The whole culture also put pressure on people to get ahead, and some, especially among the less scrupulous, as noted, slipped into shady if not outright dishonest dealings. Appearance was all-important. It was a society in which shame and honor, values that already were significant to most Gentiles, were of the highest importance. To bring shame upon oneself or upon one’s house was considered a grievous offense, one that extended to one’s fraternal, social, and civic relationships. Honor (which was sometimes not associated with honesty) meant everything, and many used whatever means they could to capture as much power as possible.⁴⁰ Thus, fame and glory were in high demand, and those who wanted them were willing to do whatever it took to gain them.

Advantages of Corinth to the Spread of the Gospel

All these forces and conditions drew people from all over the Mediterranean to Corinth. Thus, it was an ideal place for Paul to set up the headquarters of his missionary activities. Though the city, unfortunately, had its seamy elements, there were people who ached for a higher stratum of life. Some of these were drawn to the highly moral lifestyle of the Jewish population that had grown from the time of the founding of the city. Among these, as well as others, were those who were attracted to the gospel Paul preached, one of a God who sent his divine Son to save the world. As a result, missionary work thrived.

Challenges the Social Conditions Made for the Church

In such an atmosphere, Christianity offered a radical departure from the norm. Paul preached a weakness-to-strength motif that did not sit well with the majority of the city’s inhabitants, and resistance to the idea kept creeping into the Church’s assemblies. Thus, the theme of “Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2)—that is, the paradox of strength though weakness—played a major part in both the preaching and writings of Paul. He knew that though power, authority, and glory ever remained important principles and carried heavy weight, they had to be harnessed to loving service that sought to build up each person singly and the Church collectively (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10).

Some Gentile converts to the Church (likely because they did not fully understand the gospel message and had grown up valuing competitive and glory-seeking behaviors) resisted certain teachings and thereby forfeited the ability of the gospel to reshape their lives. Thus, among other challenges, and largely due to the influence of the pagan culture and secular mores that dominated the city, a number of converts appear to have been partially blinded to the requirements of the gospel.⁴¹ In sum, “they were Hellenists through and through, and this eschatological, cross-centered, body-affirming Jewish sect called Christianity demanded that they enter another theological ethical world. It is no surprise that these residents of Corinth would seek rhetorical wisdom, be unconcerned with immorality and preservation of the body, be infatuated with asceticism and spiritual empowerment, and preserve the distinctions between rich and poor. The Corinthians were simply trying to be Christian with a minimal amount of social and theological disturbance.”⁴² To make matters worse, during this same period, a delegation arrived apparently from the eastern branches of the Church who also questioned Paul’s doctrine and authority. They preached, according to Paul, “another Jesus” (11:4), and taught for doctrines items that meshed with those of the Apostle’s other detractors.

These preachers all seem to have played on a misconstrued understanding of the nature and force of leadership. For the Corinthians in general, leadership meant being able to use power and authority, and even coercion when necessary, to get what one wanted. Much of this ability was tied to one’s status and wealth. Indeed, many citizens expected the powerful to fund all kinds of showy civic projects and public events. Those who did so found popular support in the patron-client relationship. By this means the leading citizens increased their popularity and prestige, helping them to move farther along the cursus honorum.⁴³ Paul not only refused to play this game but also condemned it. The Apostle’s rejection of financial assistance for himself and insistence that the rank-and-file members contribute money to help those hit hard by the misfortunes that engulfed the Holy Land (chapters 8–9) cut hard against the grain. “In short, in the apostle’s seeming humility (even humiliation, 12:21), his taking on the role of a servant, his rejection of patronage and the concomitant rejection of financial gain, and his refusal to advance his status by use of rhetorical skills, he stood in violation of key leadership values and principles embedded in the Corinthian culture. The apostle, on the other hand, presents to the Corinthians an alternative: a theocentric and biblical vision of authentic leadership.”⁴⁴ Paul understood that the gospel’s push had to help its recipients become mature in faith through adherence to Christ, his teachings, and the way of life that he demanded.⁴⁵ Only in this way could they both lead and follow as taught by the gospel and find the change of soul it resulted in.

Paul’s Relationship with the Corinthian Church

Background to the Epistle

Through a divine manifestation, Paul entered into Europe and began his preaching in the cities of Macedonia and Greece, slowly moving to the south (Acts 16–18). Though Luke’s historical work, the Acts of the Apostles, provides a general outline and does preserve important events, from statements and hints in Paul’s writings, it is obvious that Luke did not include all that happened. The result is that an exact chronology of events can only be conjectured. Below is our attempt to put Luke’s account of this period together with material from Paul’s letters and come up with a possible working model of how events played out.

On his arrival at the Achaean Capitol, Paul realized the value the city could have for extending the word of God not just in the East but in the West as well. He settled into the city, taking a job at the business of some newly found Church members, Aquila and Priscilla. He worked as a σκηνοποιός (skēnopoios), translated as “tentmaker” in the KJV (Acts 18:3). The word actually denotes those who work with leathers and fabrics.⁴⁶ During his stay with them, he preached the gospel every Sabbath day to Jews and was successful in converting both Greeks and Jews, and that included Crispus, a leader of the local synagogue, with all his household (Acts 18:8). The Apostle was joined later that year by both Silas and Timothy, who apparently brought donations with them that allowed Paul to quit working for a season and devote himself full time to the ministry (Acts 18:5). During that period, he had a revelation in which the Lord told him to preach without fear, for there were many in the city who would respond to the gospel message (Acts 18:9–10).

Under his supervision, the membership of the Church greatly increased, but not without opposition. Some of the Jewish leaders seem to have realized that Christianity threatened their religion, and they stirred up opposition against Paul and refused to have him preach any longer in their synagogue. Not to be deterred, Paul set up headquarters in the home of Justus, a new convert, whose house shared a common wall with a Jewish house of worship (Acts 18:6–7). So agitated were the Jews that they took Paul to task before the proconsul of the city, L. Junius Gallo. Much to the Jews’ chagrin, Gallo would have nothing to do with the problem and thereby assured, if tacitly, that the Christians would be protected by the government (Acts 18:12–15).

After a year and a half, Paul felt the need to return to Jerusalem and report on his activities. On the way, he stopped for an extended period at Ephesus and found the area ripe for further missionary work.⁴⁷ Based on these findings, he determined to return to that city in the near future (Acts 18:18–21). After about a year’s absence, he did return and labored there for over two years. During that time, he learned of troubles in Corinth. He wrote them a letter, now lost, but from what we can tell, it addressed at least Paul’s concern with those who were being pulled away from the Church due to association with those who were immoral. His counsel was that the Christians should break off all relationships with the licentious (1 Cor. 5:9).

Sometime thereafter, Paul received word from Stephanas, a prominent Church member, and his traveling associates, as well as from the servants of Chloe, another prominent member, that factions were developing in the various house churches and that a number of theological principles were under attack. Paul responded by writing what is now known as the first letter to the Corinthians.

Because there are a number of items in that epistle that bear on our understanding of 2 Corinthians, we need to review them at this point. Denunciation of factionalism takes high priority in the first part of that letter (1 Cor. 1:10–4:20) and stands as one of Paul’s major motivations in revisiting the branch (4:16–21). Also at issue among some of the Corinthians was Paul’s apostolic office and his right to give counsel and direction to the Church. For this reason, among others, he had to defend his position and office in order for the members to yield to the way of life he promoted (9:1–7). Indeed, he himself was the test case of Christian living and asked the members to follow his example “as I myself follow Christ’s example” (4:6; 11:1, NR). They would not do so unless they believed he truly represented the Christian way of life. Thus, we see that his major concern was with the form of apostolic life and practice. For Paul it was critical that these Christians see that strength grows out of weakness and suffering. These represented the form and very nature of Christian existence in this world. The problem was that after Paul had written to these Saints, certain individuals came among them proclaiming apostolic authority and proffering a “gospel” that held much greater appeal by offering more glory and reward in the here and now. That “gospel” threatened to replace Paul’s doctrine that hinged on “Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2) and the kind of life that demanded in the present.⁴⁸ Paul’s authority to preach this gospel and the authenticity of his doctrine, therefore, had to become the focal point in 2 Corinthians.

Unfortunately, though the thrust of 1 Corinthians may have done some good, further troubles developed. At least one member of prominence in the Christian community continued to take exception to Paul’s authority and some aspects of his doctrine. Likely due to the threatening nature of this challenge, the Apostle took a quick trip to visit the branches and settle the affair. In 2 Corinthians 2:1, he indicates that he came to them “with sorrow” (NR) to make his case. However, this Church member, apparently in high social standing, openly opposed him. The members, unfortunately, did not openly support Paul’s cause and by their inactivity tacitly supported the rebellious person.⁴⁹ Paul left the city, as he says, in “great tribulation and anguish of heart” (2:4, NR).

Thus, he returned to Ephesus very downhearted and greatly concerned (2:4). Conditions did not improve for him in Ephesus. This was, ironically, due to the success of Christianity in the area. Because so many people gave up idolatry, the craft of the idol makers was hurt. Under the direction of a particularly outspoken and angry member of their guild, Demetrius, they stirred up a riot against Paul, who seems to have been the face of Christianity in the area. Fortunately, the rulers of the city succeeded in getting conditions settled (Acts 19:21–41).

It may be, however, that Paul was arrested for a brief period.⁵⁰ It was probably during his incarceration that he had time to yield to his hurt and frustration by writing to these less-than-supportive souls a pointed and rather harsh letter using Titus as its bearer.⁵¹ It was not easy for the Apostle to write such a biting epistle. Indeed, as he later tells them, he wrote it in tears (2:3–4; 7:8). His purpose, he stressed, was not to cause them pain but to show his abundant concern and love for them (2:4). It is likely Titus read the epistle to the membership and then waited to see what their response would be (7:5–16). This harsh letter (Paul’s third) has since been lost.

About this time, Paul, with some other Church members, decided it was best that he leave Ephesus (Acts 20:1–2). In response to that decision, he moved on to Macedonia. He was met there by Titus, who informed him that the members had been humbled to tears by Paul’s letter and were greatly sorrowful for their lack of support when the Apostle had visited them. They now openly expressed their fervent love for him (7:6–7). They had even gone so far as to rebuke and perhaps even further punish the offending party (2:6). This report prompted Paul to immediately write them again. This letter (his fourth) has been preserved as 2 Corinthians.

This epistle, like his harsh letter, was entrusted to Titus. In it the Apostle could say that, though he was deeply sorry he had to write the harsh letter, he rejoiced that it had brought them to repentance and back to unity with him (7:9–10). Paul’s writings hint at the warm depth of feelings he had for them and his joy at their renewed eagerness and zeal toward him. These writings also show his concern with the indignation the members expressed toward the offending person and more especially the overambitious punishment they afflicted on him. The Apostle made sure his readers understood that he was not motivated to write as a means of taking vengeance on the person who offended him but for the good of the community as a whole (7:12). Paul asked that they treat the offender, if he was willing to receive it, with love and fellowship (2:6–8).

With some relief, the Apostle then proceeded to Corinth, where he stayed for a few weeks strengthening the Church before returning to Jerusalem. He may have had to depart sooner than he wished due to a plot against his life by a rabid segment of the Jewish population (Acts 20:1–3).

The surviving historical documents do not indicate that Paul had any further dealings with the Corinthian Saints, although they suggest that the divisive character of the branches did not fully dissipate over time. Around the turn of the first century, the Roman Bishop Clement wrote to the Corinthian Christians. The occasion was that a group of Church members had banded together and dismissed some of their leading officers. Clement viewed this as an act of sedition⁵² and wrote pleading with them for unity in love and fellowship,⁵³ stressing the importance of Church officers for the smooth running of the Church.⁵⁴

Why Paul Wrote 2 Corinthians

In reading any of the works of Paul, four forces that greatly shaped his doctrine and drove his preaching should be kept in mind. The first was the nature of his conversion to Christ. As an aggressive prosecutor of what he saw as a dangerous heresy, namely Christianity, he had moved effectively against the Church. But in doing so, he was also fighting against the will of his God and thereby committing a very grave sin. That he moved in ignorance did not make the gravity of his actions any less serious. Thus, in an act of pure grace, Christ reached out to him at the height of his sin, forgave him, and brought him into God’s fold.

The second force was his experience with divine revelation in the form not only of inspiration but also of visions from the Lord. In these he learned much. Indeed, at one time he was caught up into celestial glory and there learned pure doctrine from the divine source (12:1–2). As a result, he confidently stated, “I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was taught by me, was not of human origin, for I neither received it nor was I taught it from any human being, but received it through revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11–12, our translation). Even so, Paul was respectful of the Church authorities, and years before he began his apostolic ministry, he visited with Peter and James, the Lord’s brother, to secure his doctrinal position. Even after he began his ministry, he met with Peter, John, and James and explained to them the gospel he preached among the Gentiles to make certain he was not “running or had run in vain” (Gal. 2:2, our translation). The result was a vindication and verification not only of his teachings (Gal. 2:7–9) but also of his authority as one commissioned and sent by God.

The third force was Paul’s awareness of the coming apostasy. Before he ever wrote to the Corinthian Saints, he warned the Thessalonians of the coming revolution (2 Thes. 2:3–12), and that revolution was one of his major teachings while he labored at Ephesus, one delivered, he states, “with tears” over a three-year period (Acts 20:28–31). Knowing of the inevitability of the coming apostasy of the Church seems to have driven him with an intense urgency that heightened his zeal and pushed him in the work. The heat the reader feels in Paul’s writings was fanned largely by this flame.

The epistle reveals that the Apostle’s paramount fear is that his work in Corinth will come to naught if his critics win the battle for the loyalty of the Saints. The risk was not just Paul’s apostolic credibility but his missionary work in the entire Aegean region, headquartered as it was in Corinth. Losing this segment of the Church would mean the loss of his entire efforts and thus put in jeopardy his intended mission to Rome and eventually Spain.⁵⁵

The fourth force was his belief, at least up through the midpoint of his apostolic career, that the Second Coming, with its accompanying judgment, would follow fast upon the heels of the apostasy.⁵⁶ Thus, in his earliest preserved letter, he could assure the Thessalonians that, when Christ returned, “the dead in Christ shall first rise; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them” (1 Thes. 4:16–17, our translation). The statement suggests that Paul planned to be a part of that group. This feeling carried over into 1 Corinthians. He told his readers, “Not all of us will fall asleep [that is, die], but we will all be changed in a moment” (1 Cor. 15:51–52, NR). That being the case, he was most anxious that his readers prepare for this event by putting their lives in order and staying true to the faith during what the Apostle understood would be very difficult times ahead. He assured them, however, that their faith would result in their full vindication by God and a place in his eternal world.⁵⁷

Between writing that epistle to the Corinthians and writing his next one, he experienced a terrible ordeal that brought death’s door very near. From that point on, he seems convinced that it was death, not the Parousia, that he must prepare for. When he wrote to the Philippians before leaving Ephesus, he revealed his new position: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If it is to be life in the flesh, that means productive labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two” (Philip. 1:21–23, our translation). From this point on, Paul never uses “we” when speaking of the coming Parousia. On the contrary, he could tell the Corinthian Saints that “we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus will also raise us together with Jesus and bring us together with you into his presence” (4:14, NR). There is no hint here that he feels the Second Coming is near.

The Apostle was filled with the necessity for all to work to please God, “for we all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ so that each person may receive a recompense for the things that he or she has done by means of the body, whether good or bad” (5:10, NR). No longer is his major aim preparing for the Second Coming, but for divine judgment.⁵⁸

In addition to these forces, there is another factor that stands out clearly in Paul’s teachings that the modern disciple should ever keep in mind: that he knew he was, in the fullest sense, an Apostle of Christ Jesus. The Greek word ἀπόστολος (apostolos) designated a person who was dispatched for a specific purpose with authority to carry out that purpose. In the New Testament sense, it denoted primarily one who acted as God’s envoy and functioned under his power and authority.⁵⁹ The designation could, therefore, refer to persons in addition to those that formed the original Quorum of Apostles or those who were later made members of it.⁶⁰ Even so, within the New Testament, it is used “predominantly [for] a group of highly honored believers with a special function as God’s envoys.”⁶¹ These made up the one Quorum. Though certainty cannot be achieved, Paul’s writings suggest he was a member of that Quorum. He begins each of his epistles with “Paul, an apostle,” thus consistently showing claim to the office. His statement in 1 Corinthians 1:1–7 shows that he had no doubt he held full apostolic authority. He insists that he had the same rights and privileges as Peter, James (the brother of the Lord), and the other apostles. In Galatians 2:7–9, he convincingly shows that he was directly called by Christ to preside over the work of taking the gospel to the gentile world. In Galatians 1:17, he refers to the other apostles as “οἱ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀπόστολοι” (hoi pro emou apostoloi), those “who were called before me,” which suggests he was now one of them.⁶² In sum, there is no evidence in the New Testament that ἀπόστολος (apostolos) was used for anyone other than a “special witness of the name of Christ”—that is, an apostle and member of the Quorum as we understand the term in this dispensation (D&C 107:23; see also D&C 27:12).

Whatever the case, Paul did not rest his defense on whether or not he was a member of the leadership quorum, but on his authority as one called and commissioned by Jesus and under the direction of the Church’s authorities. “When Paul mentions ‘Apostle of Christ’ it means a delegate appointed by Christ in person, given with his authority as opposed to a delegate appointed by man to men.”⁶³ It was this authority that his detractors attacked in order to undercut not only his station but also his doctrine so that they might replace it with their own.

Though this is the most personal and self-revealing of all Paul’s letters, the way the Apostle binds the gospel to his defense must not be overlooked or underplayed. He fully understood that what was at stake in Corinth was the essence of the gospel message expressed in the Atonement of Christ that enabled God to put his seal upon them and give them his Spirit in their hearts as a guarantee of their salvation (1:21–22).

Paul’s objective is primarily to bring the Church to a unity under Christ. A major way he attempts to do this is by changing the primary socializing agent in many of the converts’ lives, specifically the greater Corinthian culture with its values and mores. His means of doing so is to bind them more closely to one another in the context of the gospel (his emphasis in 1 Corinthians) and to himself (his emphasis in this epistle). To do the latter, he works to convince these Christian converts that his apostolic position is that of establishing “a sort of patronal-kinship relationship, by which Christ becomes the Corinthians’ benefactor through Paul.”⁶⁴ His success in bringing about such unity would radically change and diverge the Christian’s world from the world around these Saints. It would do so by changing the aim of life from retaining or increasing personal honor and prestige through successful competition to gaining the glory of God through service and love. The result for the Church would be greater “knowledge of the Son of God” and a maturing “in every way unto him who is the head, into Christ” by which every part of the body of the Church would work properly and each person grow in greater love (Eph. 4:13, 15, our translation).

Paul’s Critics at Corinth

As noted above, not long after the Apostle left Corinth for the first time, at least one member of the Christian community called into question Paul’s apostolic authority. Before long, other individuals came into Corinth, likely from an eastern branch of the Church, and rekindled the issue. In analyzing their impact, it is important to neither overestimate nor underestimate it or them. We should keep in mind that congregations met in various house churches, not, as yet, in large congregations attending a single chapel. That being the case, the disaffection from Paul may have been localized to some house churches, while Saints belonging to other congregations in the city and in the greater province of Achaia (of which, for example, Cenchrea was one [see Rom. 16:1]) would have remained either lightly affected or untouched by the controversy.⁶⁵

It may be that the interlopers who arrived in Corinth merely exacerbated conditions and tendencies that already existed in Corinth, such as pride, factiousness, fascination with Sophistic rhetoric and gifts of the spirit, which were coupled with a critical view of Paul, his authority, and his teachings.⁶⁶ But it is also likely that they were adding something new to the preexisting conditions, such as accusing Paul of laboring for monetary profit. Based on 1 Corinthians, it seems most likely that they were doing both but especially magnifying existing conditions for their own prestige and place in the Christian community.⁶⁷ Paul called these men “false apostles, deceitful workers, [who transformed] themselves into the apostles of Christ” (11:13). These men, he noted, came to Corinth preaching “another Jesus” and “another gospel” (11:4). They worsened the situation by not only preaching false doctrine but also attacking Paul’s reputation and denigrating his credentials as an Apostle of Christ. The danger in their attack centered on the practical application of the gospel in the lives of the Corinthian Saints. In this way, they introduced a different “spirit” than that shared when Paul was with the community.⁶⁸ False doctrine leads to improper comportment and behavior. As such it not only interferes with correctly translating the gospel into everyday life but also with pleasing God. Thus, such doctrine can destroy one spiritually with the consequent loss of eternal life.

Paul’s antagonists based their authority and its legitimization on three factors: the credentials they brought with them from another segment of the Christian Church, their charismatic powers, and their claim of divine revelation and direction.⁶⁹ They pushed the idea that the Apostle’s ministry was ineffectual (10:10; 11:6) and lacked the gifts that they boldly prided themselves in having. Further, they accused Paul of “vacillation (1:17–18, 23), pride and boasting (3:1, 12; 5:12), lack of success in preaching (4:3), physical weakness (10:10), ‘rudeness’ of speech, defective[ness] in rhetorical skills (11:6), being an ungifted person (4:7–10; 10:10; 12:7–10; 13:9), dishonesty (12:16–19), posing as a ‘fool’ (5:13; 11:16–19; 12:6), and lacking of apostolic standing (11:5; 12:12).” Above all, they accused him of being “a deceiver (4:8) and a charlatan (10:1), [who pushed] a blatant denial of the power of the Christian message (13:2–9).”⁷⁰ In order to retain his position and spiritually save the congregation, Paul had to undercut each of these accusations.

Though the text reveals the number of the charges brought against Paul by his detractors, it does not reveal his antagonists’ exact nature nor the content of the “other gospel” they were preaching. We know, based on the Apostle’s writings to both the Galatian and Roman Churches, that he had to deal with a strong Judaizing force. This push was promulgated by Jewish Christians who believed the Mosaic law was still in effect but needed to be translated, understood, and lived through the lens of the Rabbi Jesus’ teachings. A central tenet of their doctrine was that Gentiles who became Christians had to be circumcised (Acts 15:1). For Paul, the issue was not in the act itself for he felt that being circumcised or uncircumcised made no difference to one’s standing with the Lord (Rom. 2:25–29). The problem was that the Judaizers viewed circumcision as a covenantal act through which persons took upon themselves the full weight of the law of Moses with all its requirements. Salvation, these men insisted, still came by obedience to that law. Thus, they did not see the Savior as fulfilling the law, but as giving it a proper interpretation. They therefore attacked Paul on the basis that he subverted the law and had abandoned the decree sent out to all the churches (see Acts 15:19–21).

The problem with the view that Paul’s detractors, in this case, were Judaizers is that Paul uses none of the defenses against them that we find in Galatians or Romans. It may be that this particular group was not so bent on making circumcision of Gentiles the central point of their platform and also softened other points, but given the Judaizing insistence on the importance of the Mosaic law, it seems improbable that Paul’s antagonists belonged to that group. Even if the idea of Judaizing forces is ruled out, that still allows for some of Paul’s main detractors being Jewish Christians.⁷¹

But these antagonists could also have arisen from Christian Sophistry. Indeed, that Paul confronts his adversaries on essentially Hellenistic grounds gives force to this idea.⁷² They appealed to their charismatic powers and the claim that they were the mouthpieces of divine revelation and had credentials that authenticated them.⁷³ These men would have easily attacked Paul on the basis that he neither understood nor clearly presented the gospel because he was unskilled in both their depth of thought and their precise way of teaching.

Some of these may have proclaimed an advance on Paul’s teachings of grace through faith alone as the means of salvation by pushing his ideas to an antinomian extreme.⁷⁴ If that is the case, then these men were proclaiming that the Christians were under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality, having been freed from all constraints by the power of Christ’s Atonement. Such an idea Paul would have found absolutely abhorrent. If they preached such, their false doctrine could place them in the camp of “Gnostic pneumatics.”⁷⁵ It is clear that they paraded their supposed superior authority before the Christian community at Corinth and took pride in their status, resulting in an overbearing attitude toward lesser members of the Church.⁷⁶ But what is more likely is that they were Jewish Christian pneumatics. That is, they were men who, converting from Judaism, paraded their supposedly high devotion to God and deep spiritual nature before the Corinthian Saints and insisted that they had apostolic authority to minister in the affairs of the Church. Their attack on Paul made apostolic legitimation the central issue and the possession of the Spirit the main point of contention.⁷⁷

Two of their main charges against the Apostle come clear from the text. The first had to do with Paul’s refusal to use the Sophists’ rhetorical tricks, smooth words, and attention-grabbing ways as a means of persuasion in his effort to promote the gospel. They berated what they considered his amateurish and unprofessional presentations (10:10; 11:6). Paul countered by parading his weaknesses and boasting “as a fool” (11:21–29) and by that means undercut the force of their efforts. The second was Paul’s refusal to accept patronage and monetary support from the wealthier members of the branches. Given the culture, this act was tantamount to not only declining their friendship but also repudiating any value they may have had to him. But given the reconstruction of social values that Paul was promoting, he simply could not be beholden to anyone other than the Lord. To do otherwise was nothing less than validating the social condition he was fighting against.⁷⁸

The letter now under consideration—the fourth Paul wrote to Corinth—was the Apostle’s response to Titus’s positive if not glowing report concerning the attitude of the Saints toward Paul. Primarily due to this condition, albeit there were others, Paul wrote this epistle as both an apology and defense.

Summary. What was at stake and what Paul needed to pin down while the majority of members were still filled with godly zeal toward him was his apostolic authority. The total epistle, from the opening section (1:1–2, 17; 3:1–7:16) through the section dealing with the Jerusalem contribution (8:1–9:15), and especially in his closing defense (10:1–13:10), underscored but one theme—the legitimate nature of Paul’s authority. Therefore, what constitutes the proof of a true Apostle and the range of his authority was the question at issue (13:1–6). In short, the question was what could be authentic evidence that a claimant had authority.⁷⁹ The antagonists rejected Paul’s position as an “apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God” (1:1). Paul, with urgency and a bit of vitriol, defended the authenticity of his authority brilliantly, taking his antagonist head-on in the last three chapters of his work. The question “And who is qualified for these things?” (2:16, NR; see also 3:4–6) is answered, albeit obliquely, in 13:5–6, where Paul shows that his competence comes directly from God, who made him a minister of the new covenant.

Also at stake was the crucial question of the source of doctrine. Paul’s adversaries insisted that they had approved authority for their teachings—they came with letters of recommendation (3:1)—but their “gospel” ran diametrically opposed to that taught by Paul not only in content but also in application. Paul insisted that his doctrine was based on his apostolic call, authority, and conformance with Church practice. In doing so, he set the authority for directing Church affairs on the foundation of apostolic supremacy and divine revelation.⁸⁰

Theirs appears to have been a theology based on acquisition of glory and superior position. They presented a Christianity that asserted a dominance and superiority of station. Though this played well in the status-conscious Corinth, it was not the Christianity of strength through meekness, kindness, service, and love that Paul preached. His was the theology of the cross. Indeed, for him strength, including his own, grew out of apparent but not actual weakness as understood in the death of the Lord. This weakness-to-strength motif, emphasized in the symbol of the cross, dominated both of Paul’s existing writings to the Corinthians. Power and authority remain very important principles and carry heavy weight (10:8; 13:10), but, Paul stressed, they must be harnessed to loving service that seeks to build up each person singly and the Church collectively. Its push must be to help its recipients become mature in faith through ever greater faithfulness.⁸¹

Thus, the very foundation of what was truly Christian behavior and conduct—how the Christian translated the gospel into everyday life—was at stake here. Proper and godly behavior, based on faith and strengthened by grace, was the key to eternal life. Strip those away, and the resultant path was not to heaven but to hell. Little wonder then that Paul called his adversaries the ministers of Satan (11:13–14).⁸² He clearly understood that the very salvation of his readers stood on their acceptance of the Apostle’s divine authority. Paul’s self-legitimization was “not carried out in the abstract. The question is whether Paul, who lives in weakness, bears the power and authority of Christ as the apostle to the Corinthians. Does the risen Lord speak in Paul, the weakling (13:3)?”⁸³

In sum, whoever his detractors were, Paul blasted them as “false” or “fake apostles” (ψευδαπόστολοι, pseudapostoloi) who will be exposed to divine judgment for their falsity and arrogance (11:13–15). Indeed, the Apostle would not so much as dignify them with the sacred title of “apostle” but called them, rather, low-level servants (διάκονοι, diakonoi) of the devil (11:15) and sat himself apart from them by asking, “Are they servants of Christ?” and then saying, “I am more” (11:23, NIV) and then outlining all that he had done for the kingdom (11:23–29).

Given all the above, let us stress that Paul’s aim was not to destroy the opposition as much as it was to unite the Corinthians once more with him. Paul’s purpose in writing was to build on the reconciliation between and newly founded zeal of the Apostle and the Church generated by the “tearful letter” and the visit by Titus. Paul insisted that reconciliation was possible because God had already reconciled the world to himself. The process of reconciliation, however, must advance in the Christian community by being applied to concrete human situations and conditions. Here it was the Apostle’s relationship with the Corinthians. Because he felt his cause was just, he could call upon God as his ally in his effort to reproduce the close and enduring relationship he had had with them (6:11). He held no hard feelings toward them (6:11), and they, he insisted, should not toward him (6:12; 7:2–4).⁸⁴

In sum, the situation that drove Paul to write 2 Corinthians was not the same as that for 1 Corinthians. The first instance was motivated by the development of internal factions leading to divisions among the Corinthian Saints (1 Cor. 1:10–16; 3:21–22). These factions promoted various false doctrines. Among them was an insistence that Christ was already reigning, that they were now kings being enriched by his power (1 Cor. 4:8), and, by extension, that there would be no bodily resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12). Among the factions were those who insisted that the Saints arose in a newness of life through baptism, which bestowed upon them an exalted status in the present world. By downplaying or denying any future judgment, these overly zealous souls opened the door to overly fervent practices and aberrations in worship that allowed for a very libertine and immoral lifestyle among the members. These and many more issues Paul had to address. But the point is that all these seem to have developed in-house.

In 2 Corinthians, the situation was much different. The conditions that Paul addressed came not exclusively from within the congregations but were largely brought in from outside. In this epistle, as noted above, we see Paul clearly on the defense for his own apostolic position and doctrinal teachings because of those who came from outside the Corinthian sphere. The evidence suggests, however, that Paul faced not one foe but multiple. Even so, whether Paul’s detractors were Judaizers, Gnostics, Christian Sophists, or some combination of other theological systems, their core charge was directed at his authority and doctrine.

One problem Paul faced in making his defense was that, so far as the record shows, he was out of touch with the two eastern centers of Christian worship, Jerusalem and Antioch. Though he had made peace at least with Church leaders at Jerusalem, suspicion among many of the Jewish Saints still hung over him (Acts 21:19–25). This made him vulnerable to the attackers as noted above.

Because the challenge was immediate, Paul did not have time to appeal to Church authority. Instead, he turned to an even more impressive and immediate proof of his apostolic power. This proof was in his bequeathing of the power of the Holy Spirit.⁸⁵ His appeal to this glorious gift suggests that not only for him but also for many of the Saints, it was the singular and most important sign that a new era had commenced, and though not yet fully realized, its sanctifying power was already manifest in the lives of his readers. The challenge was that it would continue to remain so only if they continued in faithfulness (3:17–18). Further, its reception was the guarantee that they had a share in the present reality of the new Christian age and that they would receive a full share of glory in the world to come (5:17–6:2). Thus, he used the undeniable presence of the Spirit to validate his authority as an Apostle of the Lord and thereby the authenticity of his teachings.

The question naturally arises whether this letter actually worked or, in other words, whether reconciliation was ever accomplished. From evidence within the epistle itself, it would appear that Paul thought so. He speaks of returning to Corinth for a third visit (13:1). But was he right? From the present vantage point, there is no certainty, but based on Romans 15:25–26; 16:1, 23–24, it appears that Paul did actually return to Corinth and stayed with members there where he wrote to the Roman Saints. In that epistle, he sends greetings from leading members of the Corinthian branch. Further, the collection for the Jerusalem poor was completed throughout Achaea, and that would include Corinth. Thus, it would appear that the Apostle succeeded in his efforts. That being the case, this epistle is “a shining example of how message, method, and ministry may come together to accomplish a theologically grounded social aim. It reflects Paul at his most powerful and poignant. If reconciliation is a sign of greatness, then 2 Corinthians is the clearest evidence of his stature.”⁸⁶

Paul’s Methodology

Paul’s objectives drove his methodology. These were to reset and anchor the gospel of Jesus Christ on its foundation such that God and Christ remained center stage and the Christian way of life was promoted and lived. In order to do this, as noted above, Paul had to work to overcome not only the false teachings of his antagonists but also many of the social values and particular cultural orientation that his readers had acquired over their lifetimes. He had to “further his converts’ resocialization by deinculturating them from some of their former primary values, chiefly by invoking certain eschatological ideas and the ethical implication of those ideas.”⁸⁷ To do so he had to “clarify what the church’s social relations with the world as it existed in Roman Corinth could and should be.”⁸⁸

Using his ample skills as a writer (and as one who understood the basics of rhetorical argument), he carefully laid out his motives and doctrine while defending his actions. He stressed his love for the Corinthian Church members as the driving force behind all that he did (2:4; 5:14), emphasized what he had already endured in their behalf because of that love (1:8–11; 4:1–3, 8–10; 6:4–6; 11:24–29), and asked them to reciprocate (7:2–4). In this way he attempted to unite them to him. He appealed to scriptural authority to bolster his positions (3:7–18; 4:5, 13; 6:15–17; 8:15; 9:7–10; 11:2–3, 24; 13:1). He emphasized and defended his apostolic authority (1:1, 21–22; 2:14–17; 4:1; 5:11–15) and warned his readers against those who sought to undermine that authority and the teachings that rested upon it (chaps. 11–13). To validate his authority, he appealed to the deeply beautiful and spiritual conversion experience of the Christians themselves and reminded them that this happened due to his preaching and under his administration (3:1–6, 18; 5:16–21; 10:7). He stressed the need to live the Christian lifestyle in the way he and his associates did (1:12–14; 4:1–2, 5–6, 16–18; 5:6–9, 11–13; 6:4–10; 7:1; 12:6–10) and noted the rewards that such a lifestyle brought (3:18; 4:11–15; 5:1–5, 10, 15, 17–19; 6:17–18; 9:6–15).

Paul used metaphor, irony, parody, diatribe, comparison, invective, and paradox to get his point across to his primary audience, the Corinthian Saints. He never addresses his antagonists directly, and thus they ever remain in the background, but we feel their menace behind what Paul writes. All the means he used reveal the intensity of the Apostle’s feelings as he writes his defense, all to the end of reinforcing the Christians’ faithfulness and devotion to the Lord and the divine reconciliation made possible by the loving act of their Savior.

A Note on the Greek Manuscripts, Translation Methods, and Use of Secondary Scholarship

Important Greek Manuscripts and Variants

The earliest lists of undisputed books always list 2 Corinthians among Paul’s writings. From patristic evidence, it was circulating as early as the late first and early second centuries of the Christian era.⁸⁹ The earliest-known text containing virtually all of 2 Corinthians is the papyrus codex 𝔓⁴⁶ dated between AD 175 and 225,⁹⁰ which means it was copied (likely from another copy that itself was a copy) 120 to 180 years after Paul wrote the letter. The epistle is also found in the important codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as well as other early codices and in various fragments.⁹¹ There are a number of variant readings in the existing manuscripts of 2 Corinthians, but few of them are of any theological importance. Those variants that do have such value are discussed in this commentary where appropriate.

The Nature of Paul’s Greek

Paul used standard Koine Greek in his epistles, but in a way that revealed his education and skill as a writer and dictator. He was completely fluent and comfortable in Greek and was, therefore, able to utilize the full capacity of that remarkably flexible language to clarify and explain his messages to his audience. The general fluency of his Greek, in addition, allowed him to see and understand the implications and nuances of the Septuagint, his primary Old Testament text, which he skillfully put to full use. However, compared to his use of the Greek in some of his other epistles, especially Romans and 1 Corinthians, that in 2 Corinthians is rougher, thus supporting that idea that the letter was dashed off and therefore did not receive the polish that Paul’s other epistles did. As a result, it contains “some of the most difficult Greek in the New Testament” to translate.⁹²

Translation Philosophy

Due to our deep respect for the care and time that the various highly trained scholars took in translating the King James Version of the Bible, it has been with some trepidation and humility that we have undertaken the task of the rendering of the ancient Greek text into English. However, we do feel that such was necessary in order to present a script that reflects insights that come through the Restoration and also to overcome some of the weaknesses found in the KJV. The King James translators never overcame three challenges. The first was the late medieval Greek manuscript, the Textus Receptus, from which the translators worked. It was the product of Erasmus, the fifteenth-century Dutch theologian, whose manuscripts reached only back to the twelfth century. Though Theodore Beza, a French theologian, published an edition of the Greek New Testament based on more ancient and less corrupt manuscripts in 1565, the King James Translators were not provided with it. The second challenge they faced was their unfamiliarity with Koine Greek. These men were classicists and knew well the power and beauty of the Attic prose of Plato and Aristotle. Unfortunately, “the rubbed down and difficult Greek” of the New Testament era held a number of mysteries they were unable to solve because Bible scholarship was still in its infancy. This has left a number of passages, especially in the dense and difficult writings of Paul, virtually unintelligible in their translation (see, for example, 6:11–13, KJV).⁹³

The third problem these translators faced was their biased understanding of certain Greek words and ideas. That bias rested on theologically “orthodox” views that were derived from middle platonic and Neoplatonic assumptions about the nature of salvation and the Godhead. As a result, the KJV translation sometimes reflects Augustinian and other early “orthodox” writings instead of a first-century context. Fortunately, the Book of Mormon and other Restoration scriptures have corrected these.

Exacerbating the problem were less-than-careful printers of the first editions. These copies were filled with errors, including misprints, wrong references, and spelling mistakes,⁹⁴ and various ones of these made their way into other editions. It was not until the nineteenth century that a scholar made a full collation of all the changes in the various editions. He found over twenty-four thousand variants.⁹⁵ The point is that, even to date, “no one such thing as ‘The King James Bible’—agreed, consistent and whole—has ever existed,” only various editions of the same.⁹⁶ For these reasons, we have felt justified in proceeding with a new rendering of the ancient Greek texts.

All in all, our work is designed to be neither all-inclusive nor definitive, but tentative and suggestive. We expect and hope that others will come along who will improve our work. In the meantime, we hope that we have laid a firm foundation and put up a solid scaffolding which they can use to continue to build an ever-better understanding of God’s word as revealed through his New Testament Apostles and prophets as viewed through the lens of the Restoration.

In our translation, we have attempted to present the original meaning of Paul’s writings as faithfully and clearly as possible in modern English. We have constantly felt the need to balance the esoteric details of a text with the importance of communicating the breadth of its meaning as clearly as possible to English readers. Fortunately, because this is a commentary and not a stand-alone translation, the Notes and Comments section allows us to further elucidate and expand the range of meanings of a word or phrase and, thereby, render it to a greater extent. We are ever aware that individual words have both denotations and connotations and are best understood within their semantic fields. Further, meaning does not reside in individual words alone but in collections of words found in clauses, phrases, sentences, and ultimately whole discourses. Our task was to first determine the meaning of any given cluster of words in the biblical text and then convey that meaning as accurately as possible into natural English.

Sometimes grammatical and syntactical forms that make good sense in Greek seem stilted, odd, and even weird when translated word for word into English. Our purpose has been to render the Greek in such a way that an educated reader could readily understand its meaning. And so, because of the marked difference between English and Greek grammar and syntax, we have especially tried to avoid an overly “literal” translation, which we feel could often obscure Paul’s intent. We have, therefore, followed Bruce Metzger’s dictum to be “as literal as possible, but as free as necessary” in order to communicate to the modern English reader the meaning of the text.⁹⁷

Still, individual words do count, and therefore, we have labored carefully to determine how each word contributes to the clause, phrase, or sentence in which it is found. Our intent has been to convey, to the best of our ability, the meaning of the whole. Therefore, our Rendition should not be seen as prescriptive but as descriptive. It is in no way intended to be the ultimate Latter-day Saint translation but, rather, a rendering of the Greek to assist the modern reader in understanding the power and beauty of Paul’s message. Where textual variants in the ancient manuscripts have significant impact on the meaning of the text, we have tried to select the one that is the most likely to have been the original, but when the variants do not affect the understanding of the text, we have ignored them. There are times when the words in our Rendition will be exactly the same as those in other translations. This is because that is the best and, in some cases, the only way a Greek text can be brought into English.

Guidelines in This Volume on the Use of Material from Scholars and General Authorities

With sincere respect to those scholars, both within and without the Church, whose works have contributed so heavily to this volume, we have chosen not to refer to them by name in the body of the text. The major reason is to give greater emphasis to a teaching or thought rather than to the person who said it. The exceptions are quotes from General Authorities of the Church. Since this is a work that focuses on how Latter-day Saints view Paul’s teachings, we thought it helpful to note which Church authorities said what. We have been very careful, however, to recognize and give credit in the footnotes to all the contributors.

The criteria we have used to determine which statements of both scholars and Church authorities to use—either to clarify, emphasize, or to expand on various teachings—is their harmony with the Standard Works. Early in this dispensation, the Lord revealed the means by which his doctrine would be established. To Oliver Cowdery he said, “And now, behold, I give unto you, and also unto my servant Joseph, the keys of this gift [of translation], which shall bring to light this ministry; and in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (D&C 6:28; see also D&C 128:3).⁹⁸ It is this principle we have tried to constantly apply. Because any number of line segments can be drawn through a single point, but only one can be drawn between two points, at least two anchors are needed. With the scriptures, we have four: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

The reason we have adopted this criterion is based on a statement by President Joseph Fielding Smith, who wrote, “you cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes.” He went on to say that if anyone “writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.”⁹⁹ In this volume, we have tried to follow this dictum for quotes from both LDS and non-LDS scholars and authorities, including within the section “LDS Leaders’ Use of 2 Corinthians.” There we have not quoted everyone who has spoken on a specific scripture, but rather we have chosen a few statements that give the general feel for how General Authorities understand the scripture.

The Use of 2 Corinthians among the Latter-day Saints

LDS Leaders’ Use of 2 Corinthians

Only one General Authority has commented on the full text of 2 Corinthians—Elder Bruce R. McConkie in his three-volume work Doctrinal New Testament Commentary. As the study below shows, other Church leaders have quoted from and commented on various verses or phrases within this epistle. However, unlike its sister epistle, 1 Corinthians, Church leaders have appealed to it to a far lesser degree. While 2 Corinthians thus ranks rather low as a source of doctrine, LDS leaders have used it to provide important insights, but more often to confirm a position or push an admonition. We have used the Scripture Citation Index (hereafter cited as SCI)¹⁰⁰ as the primary source to determine which scriptures have received the most attention and what Church leaders have said about them. Because scriptures cited fewer than nine times likely had little to contribute to Church doctrine or teachings, they have not been analyzed in this study.

Verse 5:10

According to the SCI, LDS Church leaders have referenced 2 Corinthians 5:10 more often than any other verse in this epistle, but most refer specifically to the version found in the JST. Only a few have cited it as it appears in the KJV.¹⁰¹ The latter reads, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” The JST version changes this to read, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive a reward of the deeds done in the body, things according to what he hath done, whether good or bad” (italics show changes). The modification in the JST clarifies the ambiguity in the scriptures’ use of the noun “things.” It is the idea that judgment is based in large part on a person’s deeds that General Authorities most often reference.

In studying the citations listed, however, it becomes unclear if the General Authorities who used the phrase actually had this verse in mind. The reason is because this same thought is found in Alma 5:15. In the most recent citation, that of Spencer W. Kimball in 1964, the reference is clearly to the biblical source.¹⁰² That, however, is not the case in most of the references to the Journal of Discourses listed in the SCI. For instance, Brigham Young stated, “I will now refer you to the scripture where it reads that we shall be judged according to the deeds done in the body.”¹⁰³ The word “deeds” is not found in the KJV but, as noted above, only in the JST version and in Alma. It is because the phrase can be found in the Book of Mormon that we cannot be sure that those who used it were expressly thinking of 2 Corinthians.

In fact, it is most likely they did not, because, at that point in Church history, few would have been acquainted with Joseph Smith’s changes.¹⁰⁴ Unfortunately, before the 1890s, few General Authorities specifically stated in their talks what scripture they were using. In 1899, however, the Church began publishing the official conference reports, in which scripture citations were given. These show that after that year, in using the phrase “deeds done in the body,” only four General Authorities consciously referred to the verse in the KJV or the JST. Thus, it is doubtful that the SCI, in this case, accurately reflects the actual number of times LDS leaders referred to this verse and is, therefore, not a good indicator of its actual theological weight. Even so, the verse does substantiate the doctrine that the final judgment does focus, in large part, on deeds that a person does here in mortality.

Verse 5:17

Given the above, it is most likely that the scripture that General Authorities have referred to the most in conference addresses is 2 Corinthians 5:17.¹⁰⁵ The sources listed in the SCI appear to be a good indicator of the scripture’s use, and thus it has actual theological weight. The verse states: “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” Commonly, this scripture is used in connection with others to support the doctrine of spiritual rebirth. For instance, President Spencer W. Kimball stated that “the Lord is not primarily interested in having His children only convinced of His work. He would like them to be converted to the gospel. Truly converted persons change their old sinful ways and turn to a new life in Christ; there is truly a ‘converting’ or a changing in their lives.” He then quoted this verse to emphasize his point.¹⁰⁶

Twice in general conferences, Elder David A. Bednar quoted this verse, along with Mosiah 5:2 and Mosiah 27:25, to provide a scriptural foundation for the need of spiritual rebirth.¹⁰⁷ He said, “As we honor the ordinances and covenants of salvation and exaltation (see D&C 20:25), ‘press forward with a steadfastness in Christ’ (2 Nephi 31:20), and endure in faith to the end (see D&C 14:7), we become new creatures in Christ (see 2 Corinthians 5:17).”¹⁰⁸ Elder Bednar explained what that change entails: “Please note that the conversion described in these verses is mighty, not minor—a spiritual rebirth and fundamental change of what we feel and desire, what we think and do, and what we are. Indeed, the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ entails a fundamental and permanent change in our very nature made possible through our reliance upon the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah (2 Nephi 2:8).” Elder Bednar further explained that becoming a new creature is not overexaggerating the change conversion brings. Feelings, thoughts, and actions are all changed, fully meriting the description of a “new creature” for the one who truly converts.¹⁰⁹

Earlier General Authorities have also used the verse to describe spiritual rebirth. For instance, President John Taylor observed of those who believed in Christ that “they were born of the water and of the Spirit and were made new creatures in Christ Jesus.”¹¹⁰ Elder Orson Pratt explained what it meant to be born of the Spirit. He asked, “What do we understand by the birth of the spirit? I answer, that there is a birth of the spirit, in other words, those persons who receive the Holy Ghost are filled with it, are immersed within it, they are clothed upon therewith, and consequently are born anew of it, and they are without desires to do evil, their desires to do that which is wrong are taken away, and they become new creatures in Christ Jesus.”¹¹¹

However, not every General Authority has used this verse exclusively to support the idea of spiritual rebirth. Elder Pratt also used it to convey the idea of old things becoming new in the context of the Second Coming. He said, “And then, after all things are made new, and old things have passed away, the two Jerusalems will come down from God out of heaven, and will rest upon the new earth.”¹¹² It is of note that he applies the complete spiritual change usually associated with personal spiritual rebirth to the physical changes the earth and humanity will undergo during the Second Coming. Just as a person is completely changed through the influence of the Spirit, so too the earth and all on it will experience a similar degree of change.

Verses 12:7–10

The number of citations or allusions by LDS leaders in their conference addresses to 12:7–10 makes it the second or third most quoted section from this epistle depending on how 5:10 is taken.¹¹³ It states, “And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.”

Though scholars have speculated heavily on the nature of Paul’s thorn, Church leaders have been unconcerned about its exact nature. Instead they have used the Apostle’s experience as a model for how modern Saints can overcome the “thorns” in their own lives, whatever those may be. For example, President Lee observed, speaking to Church leaders, “So it is with you who in Zion preside in the various places. Sometimes there is given infirmity, difficulty, hardship upon you to try your souls; and the powers of Satan seem to be enrolled against you, watching and trying to break down your powers of resistance; but your weakness, through those infirmities, will give you the power of God that shall rest upon you even as the Apostle Paul was reconciled and comforted by the thought that through his trials the power of God might rest upon him.”¹¹⁴

Picking up on this same theme, Elder Gary B. Sabin stated that “we stand up inside when we wait patiently upon the Lord to remove or give us strength to endure our thorns in the flesh. Such thorns may be disease, disability, mental illness, death of a loved one, and so many other issues.”¹¹⁵ His statement shows that “thorns” can refer to a wide variety of afflictions.

General Authorities have also cited this section to help explain why God does not remove trials in our lives. Elder Richard G. Scott, after citing from this passage, said, “[God] gave Paul strength to compensate so he could live a most meaningful life. He wants you to learn how to be cured when that is His will and how to obtain strength to live with your challenge when He intends it to be an instrument for growth. In either case the Redeemer will support you.”¹¹⁶ It is noteworthy that Elder Scott acknowledged that sometimes it is God’s will that one be released from a trial, but in many cases it is not. An important part of mortality is enduring what life presents. However, Elder Scott does note that Christ is there to support his people at all times.

General Authorities have also used this scripture in another way—namely, to encourage members to trust in the Lord. For example, Elder D. Todd Christofferson, before quoting this scripture, stated that “the Apostle Paul understood that one who has entered into a covenant with God is both given the faith to face trials and gains even greater faith through those trials.”¹¹⁷ While Paul does not specifically mention faith in these verses, Elder Christofferson points out that Paul’s actions show his deep trust and faith in God. In sum, Paul’s willingness to endure the ongoing trial of his thorn necessitated a faith and allowed him to develop an even greater faith in the Lord.

Verse 13:1

The verse that LDS leaders cite the next most is found at 13:1.¹¹⁸ This verse states, “This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” It is the second sentence that General Authorities find the most pertinent. Paul’s rendering is a close paraphrase of Deuteronomy 19:15, but most General Authorities who cite the idea use the New Testament passage as a proof text for a point they are making. For example, Elder Tad R. Callister referred to it to explain why the Lord brought forth the Book of Mormon. He stated, “To help bring this oneness about, the Lord established a divine law of witnesses. Paul taught, ‘In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.’ The Bible is one witness of Jesus Christ; the Book of Mormon is another.”¹¹⁹ Elder Callister’s use of the scripture shows that he took the idea of witnesses as a general principle. It is obvious that he did not believe that Paul was using it to help support the need for the Book of Mormon.

Indeed, the General Authorities who cite this verse never use it to make the same point Paul did.¹²⁰ Rather they emphasize the general principle and its benefit. For example, Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin explained, “Many of our assignments in the Church are shared with companions. Ever since the Lord sent out His disciples two by two, companionships have advanced the work of the Kingdom. The Lord’s law of witnesses requires that ‘in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.’”¹²¹ President Henry B. Eyring qualifies the “law of witnesses” by noting that the witnesses have to be “authorized.”¹²² Elder Pratt also used the verse to stress the benefits the application of the principle has given to the Lord’s work. In discussing the founding of the Church, he stated that the Lord “did not raise up this Church, he did not commence the organization thereof until he had given sufficient evidence to a sufficient number of witnesses to commence the establishment of this work.”¹²³ He went on to observe that the number of witnesses included the eleven witnesses of the Book of Mormon, which is well above the required two or three mentioned in 2 Corinthians. The witnesses were necessary, he noted, to give sufficient credibility to the latter-day work. President Joseph F. Smith also showed how the “law of witnesses” was operating as Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the priesthood. He said, “It is significant that the Prophet Joseph Smith did not receive the priesthood by himself, but he, together with Oliver Cowdery, received the priesthood, and it was Oliver Cowdery’s calling to bear witness to these things.”¹²⁴ In sum, while none of the General Authorities have examined the “law of witnesses” from a legal, theological, or contextual perspective, they exclusively used it to give credibility to the Church’s practice and its scriptural base.

Verses 12:2–4

Tying with 2 Corinthians 13:1 in the number of citations listed in the SCI, LDS leaders have frequently appealed to 12:2–4 to substantiate certain doctrines.¹²⁵ It states, “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.” Paul’s statement is important in LDS theology, supporting as it does the doctrine of three kingdoms of glory.

The connection between the third heaven and the celestial sphere traces back to the Prophet Joseph Smith, who noted that “Saint Paul informs us of three glories and three heavens, he knew a man that was caught up to the third heaven, now if the doctrine of the sectarian world, that there is but one heaven, is true, Paul, what do you tell that lie for, and say there are three?”¹²⁶ While the Prophet did not say specifically that heaven is divided up into the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms, other General Authorities have tied what Paul said to material in the seventy-sixth section of the Doctrine and Covenants and come to that conclusion. For instance, Elder LeGrand Richards said, referring to the heavenly condition, “Paul was privileged to see it, for he was caught up into the third heaven and the paradise of God, but he was not permitted to write the things that he beheld.”¹²⁷

Elder Dallin H. Oaks tied these verses to 1 Corinthians 15:40, where Paul writes of celestial and terrestrial bodies. Elder Oaks noted, “In his letters to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul described these places. He told of a vision in which he was ‘caught up to the third heaven’ and ‘heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.’ Speaking of the resurrection of the dead, he described ‘celestial bodies,’ ‘bodies terrestrial,’ and ‘bodies telestial,’ each pertaining to a different degree of glory. He likened these different glories to the sun, to the moon, and to different stars.”¹²⁸ By joining 1 Corinthians 15:40 and 2 Corinthians 12:2–4, Elder Oaks provides the New Testament evidence for the doctrine of three degrees of glory further detailed in Doctrine and Covenants 76. While Paul’s words have provided ample disagreement and discussion among other Christians and scholars, Latter-day Saints have seen Paul’s words as clear evidence for the three degrees of glory.

Verse 7:10

The verse LDS leaders cited most frequently next to those listed above is found in 7:10.¹²⁹ It reads, “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” The major General Authorities have focused on the phrase “godly sorrow” and the role it plays in the repentance process. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, for example, stated, “Godly sorrow inspires change and hope through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Worldly sorrow pulls us down, extinguishes hope, and persuades us to give in to further temptation. Godly sorrow leads to conversion and a change of heart.”¹³⁰

Elder Royden G. Derrick connected this verse with Matthew 5:4, which states, “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.” He equated “godly sorrow” with mourning for past sins and noted that it “is necessary to repent of our sins if we are to be forgiven and if the atonement of Jesus Christ is to be effective in our lives. Oh! how joyous it is to work with a person as he goes through the process of repentance, enters the water of baptism, and comes into the kingdom of God.”¹³¹ While Elder Derrick did not use the verse in Matthew as normally understood, his connecting it with 2 Corinthians does emphasize the need for deep sorrow as a means of reestablishing a close relationship with God.

Of note is that General Authorities in the nineteenth century included in their quotes of this verse the phrase “which needeth not to be repented of.” As it stands in the KJV, it is rather ambiguous, but President Joseph F. Smith defined it. He said, “But first having repented of our sins with that repentance which needeth not to be repented of, [or] in other words, putting away from us every evil, and shunning even the appearance of sin.”¹³² Thus the phrase points to righteous actions for which there will never be a call for repentance. During the twentieth century, however, General Authorities have usually elided that phrase. For example, President Uchtdorf quoted the verse as saying, “‘godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation . . . but the sorrow of the world worketh death.’”¹³³ Note that he deliberately excluded the ambiguous phrase, probably so it would not add any confusion to or detract from his point. Other General Authorities have followed this same pattern.¹³⁴

Verse 3:6

The next most cited verse is found at 3:6.¹³⁵ It states, “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” LDS leaders have appealed to the last two phrases. For instance, Elder James E. Faust referenced this verse to encourage the Saints to seek more from their temple worship. He stated, “In our desire to create in our people more commitment to the holy work of the temples, we must urge them to look deeper to the profound spiritual meaning to be found there. As Paul reminded us, ‘For the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.’”¹³⁶ Though Elder Faust used this verse, in this instance, to emphasize the importance of seeking deeper, more spiritual meaning in temple worship, he also used it in other contexts. For example, after quoting this verse, he noted, “We are not only to avoid evil, not only to do good but, most importantly, to do the things of greatest worth. We are to focus on the inward things of the heart, which we know and value intuitively but often neglect for that which is trivial, superficial, or prideful. . . . I have some fear, however, that some members consider guidelines and procedures to be as important as the timeless, immutable laws of the gospel.”¹³⁷ In using the phrase in this setting, he demonstrates that, like most other General Authorities, he viewed Paul’s words as a good aphorism that could be applied to a number of situations. Noteworthy is that he delineated what constitutes “the letter” and “the spirit.” The inward things of greatest worth—the “timeless, immutable laws of the gospel”—he connects to “the spirit,” whereas undue devotion to the “trivial, superficial, or prideful” and some “guidelines and procedures” he connects to “the letter.”

Even though the General Authorities have tended not to specify exactly what constitutes the “letter,” like Elder Faust, some have reached for a definition. For instance, Elder Pratt said, in relation to various Christian sects, that “they may have the word, but the Bible itself says that the letter killeth.”¹³⁸ In contrast, Elder Pratt noted that the Latter-day Saints have the spirit since they have living prophets and not just the written word. It appears that, from his point of view, sole reliance on the Bible qualifies as “the letter” that kills. This position, however, few other General Authorities have taken. President Thomas S. Monson discussed how the New Testament brought “a spirit of awakening to the human soul” and thereby placed the New Testament in the category of “the spirit” rather than “the letter.”¹³⁹ Even though LDS leaders have not precisely defined what constitutes “the letter” and “the spirit” of the law, they have used Paul’s words to encourage Latter-day Saints to hold to that which is of greatest worth.

Verse 4:4

General Authorities have cited 2 Corinthians 4:4 the next most.¹⁴⁰ It states, “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” During the nineteenth century, LDS leaders most frequently appealed to the phrase “god of this world” to make their point. President John Taylor, for example, talked about some Saints who “have become blinded by the God of this world.”¹⁴¹ Brigham Young tied gold or money to the “god of this world,” noting that “a little gold dust was found near Pike’s Peak; the golden god—the god of this world,” and warned that those who follow after this god “will learn that they have been cheating themselves for the golden god—the Mammon of this world.”¹⁴²

LDS leaders have not appealed to this scripture much since the turn of the last century (only four citations are listed after 1899), although in 2014, President Uchtdorf cited phrases from the verse and then asked the rhetorical question “Have you allowed ‘the god of this world’ to darken your minds to ‘the light of the glorious gospel of Christ’?”¹⁴³ He then admonished the Saints to let Christ’s light shine in their lives. It is of note that the General Authorities have not cited the whole verse but have used this phrase to provide a distinction between those who kept to the true faith and those who were seduced away by the things of the world.

To a lesser extent, some Church authorities have used this verse to show that the Savior looks like his Father. For instance, Delbert L. Stapley said that the Apostle “Paul declared to the Corinthian saints that Christ is ‘the image of God’ and to the Hebrews that Christ is ‘the express image of [God’s] person.’”¹⁴⁴

Verse 5:7

Because of the appeal of an important doctrine taught in 5:7, LDS leaders have used it the next most.¹⁴⁵ It states: “For we walk by faith, not by sight.” Leaders’ focus has been on the Saints’ need to rely on faith as they progress through life. Elder Bruce R. McConkie noted some of the implications of this need when he stated that “it is not the Lord’s program to appear personally to every man [and woman] and tell [them] what to believe and how to act to be saved. In this, our second estate, we are to walk by faith, not by sight.”¹⁴⁶ The purpose of this mortal existence, the leaders have insisted, is to have all God’s children exercise moral agency. If God were to always tell everyone exactly what to do, their agency would be limited. Walking by faith allows people to fully take advantage of their second estate by giving them the freedom to choose exactly what they wish to be. Brigham Young pointed out that the leaders of the Church are not exempt from this condition. He explained that God will “let His servants gaze upon eternal things for a moment, but straightway the vision is closed, and they are left as they were, that they may learn to act by faith, or as the Apostle has it, not walking by sight, but by faith.”¹⁴⁷ Thus, even God’s servants are required to walk by faith even though they may have visions and revelation others may not have had. All men and women must ultimately rely on faith, no matter what their position in the Church is.

Elder Neal A. Maxwell, discussing how walking by faith is actually safer than walking by sight, explained, “When unaided spiritually, natural sight often shrinks from the odds. It is immobilized by improbabilities. Mauled by his moods and intimidated by his fears, the natural man overreacts to, while hope [with the faith it engenders] overrides, the disappointments of the day.”¹⁴⁸ Rather than faith being a poor substitute for sight, Elder Maxwell shows that Paul’s words are a reminder of the strength and assistance faith gives to the Saints.

Verse 5:20

Next to the scriptures studied above, LDS leaders have cited portions of 5:20 the most.¹⁴⁹ It states, “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.” It is of note that none of the General Authorities have cited the whole verse in their talks. Instead, like most of the other scriptures noted above, they have taken phrases from it to give force to points in their talks. For instance, President Lorenzo Snow and Elder Charles W. Penrose both referred to the ancient Apostles as “ambassadors of the Lord Jesus Christ.”¹⁵⁰ Lorenzo Snow gave a definition of the phrase, observing that “you may only be a hod-carrier [someone who supplies a brick layer with mortar], but remember you are an Elder in Israel, you are an ambassador of the Lord Jesus Christ, and if you are in the line of your duty you are in possession of that which the world cannot give nor take away; and you are held accountable to God for the honest use of the talent over which he has made you steward, whether it be large or small.”¹⁵¹ Though the Prophet directed this statement toward men, the title “ambassador” holds true for all, both men and women, who hold callings and positions of trust in the kingdom. Indeed, President Gordon B. Hinckley referred to missionaries as “ambassadors of the Lord Jesus Christ.”¹⁵²

In his admonitions to the Saints, following the practice of other General Authorities at the time,¹⁵³ President Young frequently used the phrase “be ye reconciled to God” to stress the need for the Saints to do so.¹⁵⁴ For example, he admonished “all who hear me, be ye reconciled to God, and ask for the things that you want. If you want life and salvation, ask for it in faith, humility and meekness.”¹⁵⁵ The prophet’s words tacitly point to what grows out of reconciliation—namely, a desire for eternal life. He further stated, “I will say to my friends—those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ—‘I beseech you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.’ Treasure up every truth that you hear, practice it in your lives, for this will lead you to Jesus.”¹⁵⁶ It is of note that the SCI shows no listing for the use of this verse by Church leaders in conferences after 1900. Just why this is the case is unknown, but it does suggest that this verse has not played a significant role in LDS theology.

Verse 4:7

Though the SCI shows no twentieth-century Church leaders referencing the material in 4:7, those of the nineteenth did.¹⁵⁷ It states: “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.” Once again it was not the whole verse but only a phrase that caught their attention. The phrase was “treasures in earthen vessels.” President John Taylor was particularly fond this imagery. For instance, to stress the need for members to be more forgiving, he asked, “Have I got a treasure?” and then answered, “Yes, but we are told that it is held in ‘earthen vessels,’ which are subject to all the weaknesses, infirmities and follies, incident to humanity.”¹⁵⁸ His point was that, even though people may possess heavenly gifts, they are still weak and need tolerance. In another discourse he asked, “Are the Saints perfect? I wish you were. We are all surrounded by weaknesses and infirmities. I acknowledge I am, and I think I could so speak for some of my brethren, but I do not propose to confess their weaknesses. Notwithstanding all the blessings conferred upon us through the Gospel we have received, we, all of us, have ‘the treasures in earthen vessels.’ I suppose that God has given us these infirmities that no flesh might glory in his presence, but that we might all feel our littleness and weakness, realizing every day that we need to pray just as the Lord taught his disciples to pray.”¹⁵⁹ His point was that because human weakness is so ubiquitous, all should, of necessity, be more forgiving.

In another address, he gave a slightly different nuance to the phrase. Speaking of the gospel, he noted that, “This light and intelligence was communicated to men in the dark ages. This treasure, says the Apostle, we have in earthen vessels. This was what Jesus referred to when he said to the woman of Samaria—‘If thou hadst asked of me I would have given thee water which would have been in thee a well springing up to everlasting life.’”¹⁶⁰ In this case, President Taylor referred to the “treasure in earthen vessels” as the possession of Christ’s power by which one can obtain eternal life.

Elder Orson Hyde connected the “treasure in earthen vessels” to living Church leaders. After noting that the Lord had set up the Church under the direction of specific officers, he noted that God put these in position to “to guide his people;—the oracles (or in other words, the Holy Ghost,) not on paper, bound in calf, sheep, or any other manufactured article, but in the hearts of his chosen servants. Paul says—‘We have this treasure (not in a book, but) in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.’”¹⁶¹ His point was that, through the power of the Holy Ghost, God’s “earthen vessels,” meaning Church authorities, have godly power to do his will.

Verse 11:14

The next most frequently referenced scripture by LDS leaders is found in 11:14.¹⁶² It states: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” General Authorities have used this verse to show that Satan can disguise himself and his teachings and thus beguile unwitting souls to do his will. Elder Faust noted that “as the great deceiver, Lucifer has marvelous powers of deception.” Elder Faust then quoted this verse to stress the point.¹⁶³ Elder Jedediah M. Grant discussed the means whereby Satan is able to push forward his work. He said, “Now Lucifer has philosophy enough and religion enough to suffer his agents to run along with the truth hand in hand, and make himself appear like an angel of light, and teach hundreds of true principles, if he can only thereby get you to swallow one item of false doctrine.”¹⁶⁴ Though this is true, as President Harold B. Lee taught, God has provided a way for the Saints to detect the evil one. “Because of Satan’s ability thus to cleverly deceive, the Lord has given us a key in the scriptures by which we may be able to detect him when he comes presenting himself as that angel of light.” President Lee was here referring to instructions given in Doctrine and Covenants 129:8. He goes on to say, “And so we are told to be constantly on guard against these things.”¹⁶⁵ President Lee’s point is that there is no reason for the Saints to be deceived because the Father has provided a way for the adversary’s detection.

Verse 5:1

Next, Church leaders cited the material in 5:1 the most.¹⁶⁶ It states: “For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” Like nearly every other scripture studied here, General Authorities have used only a phrase or two from this verse to make their point. They have used these primarily to give encouragement to the Saints to continual faithfulness by showing what blessings await in the future. For instance, President Taylor, speaking of faithful members, said: “They know that if the earthly house of this tabernacle dissolves they have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Knowing this they feel that all is right.”¹⁶⁷ Here the Prophet highlighted the value of this doctrine in providing a basis for enduring the threat of death. President Young expanded that value by noting that “to a person who has such a glorious hope everything is bright and beautiful.”¹⁶⁸ For example, President Young prefaced this idea with an observation that “the faithful Latter-day Saint knows that the dissolution of this mortal house will introduce his immortal spirit to freedom from death and punishment, and to the enjoyment of the society of the spirits of just men made perfect.”¹⁶⁹ Thus, it is not just the threat of death that this hope helps the Saints to handle, but all the vicissitudes of life.

Verse 2:16

Once again, as with the scriptures studied above, certain ideas contained in 2:16 have caught LDS leaders’ attention.¹⁷⁰ It states, “To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?” General Authorities have used the phrases “death unto death” and “life unto life” to help show the consequences of people’s acceptance or rejection of the gospel. Elder Franklin D. Richards, for example, stated that “you do a vast deal of good you cannot see. Your testimonies to the world are a savor of life unto life or of death unto death—life unto life to those who receive and render obedience to the Gospel; death unto death to those who reject it.”¹⁷¹ The point is that how one deals with the gospel brings either life or death and should therefore be taken very seriously.

Verse 3:3

Quite a few General Authorities have appealed to ideas contained in 3:3.¹⁷² It states, “Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” Unlike many of the scriptures noted above, most of the uses of this one are by recent General Authorities.¹⁷³ Among these is Elder Neil L. Andersen, who stated, “If you’re not a full-time missionary with a missionary badge pinned on your coat, now is the time to paint one on your heart—painted, as Paul said, ‘not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God.’”¹⁷⁴ Though Elder Andersen uses this verse in a rather specific sense, he does join with others General Authorities to stress the necessity for the Saints to internalize the gospel. For example, President Russell M. Nelson stated, “When we feast upon the words of Christ, they are embedded ‘in fleshy tables of the heart.’ They become an integral part of our nature.”¹⁷⁵ And Sister Anne C. Pingree, after quoting this phrase, noted that “little by little our charitable acts change our natures, define our characters, and ultimately make us women [and men] with the courage and commitment to say to the Lord, ‘Here am I; send me.’”¹⁷⁶ Thus, these leaders have shown how having the gospel written on the heart assists people in taking on themselves a divine nature.

Verse 6:15

There are also a few LDS leaders who have appealed to information found in 6:15.¹⁷⁷ It states: “And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” Belial is another designation for the Canaanite god Baal, and it is this image that some General Authorities have extracted to make their point. For example, President Young said: “Christ and Belial cannot be made friends, neither can the Church of Christ and the worshippers of Belial unite together. They cannot amalgamate. Consequently, those who receive the Gospel with all their hearts, after believing the testimony of God’s servants, will divide themselves from those who do not receive it.”¹⁷⁸ President Joseph F. Smith was adamant in applying the scripture to the Saints’ situation. He stated, “When we become servants of the enemies of the people of God, we will find we have got unmerciful masters. We have come to these mountains to serve the Lord. We have not come here to serve ourselves, nor to serve man, nor to serve Babylon. The voice of God has been to us, ‘Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.’” He then quoted 6:14 to cement the point.¹⁷⁹ On another occasion he taught, “We should keep ourselves aloof from the wicked; the dividing line should be distinctly drawn between God and Belial, between Christ and the world, between truth and error, and between right and wrong. We ought to cleave to the right, to the good, to the truth, and forsake the evil.”¹⁸⁰ Thus, Church leaders have used these verses to emphasize the need for the Saints to separate themselves from the things of the world.

Verse 3:17

Like the last few scriptures above, some General Authorities have referred to material in 3:17.¹⁸¹ It states, “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” LDS leaders have used this scripture primarily to emphasize that the Spirit helps bring people the blessings of freedom and liberty. Elder Robert D. Hales, for example, talked about the blessings that come from the Holy Ghost. He said: “These incomparable blessings of the Spirit increase our freedom and power to do what is right, for ‘where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.’”¹⁸² He then went on to stress that religious freedom allows people to use their agency. President Ezra Taft Benson connected political liberty with this scripture. He stated, “The founding fathers knew that . . . ‘where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.’ The United States of America began and lives as a result of faith in God. The Bible has been and is the foundation for this faith.”¹⁸³ President Benson’s words indicate that true freedom and liberty are dependent on the Spirit. This liberty includes that in the political realm as well as the spiritual.

Analysis

When compared to the number of times LDS leaders have appealed to 1 Corinthians, those appealing to 2 Corinthians seem paltry indeed. But there is a reason for this. First, the most salient doctrines General Authorities refer to in this epistle (that God’s final judgment upon his children will be largely based on the deeds they did in the flesh, that the Saints must yield to the converting power of the gospel and face the vicissitudes of life with faith knowing that the Savior will sustain them, and that there are three degrees of glory in the eternities) can be found in other scriptures and usually in more detail; thus there is little that is unique in this epistle. Second, Paul did not design this work as a statement on certain doctrines or a clarification of important gospel principles, as he did with 1 Corinthians, but as a defense against his detractors. What gospel principles we do find in the epistle are of secondary importance to the Apostle’s purpose and used primarily to bolster his station. Even so, the epistle is rich in Paul’s faith in the Lord and his strong desire to have his readers attain that same depth of faith. This alone makes the epistle a necessary read.

As the study above shows, it is rare for General Authorities to use any critical analysis on a given text from this epistle. Their common practice is to simply quote a scripture to bolster a point that they wish to make and then move on without giving the scriptural text any further treatment.¹⁸⁴ It is very common for them to take a given scripture out of context in order to make it fit their purpose. Thus, their primary use of the scriptures is as prooftexts for the doctrine or principle they are making or the admonition they are giving. It is still important, however, to see which scriptures the General Authorities have used to support their positions, for it reveals specific interests in certain teachings, doctrines, principles, or practices that became important during periods of LDS Church history.

LDS Scholars’ Work on 2 Corinthians

Though 2 Corinthians has not been neglected by LDS scholars, neither has any, before the present, sought to do a commentary on just this book. The epistle, therefore, has received, at best, coverage that is limited and generally targeted to a popular audience. For examples, see Sidney B. Sperry, Paul’s Life and Letters (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1955), 118–36; Richard Lloyd Anderson, Understanding Paul (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), 130–47; D. Kelly Ogden and Andrew C. Skinner, Verse by Verse: Acts through Revelation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998), 149–57; Thomas A. Wayment, From Persecutor to Apostle: A Biography of Paul (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2006), 161–74; Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Thomas A. Wayment, Making Sense of the New Testament: Timely Insights and Timeless Messages (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 368–79. Some scholars have analyzed specific issues in this epistle in various symposia proceedings, but again, none of these have focused exclusively and comprehensively on the epistle as a whole.