in his folly. To this point every thing here refers. They should thns bear with him, 1. Because he was jealous over them with a godly jealousy. 2. Because they would bear with any who really preached another gospel, were that possi- ble. 3. Because he was on a par with the chief apostles. The connection, therefore, is not with v. 4, but with the main subject as presented in v. 1. This also determines the ques- tion. Who are meant by the chiefest apostles ? If the con- nection is with V. 4, then the expression is to be understood ironically in reference to the false teachers. ' Ye do wrong to tolerate them, for I am in no respect behind those superla- tive apostles.' So Beza, Billroth, Olshausen, Meyer, and the majority of the moderns. The reason given for this is, that there is no controversy with the true apostles in this connec- tion, and therefore nothing to call for such an assertion of his equality with them as we find in Gal. 2, 6-11. There is, how- ever, no force in this reason if the connection is with v. 1. ' Bear with me in my boasting, for I am not behind the chief- est apostles.' In this view the reference to the true apostles is pertinent and natural. Paul says, ixrjSlv va-TeprjKivaL, that as to nothin(/, in no one respect, had he fallen short, or was he left behind by the chiefest apostles ; neither in gifts, nor in labours, nor in success had any one of them been more highly favoured, nor more clearly authenticated as the messenger of Christ. He was therefore fully entitled to all the deference and obedience which were due to the chiefest apostles. The expression rcoj/ vircpXiav dTroo-ToAcuv, is not in itself bitter or ironical. This is a force which must be given by the connec- tion ; it does not lie in the w^ords themselves. It is not equi- valent to the xj/ev^aTToa-ToXoL of V. 13, and therefore there is no more reason why the true apostles should not be called ol VTrepXtav aTToaroXoL than ot Sokovvt€<; elvat tl in Gal. 2, 6. The argument, therefore, which the Reformers derived from this jjassage against the primacy of Peter is perfectly legitimate. Paul was Peter's equal in every respect, and so far from being under his authority, he not only refused to foUow his example but reproved him to his face. Gal. 2, 11.
G. But though (I be) rude in speech, yet not in knowledge ; but we have been thoroughly made mani- fest among you in all things.
In Corinth, where Grecian culture was at its height, it had