2 Corinthians 11:5

For I reckon that I am not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.

For ages, this has been construed as a reference to the Twelve, especially to Peter, James and John, the inner circle of that sacred group; but the true meaning, as advocated by McGarvey, Kelcy and many others, appears to be that "chiefest apostles" is Paul's designation of the false apostles who were troubling Corinth. The reasons underlying what is now the generally accepted interpretation are these:

(1) The Greek words for "chiefest apostles" occur only twice in the New Testament; and, "As fresh light is thrown on the language of the New Testament, it is increasingly probable that Paul coined the word thus rendered."[22] Tasker especially favored this view.[23] Only here and in 2 Corinthians 12:11 is it found.

(2) The pronouns in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 logically refer to "chiefest apostles"; and there they are designated as "false apostles" and servants of Satan.

(3) In speaking of the true apostles, Paul called them "the Twelve" (1 Corinthians 15:5); and it is hard to believe that he would have used the words here of them, words which are quite properly rendered "super-apostles."

(4) The context favors understanding this as a reference to the false apostles; and, as Plumptre said:

The whole tone of the passage ought to have made it impossible for any commentator to imagine that these words referred to Peter and James and John as the pillars of the church of Jerusalem (Galatians 2:9). Of them Paul spoke, even in his boldest moment, with respect, even where respect is mingled with reproof.[24]

For these reasons, then, we shall construe "chiefest apostles" as a term of derogation applied sarcastically by Paul to the false teachers. However, the obvious truth must also be stated that, even if it did refer to Peter, James and John, it is also true of them, no less than it was true of the false apostles! Which of the Twelve themselves had any such record as is here revealed of the blessed Paul? It must be received as fact, then, that such a comment as the following from Macknight cannot be denied; for the basis of it, that Paul was not a whit behind Peter, James and John, etc., is solid truth, no matter how these words are understood. He said: "Let the Papists reconcile this account which Paul gives of himself as an apostle, with their pretended supremacy of Peter over all the apostles."[25]

[22] Philip E. Hughes, op. cit., p. 379.

[23] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 149.

[24] E. H. Plumptre, op. cit. p. 401.

[25] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 434.