Faith without religion.
WELCOME
PRAYER
SONG
SILENCE
Okay let’s hit the last two verses of chapter 11. Last week, Paul had detailed all he had suffered as an apostle as a means to compare his experience with the nay-sayers who were attacking him.
Then we ended with him writing:
31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
Paul has been comparing his credentials of suffering against those of his critics and ended it by testifying that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knows that he does not lie.
He concludes with one more tale of woe, the attempted capture of him and says:
2nd Corinthians 11:32-12.5
Meat
March 10th 2019
32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:
33 And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.
This seems to detail an instance of peril which appears to have escaped his recollection in the rapid account of his dangers enumerated in the previous verses.
Luke describes this tale in Acts 9 and it seems to be just some detail on how dangerous his life as an apostles actually was, and how he narrowly escaped capture on some occasions.
Luke does not mention the name of the king or give reference to the fact that the governor kept the city with a garrison.
Neither does Paul give the name of the Governor. But no matter. It is not improbable that he was a Jew, or at any rate he was one who could be influenced by the Jews, and who was doubtless excited by the Jews to guard the city, and if possible to take Paul as a malefactor.
Luke does tell us in (Acts 9:23-24) that the Jews took counsel against Paul to kill him, and that they watched the gates night and day to get him.
There were three kings who are mentioned by ancient writers as having this name of Aretas the King.
The first is mentioned in 2 Mac. v. 8, as the “king of the Arabians.” He lived about one hundred and seventy years before Christ, and of course could not be the one referred to here.
The second is mentioned in Josephus, Ant., b. xiii., chap. xv., & 2. He is first, mentioned as having reigned in Coelo-Syria, but as being called to the government of Damascus by those who dwelt there, on account of the hatred which they bore to Ptolemy Meneus.
The third, and likely character, was the father in law of Herod Antipas.
This Aretas made war with Herod and when engaged he made an incursion to Syria and seized Damascus, where he was reigning when Paul went there.
Paul says that he “kept the city with a garrison,” a word that means a watch, which was essentially a body of men stationed around.
Damascus was surrounded, as all ancient cities were, with high walls, and it did not occur to them that he could escape in any other way than by the gates. But Paul tells us:
33 And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall and escaped his hands.
When it says window is means a little door or aperture in the wall large enough for a person to fit through.
The word here used “sarganh” means anything braided or twisted; hence a rope-basket, a net-work of cords – like a wicker hamper.
So that gets us to chapter 12 – let’s read the first five verses where he says:
2nd Corinthians 12:1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
2nd Corinthians 12:1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
The King James is heady but YLT says:
‘To boast, really, is not profitable for me, for I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.’
Paul has made it abundantly clear that boasting is fruitless – but he keeps doing it! The wording here seems to be, “Such a man as I am ought not to boast.”
And so he turns to another subject – and says that he will now approach, discuss or present another interesting fact –
Visions and revelations of the Lord.
I can’t tell if Paul is suggesting that to boast of such is permissible, especially if he was the one to have the visions or if to boast of such things that have happened in another person’s life is permissible.
ay not be said about visions and revelations. I will speak, therefore, of a man who had some remarkable revelations, and inquire whether he has any right to boast of the favours imparted to him.” This seems to me to be the probable interpretation of this passage.
Our translators have omitted the word (“gar”) in the text, evidently supposing that it was not necessary.
One commentator, Doddridge, translates it, “nevertheless.”
So it seems that it contains an important sense and should be rendered, THEN:
In other words:
“Since it is not fit that I should glory, then I will refer to visions and revelations.
. . . “I will turn away, then, from that subject, and come to another.”
The word vision is used in the Scriptures to describe a manner in which Divine communications were usually made to men.
This was done by God causing some scene to appear to pass before the mind so that the individual seemed to see a representation of what was to occur in some future or past period.
It was usually applied to prophecy and is most often used in the Old Testament.
The vision which Paul here refers to here was that which he (or maybe someone else) was permitted to have of the heavenly world.
In addition to visions, Paul adds, “And revelations of the Lord.”
Of course the word rendered revelations means, “an uncovering,” – APOCAPLYPTO – and truly means to remove a vail of ignorance and darkness so that an object may be clearly seen.
He revealed his shoulders is a good example.
This is why Revelation is the revealing of what would happen in the end of that age which was not completely revealed before when Christ walked the earth.
I would suggest that since God appears, in want to reveal his mysteries to his children, to uncover what is hidden to them who do not believe or who do not care to search, revelations continue to occur between God and Man.
Of course the revelations would build upon what truth have already have been provided in and through the life of Jesus Christ and the record of his life and ministry, and not come from left field as so many modern day revelators might try and suggest.
At this point Paul says, speaking of visions and revelations:
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
The general opinion on this passage is that Paul, who had been accused of boasting, was trying to tell an amazing account without implicating himself – and when we look at the context of boasting in this and several chapters before, this makes sense.
Add in that we read in
Acts 14:9 And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.
And then in Acts 22:17-18 we read of Paul:
Acts 22:17 And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;
18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.
We have some evidence that Paul had not only been considered dead (at one time, and in fact last week said that he had experienced many deaths) but that he was also capable of Revelations and visions.
So, we have to decide for ourselves if this is Paul, not boasting, and talking about himself OR if for some odd reason he is speaking of another man.
Why would he insert the experiences of another person here? It really doesn’t make too much sense that he would – unless he was bent on taking the focus off of himself.
It’s a reach I admit, and in all probability, looking at the context, he is speaking of himself, as much as I want him to be talking about John the Beloved and the Revelation of Revelation.
Let’s see what we discover as Paul says:
“I knew a man in Christ.”… I was acquainted with a Christian.
In scripture its not uncommon for a writer to speak of himself in the third person and it again appears to always be a form of humility – which is the opposite of boasting.
John the Beloved in particular was known to do this. So does Julius Caesar in his commentaries.
For a similar reason Paul may have been unwilling to mention his own name here.
So he says,
“I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
It is commonly held that this epistle was composed around 58 AD so 14 years prior would have been around 44 AD.
The first apostolic counsel was held in Jerusalem (to discuss circumcision of the Gentiles) about 50 AD – so if the dating of II Corinthians is off by 4 years and was penned around 62 AD, its possible – just possible – that Paul was writing about someone else who had been caught up in the third heaven.
The only one in scripture to be caught up into heaven and to witness what was there was John the Beloved, as represented in Revelation 4, where we read:
1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
It’s just a thought. So Paul adds, regarding this man who was caught up in the third heaven:
“Whether in the body, I cannot tell.”
Whether the body was caught up to heaven; whether the soul was for a time separated from the body; or whether the scene passed before the mind in a vision, so that he seemed to have been caught up to heaven, he does not pretend to know.
The evident idea is that at the time the man was in a state of insensibility in regard to surrounding objects, and was unconscious of what was occurring, perhaps it was as if he had been dead.
What is clear is the man lost all consciousness of anything relative to his corporeal body.
We must note, however that by this comment Paul supposed that his soul might be taken to heaven without the body, and that it might have separate consciousness, or a separate existence.
The implication of this is the proof that Paul was not a materialist who believe that human existence and consciousness of the soul is dependent on a connection with a material body.
This idea teaches that at death the soul sleeps and waits until the resurrection of the material body to regain its awareness.
The work around or exception to this would be Mormonism which teaches that the spirit of the person does exist outside a connection to the body, but the way it remains wholly materialist is to say that the spirit is material but only of refined matter invisible to the human eye.
Getting back to Paul, he claims he is unaware of the state in which the man in Christ was caught up in the third heaven, but adds: “God knoweth.”
Which needs no explanation but he adds:
“such an one caught up to the third heaven.”
That phrase, “such an one caught up” comes from the word (harpadzo) means, “to be seized upon, to be snatched away as wolves do their prey.”
Paul conveys that a foreign force seized him and snatched him up to heaven as the word describes suddenness and quickness, taken away to “the third heaven.”
We know that in their writings that the Jews sometimes would speak of seven heavens (and Mohammed borrowed this idea from the Jews).
But the Bible speaks of but three heavens; and among the Jews in the apostolic ages, also, the heavens were divided into three:
(first) The aerial, including the clouds and the atmosphere, the heavens above us, until we come to the stars.
(2.) The starry heavens–the heavens in which the sun, moon, and stars appear to be situated.
(3.) The heavens beyond the stars. That heaven was supposed to be the residence of God, of angels, and of spirits.
Of course it was this upper heaven, the dwelling-place of God, to which Paul was taken, and whose wonders he was permitted to behold–this region where God dwelt, where Christ was seated at the right hand of the Father, and where the spirits of the just were assembled.
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
Occasionally in holy writ, words and sometimes phrases are repeated for emphasis and that is what Paul does here.
“He was intimately acquainted with such a man, and that he did not know whether he was in the body or out of the body. All that was known to God . . . “
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
Some have supposed that Paul here, by the word “paradise,” means to describe a different place from that described in the phrase “the third heaven;” Why he uses third heaven in the first account and paradise in the second is unknown to me – unless paradise was part of the third heaven
The word paradise (parad-eye-sos) occurs only three times in the New Testament, Luke 23:43; Revelation 2:7; and here in II Corinthians.
Lu 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
And, of course, this mention by Paul.
It is interesting that the Revelation passage speaks of the tree of life which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Why would a tree be there?
When we look to the Old Testament translation in Greek, the Septuagint, this term is translated into the word “garden.”
There are at least fourteen expressions of this in the Old Testament (Genesis 2:8-10,15; 3:1-3,8,10,23; 13:10; Numbers 24:6; Ezekiel 28:13; 31:8,9; Joel 2:3; Isaiah 1:30; Jeremiah 29:5)).
This specific word had its origin in the language of eastern Asia.
In Sanscrit, the word paradesha means a land elevated and cultivated.
In Armenian, pardes describes a garden around the house planted with trees, shrubs, grass, for use and ornament.
In Persia, the word denotes the pleasure-gardens and parks with wild animals around the country residences of the monarchs and princes.
The word was later adopted in the Greek, the Roman, and other western languages.
So it too describes in general a garden of pleasure and in the New Testament is applied to the abodes of the blessed after death, the dwelling-place of God and of happy spirits; or to heaven as a place of blessedness.
To me, as far as I can tell, this garden is in the middle of the New Jerusalem, where God and Christ dwell.
Whoever went there – whether it was Paul or he spoke of another – they heard “unspeakable words.”
A term that means either words that cannot be spoken or should not be spoken.
Apparently, Paul meant to say that he could not attempt by words to do justice to what he saw and heard.
He goes so far as to say that the words were not lawful for a man to utter or not proper to give utterance to those things; it would not be right to attempt it.
It might be also true that it would not have been possible for language to convey clearly the ideas connected with the things which Paul was then permitted to see; but the main thought is, that there was some reason why it would not be proper for him to have attempted to communicate those ideas to men at large.
The Jews held that it was unlawful to pronounce the Tetragrammaton, i.e., the name of four letters, (HEBREW,) JEHOVAH; and whenever that name occurred in their Scriptures, they substituted the name Adonai in its place.
They maintain, indeed, that the true pronunciation is utterly lost, and none of them to this day attempt to pronounce it.
But this seems to have been a mere superstition.
Paul and John were taken to heaven, either in reality or in vision, and who returned again to the earth, and were then qualified to communicate the important truths about the heavenly world from personal observation.
Enoch and Elijah were taken to heaven; but they returned not to converse with men.
Elijah appeared with Moses in conversation with Jesus on the mount of transfiguration; but they conversed with him only about his death, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem, Luke 9:31.
Lazarus was raised from the dead, (John 11:1-57), and many of the saints which had slept in their graves arose at the death of Jesus, (Matthew 27:52,) but there is no intimation is ever given that they communicated anything to the living about the heavenly world.
So . . . that was then. Has it changed. I cannot help but wonder. If it has we have to ask:
Why wasn’t Paul or others permitted to describe the heavenly realm? And then also, “why would so many people see this realm today and return and report it?”
It seems that Jesus story of the Rich Man and Lazarus held weight until the wrapping up of that age, and the gulf between sheols prison and paradise was impassible.
Once all the element of that age were passed, and we entered in the age to come, where hell and Satan and the Law and sin were overcome by the Victor Christ, it seems that the heavens opened and more and more people are also being taken up to the third heaven and coming back to report on it.
It seems.
In any case, Paul adds at verse 5
5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
Of such a man it would be right to boast. It would be okay to admit that such a being and his experience was worthy of some bragging.
This line is what allows me to think that Paul could be describing the events of another person, like John perhaps.
Could be wrong, and if I am then Paul is playing a really interesting game of divide the self and speak of one part of his person as boasting in his infirmities and the other part of himself being free to boast in his revelations and vision.
It is SUCH a game that I have a hard time accepting it seriously.
The term translated such a one is TOY-OO-TOS and it means, “an individual.”
The term for myself is “EM-OW-TOO” and it means, “of myself.”
Word games or plain speaking – you decide. If word games, its odd for scripture. If plain speaking, Paul is talking about someone else.
Alright, let sojourn a little further out, shall we – as Paul continues his thought on boasting and says
6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
“For though I would desire to glory, I will not be a fool.”
Paul seems to say that if he chose to boast as other men boasted there would be plenty to boast about. And he adds that in so doing, “I shall not be a fool,” meaning, there would be merit to my boasts, he adds, “For I will say the truth.”
“But now I will hold back, unless any man should think of me above that which he sees me to be, or that he hears of me.”
In other words, I don’t need to boast because the end result will be that men would view me by more that what they see and hear of me and my life.
I’m frankly tired of Paul talking about boasting or not. And I find all of this talk nonsense – at least in this day and age.
I do not see it as inspired of God and instead what seems like an endless defense against claims that he was a boaster.
Finally, he adds an insight that is not boasting (directly) but gives us some insight to his life as he says:
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
And lest I should be exalted – Lest I should be spiritually proud; lest I should become self-confident and vain, and suppose myself that I was a special favorite of Heaven, he says.
I mean, let’s be honest – he sounds boastful. I get the charge against him. This is not to say that he was, but his manner and even words do sound like he has a tendency to brag a bit about the things he has experienced at the hands of the Lord.
I’m just saying.
I supposed that if Paul was in danger of spiritual pride its pretty reasonable.
There is abundant reason to believe that Paul was naturally a proud man. He was by nature self-confident; trusting in his own talents and attainments, and eminently ambitious. When he became a Christian, therefore, one of his besetting sins could naturally be pride; and as he had been peculiarly favored in his call to the apostleship; and then in his success as a preacher; in also in the standing which he had among the other apostles; and then to add in the revelations imparted to him, he was probably challenged by the trait of boasting.
And so here he admits something – ready? He says:
“There was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.”
The word which Paul uses is worthy of special notice. It is that this “thorn in the flesh” was given to him, implying that it was a favor.
It was given him. He does not complain of it; he does not say it was sent in cruelty; he does not even speak of it as an affliction; he speaks of it as a gift, as any man would receive of a favour that had been bestowed on him.
And this “thorn in the flesh” served to keep him humble.
The word here used (skolops) does not occur anywhere else in the New Testament.
It means, properly, anything pointed or sharp, e.g., a stake or palisade, (Xen. Anab. 5,2,5;) or the point of a hook.
The word is used in the Septuagint to denote a thorn or prickle, as a translation of HEBREW, in Hosea 2:6,
“I will hedge up thy way with thorns.”
Whether he refers to some infirmity or pain in the flesh or the soul or mind or spirit is another question, and a question in which interpreters have been greatly divided on in opinion.
Every one has an opinion.
Some of the oldies are hilarious.
Baxter, for some odd reason thinks the thorn was a stone. Doddridge thinks that in seeing the glories of heaven caused Paul to have a nerve disorder where he stammered in his speech and perhaps had a twisted face.
Many of the Latin Fathers supposed that some unruly and ungovernable lust was intended.
Chrysostom and Jerome suppose that he meant a headache; Tertullian, an earache; and Rosenmuller supposes that it was the gout in the head.
And the biggie in our age is that this thorn was a problem with his eyesight, based on the fact that Paul said that the Saints of Galatia would have plucked their very eyes out and given them to him.
Bottom line – we don’t know. I personally think that Paul had a a prejudice against left handed people with beards.
However, Paul adds, “the messenger of Satan.”
Among the Hebrews it was customary to attribute severe and painful diseases to Satan.
Job 2:6 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life. 7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.
And we remember Jesus saying to the Pharisees who did not want Jesus to heal a woman on the Sabbath, said:
“And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?”
So, in the time of the Savior, malignant spirits are known to have taken possession of the body in numerous cases, and to have produced painful bodily diseases; and Paul here says that Satan was permitted to bring this calamity on him.
Why? “To buffet me.”
To smite and to mistreat him. The meaning is, that Satan’s design was to deeply to afflict him.
Why?
Because plain and simple, it keeps us humble. Bottom Line.
Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
Hebrews 12:5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Proverbs 3:12 For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
For these reasons and more Paul seems to have considered his chastening as a gift, one that would serve to keep him on the right path of humility before God.
Of course the application is clear for all believers – whatever the trial, the disease, the failures in the body, God allows them as a means to keep his children humble before Him.
We will stop here.
Q and A
Prayer
