For if indeed he that comes preaches another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or ye get a different Spirit, which ye have not got, or a different glad tidings, which ye have not received, ye might well bear with [it].
Paul has just said he fears for the Corinthians: their thoughts could be led astray, as Eve's were in Eden. This verse tests the newcomers at Corinth: if they brought a better Jesus, a better Spirit, or better news, listening to them would make sense.
The men Paul is describing did not arrive looking dangerous. They arrived looking impressive.
In those early times there were "false brothers." They claimed to be Christians, and even claimed to be apostles. Such were "false apostles" and "deceitful workers." Yet their outward show was so fine that they looked like angels of light and ministers of righteousness. With satanic subtlety these men perverted the truth by preaching "another Jesus," "another Spirit," and "another gospel" (v. 4).
The verse begins with "for": it backs up the fear of verse 3. One writer draws out the questions Paul is pressing on them.
In Eden the tempter contradicted what God said, and the same thing happens in the church... You have received a class of teachers and honoured them. They are clearly trying to turn your hearts away from us, and you are listening to their hints. But why this change of feeling towards the one who first led you to the truth? Have these men revealed to you a new and better gospel? Is the Jesus they speak of a different Lord from ours? Are you receiving from the newcomer a better Comforter than the One who first taught you to cry, Abba, Father? You know it is not so.
Two different Greek words stand behind the verse. Paul writes of another Jesus (allos), then of a different spirit and gospel (heteros). The same pair appears in his letter to the Galatians:
Both words occur in Galatians 1:6-7. Paul was astonished that the Galatians were so quickly changing to a different gospel, which was not another. Someone might think Paul was admitting there could be another gospel than the one he had preached to them. To stop that, he uses allos with an emphatic negative — "which is not another." He is saying flatly that there was no other gospel, and there could be no other. Compare 2 Corinthians 11:4.
The ESV renders that phrase in Galatians as "not that there is another one," and the point is the same. So the "if" here is not a real option. There is no better Jesus to preach, no better Spirit to receive, no better news to accept.
Notice what the false teachers did not do. They did not stand up and reject Christ.
The gospel is the essence of simplicity. It sets Christ before us as the One who expresses all that God has to say to us. He is also the One who has done the necessary work of redemption, and in whom we now stand before God. It brings us into complete subjection to Him. But Satan is a master of craft and subtlety. Using these men who opposed Paul, he did not deny outright the Christ whom Paul preached. Verse 4 is clear evidence of this. If they could have come with another gospel, announcing another Jesus and giving another spirit, there might have been something to say for them — especially if it had been an improvement on what the Corinthians had already received.
Their method was not denial but complication. So the Corinthians put up with men who offered them nothing better than what they already had.
There is a personal side to this. Who had given the Corinthians what they now had?
Every one of these blessings had come to them through the apostle and no one else. Yet they had thought little of him. At the same time they were ready to honour self-exalting men who had set themselves up to teach on his foundation. Those men praised the twelve apostles only to run Paul down.
The concern is not Paul's reputation. It is the affection of the believers for Christ Himself.
In his ministry Paul wanted the affections of believers kept in pure loyalty to Christ. In 2 Corinthians 11 he is urgent about this, and warns the saints against any who came "preaching another Jesus." Later in the chapter he traces such speaking to the work of Satan. Satan always seeks to cloud the preciousness and glories of this incomparable Christ in the minds of His own.
- Simplicity — the gospel sets Christ before us plainly. Satan does not erase Him; he complicates Him until the simple thing is lost.
- Subtlety — the danger came dressed as angels of light, not as open attack.
- Sameness — there is no other Jesus, Spirit or gospel; Paul's "if" is a test, not an admission.
- Source — every blessing the Corinthians had came through the very man they were now looking down on.
- Steadfastness — Satan aims at the affections; Paul's desire was to keep them in pure loyalty to Christ.
For I reckon that in nothing I am behind those who are in surpassing degree apostles.
Paul has just warned the Corinthians about teachers with a different message. Now he measures himself against the men his critics called "super-apostles" — a claim that seems to clash with his own habit of calling himself the least of all saints.
Paul disliked talking about his own work. One writer explains what forced his hand: attacking the messenger is a way of attacking the message.
The apostle loved to spend himself in the service of Christ or of the saints. He grudged a word about himself even when the occasion demanded it — at least when it might look like self-defence. His wisdom, like his joy, was to testify of Christ. To speak of himself even as His servant he counts "folly," however necessary. But it is part of the enemy's tactics to undermine, lower, and if possible destroy a true servant of the Lord. It is just as much his tactic to cry up those who serve their own appetites, and who deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting by fair speech and plausibility. Is there any better way to frustrate testimony to Christ than to blacken the one who carries it — his motives, his ways, his aims?
The phrase is unusual. An older translation reads "those who are in surpassing degree apostles." Kelly links it to a name-dropping tactic at Corinth involving the twelve — the apostles Jesus first chose.
None of these blessings had come to them through any channel but the apostle. Yet they had thought little of him. They were ready to honour the self-exalting men who had set up to teach on his foundation, praising the twelve only to belittle Paul... They had had the fullest experience of the apostle in everything. In knowledge as in power they knew he was behind none, unless it were in the rhetoric of the schools which the Greek mind overvalued.
Commentators differ. Others read the passage as aimed at the newcomers themselves.
These false teachers wanted to undermine the Apostle's work. So they called his apostleship and service into question.
Paul does not claim to be more impressive than anyone. He claims equal standing on set terms, and the Corinthians were his proof: what they knew of God had reached them through his preaching.
You have heard of the original apostles of the Lord. Those who keep praising them at my expense give them no honest praise; even so, you do well to honour their names and calling. I have already admitted in public that I am not worthy to be counted one of their company. Yet in power, in knowledge, or in effective grace, where have they surpassed me? ... And if knowledge is the test of true apostleship, who taught you what you now claim to know of God and of His things? Was it not I?
The Corinthians were impressed by delivery. Paul's answer separates the packaging from the content. He points to a record they could check.
Paul was not in the least behind the chiefest apostles as to the truth God gave him. If he was a plain man in speech, there is no doubt that in the knowledge of the ways of God he surpassed others. And when he was among the Corinthians there was an honest transparency about him that they could not deny. He had shown himself plainly among them. They really had no excuse for accepting men who merely put on a show of superiority, so contrary to the openness of faith and love.
Paul elsewhere called himself less than the least of all saints. One writer explains the difference by asking who Paul stands beside in each case.
In Corinthians he is comparing himself with other apostles, but in Ephesians he has the glory of Christ in view, and he makes nothing of himself... In Judaism he was at the top; in Christianity he goes right to the bottom.
He lists three things Paul said about himself, and shows which way they run.
There are three statements in which he speaks of himself: chief of sinners; not fit to be called an apostle; and less than the least of all saints. He said all these things of himself, and it seems that the further he advanced in these glorious things, the less he thought of himself. I do not know of anything more likely to humble us than a grasp of the glory of Christ.
- Attack. Attack the servant and you attack the message. Blacken a messenger's motives and you frustrate his testimony to Christ.
- Tactic. Paul's critics praised great names at Corinth to make him look small — and they had built on the foundation he laid.
- Claim. He measures himself by power, knowledge, and effective grace, not by eloquence. He lagged only in the polished speech the Greek mind overvalued.
- Evidence. The Corinthians were the proof: what they knew of God came from his lips, and he lived among them in the open.
- Balance. Beside other apostles he was behind none. Before the glory of Christ he called himself less than the least. Nothing humbles a person like that sight.