Why should the Corinthians have commended Paul instead of forcing him to defend himself?
The Corinthians should have commended Paul because of his loyalty to Christ, not because of the Twelve's preaching in Jerusalem. Since he was in nothing behind the chiefest apostles and had suffered greatly for the Gospel, they ought to have recognized his apostolic authority instead of treating him as of no count and forcing him to defend his credentials.
Les teaches that Paul did not like having to bring up his own credentials, saying, "I am become a fool in glorying." Yet the Corinthians compelled him because they were trying to put him down as of no count, so he had to let them know his authority as an apostle. Paul says he ought to have been commended by them, not because of the preaching of the Twelve in Jerusalem, but because of his loyalty to Christ. He affirms that in nothing is he behind the very chiefest apostles, though in himself he is nothing. Les stresses this same need in our day to recognize true apostolic authority.
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 credentials did Paul lack that the Corinthians used against him?
Paul lacked the credentials the Corinthians wanted: he had no authority, no letters of commendation, and could not say he had ministered with Christ for three years as Peter could.