Was Paul inferior to the chiefest apostles?
Paul was not inferior to the chiefest apostles. He declared he was in nothing behind them, and repeated that he was not one whit behind the chiefest apostles. Though he called himself nothing, as an instrument of God he was everything, having brought the Corinthians out of paganism into the gospel of grace.
Les explains that Paul was forced to boast because his opponents constantly accused him of not being a rightful apostle. He had no authority, no letters of commendation, and could not say he ministered with Christ for three years like Peter. Paul should have been commended by the Corinthians, for he brought them out of paganism into the light of the gospel of the grace of God, yet they turned against him. He repeats that he is in nothing behind the chiefest apostles, though he be nothing. He does not claim to be anybody, but as an instrument of God he was everything.
I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
More Questions
What does Paul mean by saying he was not behind the very chiefest apostles?
Paul says he was in nothing behind the very chiefest apostles, though in his own humility he adds that he is nothing.
Who was Paul referring to when he said he was in nothing behind the very chiefest apostles?
When Paul says in 2 Corinthians 12:11 that he is "in nothing behind the very chiefest apostles," he is making reference to Peter, meaning he was not half a step behind Peter in authority, revelations, or anything else.
How could Paul say he was not behind the chief apostles yet also say he was nothing?
Even while insisting he was not one whit behind the chiefest apostles, Paul regarded himself as nothing in himself and never took any of the credit.