Whenever a person opens up a book by L. L. Welborn, one will inevitably find a comprehensive, meticulous, and illuminating work, and this is no less the case with An End to Enmity. With a firm grasp on English and Continental biblical scholarship, as well as the relevant Greco-Roman sources and social conventions of Paul's day, Welborn enters the debate on the identity of the wrongdoer in Second Corinthians, attempting to reconstruct the type of offence that was committed, the character of the perpetrator, and the sort of relationship this influential figure shared with Paul and the Corinthians.

Welborn begins the book with an extended preface on the composition of Second Corinthians, considering it composed of five letters (in chronological order: ch. 8; chs. 10-13; 2:14-6:13; 7:2-4; 1:1-2:13; 7:5-16; and ch. 9). The support for this partition theory is fourfold: (1) there is a conspicuous discrepancy between chs. 10-13 and the rest of the letter; (2) chs. 8 and 9 are individual appeals to participate in the collection; (3) 2:14-7:4 must be a letter fragment inserted into the text since the thought of 2:12-13 is continued seamlessly in 7:5-6; and (4) 6:14-7:1 is a non-Pauline interpolation.

In Chapter 1, Welborn expresses his amazement in finding only three articles that thematically examine the identity of the wrongdoer and the nature of his offence (recorded in 2 Cor 2 and 7), especially because this incident lies at the root of the relational issues between Paul and Corinth. He therefore explains how he will approach the matter: a detailed exegesis of pertinent texts, a close examination of vocabulary describing the offence, an appeal to ancient rhetorical conventions to explain why Paul does not mention the offender by name, and the use of prosopographic data to determine the individual's social status.

Chapter 2 details the history of interpretation on the wrongdoer and the offence. For eighteen-hundred years, one view prevailed: the wrongdoer was the incestuous man whom Paul had expelled in 1 Cor 5. Tertullian, however, was the only exception. He argued that the two accounts are separate incidents. Much later, F. C. Baur and Heinrich Ewald built on Tertullian's conclusion and triggered a decisive break with this interpretation. By the twentieth century, the traditional interpretation had been largely abandoned. With the help of two recent theories by M. Thrall and C. K. Barrett, Welborn advances a working hypothesis in this chapter: (1) the wrongdoer was a member of the Corinthian church, (2) influenced by Jewish-Christian opponents, (3) and offended Paul during his second visit to Corinth; (4) money was involved in the injury, most likely in the connection with the collection, (5) with the Corinthians somehow complicit in his offence.

Chapter 3 contains well-informed inferences, extrapolated from a detailed exegetical analysis of specific texts in 2 Corinthians. Through the lens of Greco-Roman literature and ancient conciliatory and therapeutic letters, Welborn investigates various terms related to the offence against Paul (χαρίζεσθαι, ἐπιτιμία, λυπεῖν, πρᾶγμα, and ἀδικεῖν). Consequently, he adds three crucial pieces to his working hypothesis: (1) the wrongdoer possessed high social status; (2) enjoyed a patron-client friendship with Paul; and (3) “the offence involved Paul and the wrongdoer in a legal dispute, in which a fraudulent use of funds was somehow a factor” (p. 59).

Turning to 2 Cor 10-13, Welborn bolsters this hypothesis by going against the tide of the majority of scholars and affirming that the singular pronouns and verbs in 10:7, 10-11; 11:16; and 12:6 refer to the wrongdoer rather than Paul's opponent(s). As such, much can be said about the offender. This individual possesses a clear understanding of the Christ-event that accords well with early apostolic preaching (“belonging to Christ,” 10:7). He also looks down on Paul for plying a trade (a common view among the elite; 10:1), and he was most likely trained in rhetoric and Stoic ideology (10:10-11). In view of the wrongdoer's high social position, Welborn reasons that he must have been behind the criticism leveled against Paul in 11:7-11 and 12:13-15, two explicit texts that involve the refusal of an offered gift and the ensuing charge of mishandling funds for the collection (12:16-18).

Chapter 4 depends heavily on the work of Peter Marshall but also supplements it to explain why Paul does not mention the wrongdoer by name. Welborn appeals to the rhetorical convention of periphrasis, a convention associated with friendship, enmity, and political rivalry that permitted the writer to denigrate a well-known person in the community. But Paul intentionally uses this convention in order to reconcile this alienated friend. Then after drawing inferences from what can be known about the social status of the wrongdoer, as well as examining hospitality as a form of reconciliation, Welborn concludes that “Gaius was the wrongdoer” (p. 287). He was part of the wealthy elite and served as a host for Paul and the whole church (Rom 16:23; cf. 1 Cor 1:14).

Chapter 5 advances prosopography as a means to recreate a social portrait of Gaius. By extracting information from archaeology, onomastics, and epigraphy, he deduces that Gaius was a wealthy Roman provincial with considerable wealth and status, who was very familiar with the cultural norms of friendship, and who owned a home large enough to house the congregation.

In his final chapter (ch. 6), Welborn reconstructs the history of friendship between Paul and his “host” Gaius, the wrongdoer. To understand this relationship, the model of “friendship” between two socially unequal parties is applied. This is supported by the strong affinities between the language Paul employs in 2 Corinthians and the language of ancient friendship. The relational picture that emerges may be summarized as follows:

Having met Paul during his first visit to Corinth, Gaius, a God-fearer, believed in Christ (Acts 18:8) and was baptized by Paul (1 Cor 1:14). Being wealthy, he sought out a patron-client friendship that involved acting as his host and supplying financial support. But Paul refused and plied a trade instead (1 Cor 9:1-18). This created a rift in their relationship, particularly because there were some, such as Apollos, who had accepted monetary support (cf. 1 Cor 9:12). In response, Gaius, along with other wealthy members, refrained from contributing to the Jerusalem collection, considering it a façade for Paul's underhanded ways. During Paul's second visit, Gaius accused the apostle of embezzlement. This event disturbed Paul emotionally, provoking him to write the “tearful letter” (2 Cor 10-13), before sending his Conciliatory Apology (2:14-6:13; 7:2-4). Together, these letters produced repentance in Gaius and in other members, as seen in Paul's Therapeutic Epistle (1:1-2:13; 7:5-16; see esp. 7:7-11). Thereafter, Paul sends another appeal to reinvigorate their participation in the collection (2 Cor 9) since his initial entreaty had failed (2 Cor 8).

There is much to commend in An End to Enmity, such as Welborn's close attention to detail in the exegetical sections, his admirable handle on the Greco-Roman sources and first-century cultural conventions, and his intellectual honesty concerning his well-informed theory concerning Gaius as the wrongdoer in 2 Corinthians. He even admits that his argument would be less valid if his reconstruction of the tearful letter as 2 Cor 10-13 was not correct (p. 207). While his partition theory is dubious, having been challenged by many scholars who affirm the unity of the letter on literary and rhetorical grounds (i.e., Ivar Vegge, Frederick Long, Frank Matera, Reimund Bieringer, etc.), I particularly question whether or not patronage or “friendship” is the most helpful model through which to analyze Paul's relationship with the Corinthians, the opponents, or even the wrongdoer.

At one point, Welborn asks, “But who would doubt the usefulness of 'patronage' as a category for analyzing relationships in the Roman world?” (p. 388). To which I would say that the model of patronage is indeed helpful when examining relationships in the Roman world, but Paul's bond with his churches is not your typical relationship “in the Roman world.” Those relationships exist “in the economy of grace” and always comprise a “vertical” party, God, whose presence necessarily reconfigures the “horizontal” dimension of relationship. From Paul's perspective, his relationships are therefore triangulated. This poses a problem when applying a model, such as patronage or friendship, which is fit only for two. But Welborn, for the most part, focuses on Gaius's perspective on Paul's actions, especially when determining the causes of the rupture in their relationship (utilitarian motives, deception, and ill character [see pp. 426-30]). One wonders what the outcome of his study would have been if he expounded on Paul's theological perspective of their relationship rather than providing a historical description.

In any case, Welborn has served scholars and students well by providing an exhaustive resource on the wrongdoer in 2 Corinthians, for even if you disagree with his informed hypothesis about Gaius, you will nevertheless be confronted by an incisive alternative with which to interact.