Why did Paul say the Corinthians should have commended him instead of forcing him to prove his authority?
Paul taught the Corinthians owed him commendation because he had brought them out of pagan darkness, not Peter or Apollos, and he was in nothing behind the chiefest apostles. Their challenging him forced him to defend his apostolic authority as the apostle of the Gentiles.
Les explains that Paul was again defending his apostleship and trying to show his authority as the apostle of the Gentiles. The Corinthians compelled him to glory by putting him down and comparing him with Peter, with what Jesus said, and with Apollos. Paul says he should have been commended by them because he was the one who brought them out of pagan darkness, not Peter and not Apollos. He says he was in nothing behind the very chiefest apostles, though in humility he says he was nothing. His authority had become uppermost; the twelve were now behind him, because God had turned from Israel to the whole human race. This was part of the revelation of the mystery, the secret hidden in God but now revealed through this man. Les notes that, like the church today, Paul was up against opposition, and all in Asia had turned against him.
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 did Paul mean by "you have compelled me" in 2 Corinthians 12:11?
When Paul says "I am become a fool in glorying, you have compelled me," he means the Corinthians were putting him down by saying Peter had more authority, that Peter was the big wheel in Jerusalem, that they go by what Jesus said rather than any man, and some even appealed to Apollos.
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.