If I am not an apostle to others, yet at any rate I am to you for the seal of mine apostleship are *ye* in [the] Lord.
Paul founded the church at Corinth, and now the very people he led to Christ were asking whether he was a real apostle. His proof is not a document or a title but the Corinthians themselves, whom he calls a "seal."
The chapter opens in the middle of a dispute.
We know from the Second Letter that some were questioning Paul's apostleship. So he opens this part of his letter with a short assertion of his apostleship, and of his liberty as well. He had the outstanding mark of an apostle, for he had seen "Jesus Christ, our Lord." And how could the Corinthians have any doubt about it? They were the seal and proof of it. Their existence as an assembly grew out of his "work in the Lord."
Behind the attack lay a charge about money.
False teachers accused the apostle. They claimed that he carried on his gospel preaching and his labours from selfish motives, and that he took the property of Christians, taking advantage of their devotion. So he speaks of his ministry.
A seal in Scripture carries several ideas, and this verse uses one of them.
One use of the seal was to ratify a resolution or decision. We may add the thought of proof of a mission or service, as in 1 Corinthians 9:2. And when high officials used a seal, it carried an unmistakable thought of authority. No one who feared that official's power would dare to break the seal.
Paul's whole argument comes down to one question.
The Corinthians had been calling into question the apostolic authority of Paul. How does he meet this? He appeals to themselves — to God's own call of them, when He turned them from idols to Himself, "as the seal of his apostleship." It is as though he said, "If Christ has not spoken through me, how is it that you are Christians?"
His critics were right about one thing: no human body had licensed him.
He affirms his freedom from any human yoke as clearly as his apostleship. Liberty went hand in hand with the highest responsibility. His office was not vague or secondary. He had seen Jesus our Lord. His detractors were right this far: he had received no degree from the apostolic college, no mission from Jerusalem. Others might claim to follow in succession from the twelve apostles, and claim it falsely. Paul had his authority directly from the Lord seen on high... If he was not an apostle to others, surely those should not deny it who were its seal in the Lord.
Paul does not appeal to outside witnesses. He turns to what the Corinthians knew about themselves.
Paul appeals to their consciences. Did he not have the credentials of an apostle? They could not fairly dispute that he had seen the Lord, and certainly not that they themselves had been converted through him. No one of these facts alone was proof of apostleship. But these, together with his own witness of God's clear appointment of him, were evidence their consciences could not ignore... Therefore their own state as Christians was proof of his apostleship. Whether others recognised this or not, they ought to.
Paul needed no written reference for Corinth. He pointed to changed lives instead.
If anyone had asked Paul, "Are you sure you are called to this work?" he could have replied, "If you have any doubts about it, go to Corinth, and you will see the effects of my calling." The saints in Corinth were his letter, his letter of commendation as to his apostleship.
- Challenge. Critics at Corinth questioned Paul's apostleship and hinted that he served for personal gain.
- Credential. A seal ratifies and proves a mission. The converted Corinthians were that proof — his work in the Lord, standing in front of him.
- Source. Paul's commission came straight from the Lord seen in glory. No degree from Jerusalem and no claimed line of succession lay behind it.
- Scope. Others might not accept him. But the people he led to Christ carried the evidence in their own hearts. If Christ had not spoken through him, how were they Christians at all?
- Result. Where God works through a servant, changed people become the letter of recommendation. Anyone can go and read it.
My defence to those who examine me is this
Some in Corinth were picking apart Paul's claim to be an apostle. Here he answers them, and his words read like a reply in court: what was the charge, and where does the answer lead?
The charge was about money and motive.
The apostle faced the accusations of false teachers. They claimed that he preached and worked for what he could get out of it. They said he took the property of Christians, taking advantage of their devotion. So he speaks about his ministry.
The people demanding proof were the very people his preaching had produced.
Had it come to this? Paul was put on trial — at least at the preliminary inquiry, to see whether there was a case against him. And he had to make his plea, his speech of defence, to his own Corinthian children in the faith.
The word Paul uses for their examining is a legal one.
The simple form of the word means "to judge." Anakrisis is the technical term for the earlier enquiry, the preliminary investigation.
Commentators differ. One reads the verse as closing the challenge Paul has already made. What follows sets out privileges, not proof of his title.
These words seem to belong to the challenge made in the opening verses rather than to what follows. He has already given the proofs of his apostleship. A statement of the privileges of that office follows. But that is hardly an answer to anyone who questioned his claim to the title of apostle in the first place.
Others take it as the heading over all that follows. That splits the chapter in two.
Some were jealous of the Apostle and were ready to suggest that he preached for what he could get, seeking to make a profit out of his service (2 Cor. 11:9-12). The Apostle answers this in two ways. First he states the rights of the servant (verses 3-14). Then he shows how he had used those rights (verses 15-27).
If the defence does run forward, its shape is surprising. Paul builds the case for what he has a right to, then hands it all back.
So he goes on stating his rights, and giving his authority for those rights, both from the law and from the ordinances of God. But why does he state his rights at all? Simply so that he may give them all up for the sake of the gospel.
That surrender answers the charge of self-interest. It came from a man who pleaded for the rights of others.
He made the gospel without cost to others, at all cost to himself. He did not use his right to be supported… So his plea for the rights of others was all the harder to challenge, because nothing in it was mixed with any desire for himself.
Paul had no visible appointment to point to. His work had to speak for him — and that did not end with him.
He had no visible proof that the Lord had called him to serve, as Peter and the rest had, for the Lord appointed them while He was here on earth. So he had to prove that his ministry came from God by its effect on souls, as all true ministry has had to do from that day on. As a result, people kept calling his ministry in question. The servant must expect this in our own day too, when he seeks to serve according to God's mind.
- Answer, not apology. Paul replies to men who cross-examine him. Their word is a legal one: the inquiry that comes before a verdict.
- Answer to his own children. Look at who sits in judgment. His own converts now weigh up whether their father in the faith is genuine.
- Answer disputed. Commentators differ. The defence may close his opening challenge, or open the case for a servant's rights that fills the chapter.
- Answer by surrender. He lists every right he has, then refuses to use any of them. The gospel cost others nothing, and cost him everything.
- Answer still required. Ministry with no human backing proves itself by its effect on souls. The servant who works that way should expect questions.