Two CORINTHIANS twelve:one through ten
Two CORINTHIANS twelve:one through ten
Form/Structure/Setting
The thrust of what Paul has to say in the present passage is that his strength comes through admission of his weakness. He learned this lesson and shares it with the Corinthians in twelve:one through ten in a highly polemical setting. The overall picture of our passage is that Paul has taken up the posture of boasting (twelve:one a). As will be stated, he has been forced to do so by the Corinthians (twelve:eleven). Paul sees no value in such boasting (as his opponents evidently do), yet he goes on to relate the incident of his vision (twelve:one b through four). He exhibits concern not to draw attention to himself in this rehearsal by speaking in the third person. Paul knew "this man" who had a heavenly vision. The vision contained words that cannot be uttered by him or any mortal (twelve:four). In verse five, Paul begins to share with his readers that he is the "mystery" man of twelve:two through four. Yet he refrains from using this fact as an opportunity to present his own apostolic person as something of great value. Rather, he turns toward his own weakness in continuity with eleven:twenty-three through thirty-three. Instead of boasting in things that others cannot see, Paul urges his readers to look simply at what they know of him (twelve:six). This leads into Paul's famous passage concerning the thorn in the flesh (twelve:seven) and his prayer that it be removed (twelve:eight). Having received an answer of no, Paul then proceeds to remark on the power of God coming through human weakness. In light of this experience (twelve:nine), Paul boasts in his weaknesses, for in such weaknesses the power of Christ rests upon him. He then concludes our present passage by saying that he delights in weaknesses (twelve:ten), for such is the time when he is strong, i.e., to do the work of an apostle (Philippians four:thirteen).
This, in short, is a summary of twelve:one through ten. But we would be remiss if we failed to examine this passage with the intent to discover the literary style. In twelve:one through ten, we have a mosaic of literary devices that yields an interesting picture. In this passage Paul is answering a criticism from his opponents, namely, that he boasts little, and even when he boasts, it is only of weakness. Paul's reply is to engage in an ad hominem argument. He will presently meet the opponents on their own level and then, in a masterful way, show that it is his ministry, not theirs, that is of God. Our present passage brings to mind Paul's "opening of his heart" in six:eleven through thirteen. In the earlier passage Paul's thoughts were not kept to himself, but rather he shared more than he intended. In our present passage, Paul again opens up his inner thoughts, this time sharing an experience that up till then was known only to him and God. In ten:thirteen he had backed away from boasting; now he is urged to it by serious threats to his apostolate at eleven:four, thirteen through fifteen.
Paul follows eleven:thirty-three-the lowering of him by his friends via the Damascus wall-with verses that seek to build up "a certain man." In apologetic form twelve:one through six a appears as an aretalogy, i.e., a tribute of praise in honor of a great man as well as of a Hellenistic deity. Paul seems to be building up this person only to point out that such a self-commendation is not the sign of a true apostle. Paul's picture here of a spectacular or even semidivine worker is reminiscent of the sophists. Paul seems to be attacking this way of promoting the Gospel, for twelve:seven through ten will lead the reader to see that expressing one's weakness is the only acceptable way to follow Christ in his service. This final point is not confined only to the last part of twelve:one through ten. But in an opening irony, Paul introduces the thought in twelve:one that, while he must continue boasting, there is nothing to be gained by it.
In twelve:two through four Paul reveals autobiographical information known before only to him and God. Fourteen years earlier Paul was taken up into the third heaven, namely, paradise. The apostle relates twice that he is yet unsure as to whether this experience took place in the body or outside of it, i.e., with or without sensory perception. All the time he is describing this experience (though his description is vague and mysterious) he uses the third person. This may reflect Paul's Jewish background, or it may simply suggest that he wants his readers to see that, though he experiences visions and revelations like his opponents, nevertheless the man about whom Paul speaks is not the one he desires to emulate. Winisch, three hundred seventy, describes the pericope as Bescheidenheitsstil, a style that trades on the speaker's modesty, but this is to be questioned. It is doubtful too that Paul is engaged in "the objectifying of the I," nor is he employing the convention of the pseudonymity of the apocalyptic, in which an anonymous seer transfers his personal experience to a well-known figure. Paul neither is one who sells his teaching for profit nor baffles his hearers with mystical language simply for pride (like the sophists). Rather, in polemical fashion, twelve:four speaks of the things he knows as an apostle. He has heard inexpressible words. This paradoxical statement could not be verified by the Corinthians. The point is that Paul wants his readers to evaluate him on the basis of nothing except what they can see and hear of him (twelve:six). If Paul can convince them that this is the correct way, then, in turn, they should ask his opponents to provide similar tangible evidence. This is the challenge first posed in eleven:twenty-one through twenty-three. And he trusts that his contest will lead the Corinthians to see that these opponents are indeed false in the sight of God.
In this section (verses two through four) we note the parallel structures of Paul's two descriptions of his heavenly experience. The first description is found in verse two and the second in verse three, four.
Verse three, four
α) οίδα άνθρωπον εν Χριστώ
a) και οίδα τον τοιούτον άνθρωπον - b) --b) πρό έτων δεκατεσσάρων c) είτε εν σώματι ούκ οίδα,
c) είτε εν σώματι
d) είτε έκτος του σώματος ούκ οίδα,
d) είτε χωρίς του σώματος ούκ οίδα,
e) ο θεός οίδεν e) ο θεός οΐδεν f) άρπαγέντα τον τοιούτον
f) ότι ήρπάγη
g) έως τρίτου ουρανού
g) είς τον παράδεισον
h) και ήκουσεν άρρητα ρήματα, ά κτλ.
h) ---
From this format, it appears that both descriptions are of the same event. Verse three begins with kai and some scholars think that this "and" introduces an additional vision. But it is doubtful that this is the case. More likely, verses three, four reflect a repetition of the event described in verse two, and the second description is added to create a deeper impression. We see that Paul is speaking of only one event in verses two through four.
In twelve verse five we have again Paul's use of irony. The man who had this vision can surely boast of greatness, but rather the correct way, according to Paul, is to boast of the nonspectacular, namely, weakness. In twelve verse five Paul refers to himself as the man who had the vision. This "introduction" is seen in the somewhat parallel construction of verse five:
υπέρ του τοιούτου καυχήσομαι,
υπέρ δέ έμαυτού ού καυχήσομαι, εί μή εν ταις ασθενείας
The last half of the second line points out that Paul has come in weakness. The polemic which started in twelve verse four continues in verse five, for Paul has now set himself off from his opponents. He continues this polemic in twelve verse six, though in a restrained manner. If Paul had boasted about his own accomplishments, he would be truthful, for he had many things of which to be proud. But instead of attacking his opponents in a more energetic manner, Paul begins a transition from the reasons for his being able to boast of himself to the reasons not to do so. The section of twelve verses seven through ten becomes a discussion on weakness. Or, as Betz suggests, it is an "aretalogy of Christ." In twelve verses seven through ten Paul will explain that weakness is the way to power and this power comes from Christ, who was "crucified in weakness." This has been called "the most celebrated paradox in the New Testament" by E. Fuchs.
The idea of the thorn in the flesh has been the source of much discussion. Paul is silent with respect to what this "thorn" was. Most likely, the Corinthians knew of what he was speaking. It has been noted that the account of the vision of Paul is placed between the experience of leaving Damascus hurriedly and mention of the thorn. The vision is thus tempered and framed by the record of humiliating experiences. The thorn was given to prevent Paul from becoming conceited, literally "too uplifted." In an indirect manner, Paul is still carrying on the polemic directed at his opponents. Had his opponents offered similar "guarantees" that they too would not be conceited? Or had they simply gloated all the more because of Paul's "thorn"? This becomes even more striking in that Paul was probably ridiculed for his thorn. If it was an illness or physical defect, then his enemies could ask why he could not heal himself. But in a sense Paul is saying he has been healed, for the ailment is from God, and thus in God's power Paul is "made well."
A quick glance at verse seven b reveals a chiastic, or criss-cross structure,
ίνα μή υπεραίρωμαι
εδόθη
ίνα μή υπεραίωμαι
κολαφίζη
But to stop here with this observation overlooks the idea that between cooln and KoNapisn we have another chiasmus, namely
σκόλοψ τη σαρκί
έδόθη μοι
με κολαφίζη
This second, or inner, chiasmus, highlights the point that the phrase "messen- ger of Satan" is in apposition to "thorn in the flesh" (Zmijewski, Der Stil, 365, n. 299; 366). There is much discussion as to whether the thorn in the flesh refers to an illness of Paul or an opponent of Paul. It is difficult to be certain about either (see Comment for discussion of both sides of the issue), but the important thing to remember is that God has given Paul something to keep him weak, in spite of his heavenly vision, and that his weakness (picking up 10:10) becomes the "criterion of ministry" (Jervell, ibid., 197; cf. Käse- mann, Die Legitimität, 60-64).
From this account Paul, with God's power upon him, had turned weakness into victory. The personal nature of this transformation can be seen from the chiastic structure of twelve verse nine, for the idea of grace and power is related to Paul's own person.
Α άρκεϊ C' ή γάρ δύναμις
Β' έν ασθενείς
C ή χάρις μου
Α' τελείται
In a way Paul has experienced a cure, though not in the normal sense of the word. Betz sees this verse twelve nine as a healing oracle, "Aretalogie," but Zmijewski's criticisms are well taken. More apposite is the form of Jewish prayer-speech, for example, Mark fourteen verse thirty-two through thirty-six, Jesus in Gethsemane, Windisch; cf. Plummer, Allo, Prümm, Diakonia one: six hundred seventy. Paul has received the power of Christ because he has accepted the answer of God, and proceeded to minister in spite of the thorn not being removed.
He brings our passage to a climax by using a slogan, a piece of paradox, to argue once more against his opponents. "When I am weak, then I am strong" refutes the position of his opponents. The apostle has shown that if one must boast, then it should only be in weakness, so as to provide an opportunity for God's strength to be manifest. This is easy to see in light of Paul's parallel constructions of nine b, ten. We cite Zmijewski who builds on Windisch.
Paul's weaknesses-whether exhibited in his sufferings for the Gospel or centered in the thorn in the flesh-have been his criteria for true apostleship. He has entered into the fray, not in order to boast of his own achievement, but to boast of his weaknesses. By doing so he has offered the Corinthians an alternative to the opponents that harass him. The alternative is strength-based-on-weakness, a theme no doubt foreign to the opponents of Paul, but one that expressed the heart of his Gospel of a crucified Lord.
Comment
Comment
One. καυχάσθαι δει, "I must go on boasting." Literally, the text runs "it is necessary to boast." The use of the impersonal verb deî, "it is necessary," alerts the readers that the theme of boasting will remain in front of them. Paul has "boasted" throughout chapters ten (verses eight, thirteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen) and eleven (verses ten, twelve, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, thirty), and he will continue this theme in our present chapter (verses one, five, six, nine). Paul counterattacked his opponents in the previous chapter by presenting his list of accomplishments. He was a Jew of the highest quality. Moreover, he had the credentials of a true apostle. He had suffered much for the cause of Christ. Yet, Paul was hesitant to boast about himself. Rather, Paul boasted in order to show the power of God. He had written earlier, "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord." Furthermore, in eleven thirty Paul paves the way for similar boasting. He boasts in order to show his weakness. Denney sees Paul choosing to boast in things that men would judge as weak and shameful.
Paul was driven to boast twelve eleven. He has played the fool for he has taken on the practice of boasting as the world does. We note that in twelve one Paul will continue this boasting, an idea suggested by the present tense. It is linked with eleven seventeen. Kavxãolat, "to boast," is a present infinitive, possibly Paul's way of showing that he will not cease to boast at this time. But there is a method to Paul's line of attack. He has to show that he is not inferior to the so-called "super-apostles." To do so, Paul boasts as do his opponents. But Paul's boasting will ultimately lead to God's glory, something his opponents do not set as their aim, in his estimation. It appears that Paul felt it imperative to boast in order both to gain the attention of the Corinthians and to overthrow the position of his opponents, though he had his doubts about its effectiveness.
Barrett views the sentence "I must go on boasting" as a Corinthian watchword. This is not an untenable position, for Paul has a habit of using slogans. If Paul was responding to the "mode of operation" of his opponents, it makes sense that he would use this watchword. The main thrust of the opening words of twelve one is that Paul evidently considered boasting the best way to overcome the tide of opposition that was against him. He uses the opponents' term but "undercuts its value and hints at the genre of his language" by his addition in twelve one b.
ού συμφέρον μέν, "though it is of no advantage." We have already discussed the textual variations of this clause. There still remains the question of punctuation. The KJV/AV puts a full stop after pev. But this is not the best choice. Most likely, our present clause is a parenthesis between "I must go on boasting" and "I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord." This is seen in the construction of twelve one by noting Paul's use of pev and dé. These particles bind together the second and the third clauses of our verse. Robertson calls the participle συμφέρον (from συμφέρειν) an accusative absolute. But the syntax of this clause is not the major point for concern.
One question that surfaces is why the writer continues with such "foolish discourse" (as boasting) if it is of no advantage. This would be a valid query if Paul is to be taken literally. Paul's normal usage of ovudepew usually describes the welfare of the Christian community, not of the individual. Did Paul really feel that his boasting would build up the church? This is an issue put by Schlatter, who speaks of the "criterion of usefulness to the church" as a ruling factor in the discussion; it corresponds with oikosoun in Paul's earlier writing to the Corinthians. In an indirect way, he does wish above all to build up the church, but we will see that Paul apparently saw little value in dwelling on the visionary aspect of his life as an aid in edifying the church. This is apparent if one refrains from interpreting these words with sterile literalness. Instead, the phrase "of no advantage" is most likely a polemical statement against his opponents, who have boasted to aid their own cause. Boasting of one's self is not a sign of apostleship. Paul sees boasting as useless unless in the final analysis it deflects glory away from man and directs it toward God. As we shall see, Paul's apostleship is marked by weakness, even in boasting. The "thorn in the flesh" is a means to lead to God's glory, not Paul's.
For Paul, boasting is of no advantage in and of itself. Filson is correct to note that Paul is attempting to show the Corinthians that they are wrong to see good in the boasting of the false apostles. If this last point is true, then the words "of no advantage"-if taken literally-do not reflect the total meaning of Paul. True, the apostle expresses his distaste for boasting by uttering these words. Nevertheless, he also senses that desperate situations call for desperate measures. Possibly Paul has the same ambivalent emotions in his approach to boasting as he did when he wrote the painful, or severe, letter. When Paul constructed the severe letter, he did so with much apprehension. Moreover, he was unsure of the outcome, for he might have been totally rejected by the Corinthians. Likewise, he cannot, with exactness, measure the outcome of his boasting. Yet, he feels it is a necessary evil. As Barrett writes, "It is not expedient to boast, but it might be even more inexpedient not to boast." There may be a touch of irony in twelve:one b, especially as at verse six Paul will acknowledge that he is speaking only "as a fool."
ελεύσομαι δε είς οπτασίας και αποκαλύψεις κυρίου, "I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord." If our assessment of twelve:one b is correct, then Paul retains some embarrassment as he writes these words to the Corinthians. As a rule, Paul does not brag about his visions from the Lord. We must not let the several references in the Acts of the Apostles lead us to think otherwise about Paul. Hughes is right in appreciating the event of twelve:two to four as possibly the "most intimate and sacred" of all Paul's religious experiences. Yet, Paul has been forced to share this event, and this sharing is accomplished through boasting.
To be more specific, Paul is using the ad hominem form of argumentation. He has already set down that the purpose of his boasting is to highlight his weaknesses. In twelve:one the apostle is reporting that boasting will help no one. Yet, Paul feels that he must take his opponents head-on if he is to convince the Corinthians that he remains the true apostle. In short, Paul shows that he too has revelations and visions. The use of the plural orradial, "visions," and αποκαλύψεις, “revelations," suggests that Paul's original intention was to delineate several visionary experiences, but perhaps his reluctance to boast of such experiences led him to limit his "list" to only one. He received "special" revelations. These revelations were understood by Paul as gifts from God. They were not given in order to authenticate his apostleship. Paul never uses his visions and revelations as signs to promote himself as "somebody special." Bruce thinks that, in addition to confronting the position that the false apostles had visions and revelations, Paul may also be addressing the accusation that his ministry was based on an illusory vision, namely, the experience on the Damascus Road in contrast perhaps to the "super-apostles."
Paul's opponents could have leveled the charge against Paul that his lack of "visions" was proof that he was not a true apostle. But lack of frequent reference to visions and revelations is not grounds for concluding that Paul had little or no experience in this realm. Rather, we have argued that Paul's reluctance to speak of visions stems from his desire to avoid drawing too much attention to himself. Paul proceeds with the account of his vision only with some embarrassment.
ελεύσομαι, “I will come,” is the future of έρχεσθαι: είς, “to,” helps to demonstrate the direction in which Paul's thinking is going. Though Paul is against boasting, nevertheless he comes to visions and revelations of the Lord. We may note that there is not a great difference between orragia, "vision," and αποκάλυψης “revelation.” They are interchangeable terms. The two words may be taken from the opponents' vocabulary. The latter word, αποκάλυψης, crops up frequently in his writings. Several times in eschatological contexts Paul employs this word. Also, it is used in reference to his conversion, as well as to a special revelation that preceded a journey to Jerusalem. From this, it is apparent that "revelation" is of wider importance to Paul than "vision." But we should not press this too far. Plummer perhaps captures the flavor needed when addressing the subject of visions and revelations, for he remarks that not all visions reveal something and not all revelations require visions. But we should note that in twelve Paul appears to be saying that the vision of twelve two through twelve four is a source of revelation. It is interesting to note, however, that twelve nine was probably a direct revelation, without the aid of a vision.
This last point is seen from the construction in "visions and revelations of the Lord." Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as subjective, not objective. Most scholars view this genitive as
It may be assumed that the opponents gloried in their transcendental expe- . riences of "visions and revelations," though Windisch (368) is disposed to deny this ("it is nowhere here indicated that the opponents also can boast concerning such visions"). But Schmithals, Gnosticism, 209, is certainly correct to answer this denial, by pointing out that Paul's tack is not different from the one adopted in 11:22, 23; i.e., the comparison is "they-I too" or "they- I all the more." The difference, however, lies in the climax of the pericope, in v 9 where divine power in human weakness will be claimed as the "sole basis of the apostolic existence" (Baumgarten, ibid., 144), i.e., in a word from the Lord, not in a vision sent by the Lord. This is Paul's response; thereby he reduces the visionary experience to a revelation with a "word- of-God" character.
2. οΐδα άνθρωπον εν Χριστώ πρό έτων δεκατεσσάρων, "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago." Immediately we are struck by Paul's use of the third person construction. It is accepted that Paul is referring to himself, but this has not prevented some helpful suggestions as to why Paul employed this use (see Zmijewski, Der Stil, 336). One idea is to see that Paul is reflecting the rabbinical use of "this man" for "I" (Str-B 3:531). Also, some see that Paul is distinguishing between two men within himself, namely, Paul the vision- ary and Paul the man (Wendland, 219). But Hering is right to counter that it was the man, not the visionary that was taken up (90). That is, the self did not necessarily leave the body (see Windisch, 369, 370). Another argument against this Philonic-hellenistic distinction (maintained by Reizenstein, Helle- nistic Mystery-Religions, tr. J. E. Steely [Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978], 82, 83) is that Paul remembers the revelation, a point against the concept of two personali- ties. If Paul had a personality split into two, then it is unlikely he would remember the incident. An illuminating proposal has been given by Betz, who identifies the parallels between this parody of an ascension narrative (12:2-4; Der Apostel Paulus, 84-92) and Paul's line of reasoning in these verses. Paul is reacting, says Betz (ibid., 89), to opponents who are roughly congruent in style with the sophists of Socrates' time. We may recall that there was a reaction to the Socratic school that was centered in a group of teachers who took on the occupation of being a "wise person." These itinerant teachers taught for a fee. They were characterized as emphasizing material success, as well as using their influence for personal reasons.
Betz goes on to describe how the true philosopher used irony to vindicate himself. For the true philosopher, poverty and weakness authenticated the truth of his claim (ibid., 15-18, 20-38). Normally, this person would avoid boasting, but if forced to, would defend himself against false charges by boast- ing and by "playing the fool." In doing so, the philosopher would refrain from referring to himself directly and thus downplay his own accomplishment (ibid., 75-82). It is obvious that there are some similarities to Paul's situation. His opponents underline the material aspect of the ministry as well as use influence (in this case claimed from the Jerusalem hierarchy) as a weapon against the apostle. Likewise, Paul appears as one who "plays the fool" in order to show up his opponents as charlatans. But perhaps Betz has overstated his case, for it is doubtful that Paul was consciously following the Socratic line of thinking in this apology (Lincoln, "Paul the Visionary," 206). Barrett is probably right to notice an inner motivation for Paul's defense that is independent of tradition (307). And Kleinknecht, Der leidende Gerechtfertigte, 301-3, points to the biographical element in this signum apostolicum (see A. Henrichs's review of Betz in JBL 94 [1975] 312).
More likely, Paul's use of the third person is a means of reflecting his embarrassment (or reluctance) at boasting of what he has done or been a part of (see Furnish, 542-44). This makes sense in light of what is to follow. Paul will write in the divinum passivum in 12:7. What has happened has been done to Paul; he did nothing to obtain the vision (see Filson, 405). This can be seen from the phrase ev XploTO, "in Christ." It is more than simply a reference to being "a Christian" (so Barrett, 308). It is Paul's way of showing that it was in Christ's power that the following visions and revelations took place (Plummer, 340). Nothing of Paul's ability is spoken of here. This is yet another example of how all Paul's actions point to Christ, since he is a person "(who lives) in Christ" (Allo, 304, on the ellipse). Tasker relates that experience to being "in Christ," which could be also interpreted to mean that any Christian can have this privilege of a vision, for there are no "favor- ites" in the economy of the church (170); but 11:12 denies that Paul's aposto- late ranks on a par with that of his rivals.
πρό έτων δεκατεσσάρων, "who fourteen years ago." The vividness with which Paul remembers this event is evident in that he can remember the time when it took place. The time of fourteen years before the writing of this epistle (or at least before the writing of chapters ten through thirteen) places the period about A.D. forty-four. Whatever the date of Paul's experience, it was well before the founding of the Corinthian church. What remains a mystery is to what event specifically Paul is referring.
With the date of A.D. forty-four in mind, it appears we can rule out every other visionary experience of Paul recorded in the New Testament. His conversion on the Damascus road, an experience that apparently Paul was more than willing to rehearse (at least from Acts nine verses three through nineteen; twenty-two verses six through ten; twenty-six verses twelve through eighteen), certainly took place long before A.D. forty-four. We can also dismiss the event of the trance Paul fell into described in Acts twenty-two verses seventeen through twenty-one, for in this account the Lord in a vision came to Paul. We read nothing there of Paul being "caught up to the Lord." Events that surely were later than A.D. forty-four are the vision of the Macedonian man entreating Paul to come and help (Acts sixteen verse nine) and the vision he had in Corinth (Acts eighteen verses nine through ten). The period of "fourteen years" found in Galatians two verse one is probably only coincidental and has nothing to do with Second Corinthians twelve verse two.
One suggestion for the occasion of the experience described in twelve verses two through four is that it transpired while Paul was in Antioch. We read that Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch a whole year (Acts eleven verse twenty-six). There is possibly a connection seen between the ecstatic experience (cf. twelve verses two through four) and the commissioning of Paul and Barnabas as missionaries (Acts thirteen verses two and three). Perhaps in some small way, Paul related to the Christians at Antioch that he had received a vision at the hand of the Lord. Bruce only allows that we simply have a reference to an obscure period between the time when Paul was sent to Tarsus (Acts nine verse thirty) and the meeting with Barnabas at Antioch (Acts eleven verse twenty-six; this can possibly be reconstructed from Galatians where Bruce places the visionary experience of Paul between Paul's departure for Syria-Cilicia [one verse twenty-one] and his second post-conversion visit to Jerusalem [two verse one], [Bruce, two hundred forty-six]; some strange proposals have been made to argue that Paul's spirit left his body at his stoning [Acts fourteen verse nineteen], or that he was one of the prophets mentioned in Acts eleven verses twenty-eight and twenty-nine). All in all, we are better to recognize just how much conjecture is involved and agree with Denney that there is nothing that we know of the apostle with which we can identify his experience of twelve verses two through four.
είτε εν σώματι ούκ οΐδα, είτε έκτος του σώματος ούκ οΐδα, ό θεός οΐδεν, "whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know, only God knows." As Paul is relating the experience of "this man" (namely himself) he breaks his thought and inserts a parenthesis. It is as though Paul catches himself and wants to make a sudden (albeit too short) reference to the event of his vision. Barrett remarks in some detail that the words of this parenthesis are not without reason. That is, there was a reason why Paul makes a statement concerning being "in" or "out of the body." On the one hand, Paul does not want to give an indication that he thinks the body is inherently evil. We saw this in our discussion of five verses one through ten, where Paul sought to show that the whole person is involved in salvation, both body and spirit. In other words, Paul was probably well aware of the Corinthian-gnostic view that a religious experience was invalid unless it happened while one was out of the body. On the other hand, it could be that Paul was not intending to deny that one could have an "out of body" experience. Bultmann suggests that Paul's use of "body" (o@ua) shows that the apostle left open the possibility of the soul's leaving the body for an encounter with the spiritual world. Elsewhere, Bultmann, in his commentary, two hundred twenty-one, has a different idea to explain the expression: Paul is thought of as viewing his experience at a distance, as though he were simply an onlooker. Cf. Käsemann, ibid., fifty-five: "to distance oneself from the event as reported." Such a "distancing" may also be seen in the contrast "I do not know . . . God knows" (Zmijewski, ibid., three hundred thirty-seven).
Paul may be relating his ignorance of his state at the time of this event. He simply is not sure whether he went to the "third heaven" in body or in spirit. This may suggest that Paul was alone at the time, for if others had been with him, they could have answered the question of whether or not his body remained in this world. To say that only God knows may be an attempt by Paul to state his ignorance of the matter. Because he refrains from giving an opinion one way or the other his opponents cannot totally reject his boasting. By not eliminating the possibility that Paul could have remained in the body, he avoids undercutting the validity of his other visions. Moreover, it was not uncommon to boast of having come into bodily contact with the divine. Also, by leaving the door open to an "out-of-the-body" experience, he affirms his teaching that there is existence for the soul apart from the body, and that this existence is "one of perceptive consciousness." This latter point no doubt would have caught the attention of the opponents. To have an out-of-the-body experience would have satisfied some Corinthians. As we shall see, Paul never explains in detail this event. Thus, Paul may have carefully constructed the parenthesis of twelve two (and twelve three) in order not to "prejudice" his account with either side by taking a stand on the issue. On the other side, Schmithals sees great significance in the second phrase, εκτός του σώματος, suggesting that Paul considered it possible that he did not leave the body. Hence Paul is deliberately denying the central gnostic concern of dualism with its practice of a celestial journey apart from somatic encumbrance. There may be intended mockery here; in reply to his opponents' certain belief in the soul's heavenward ascent, Paul professes not to know.
Aside from the anthropological considerations of this parenthesis, there is a syntactical detail to note. The first use of ούα in this parenthesis is without the definite article, but the second has one. Plummer submits that εν σώματι is a colloquial expression, paralleling Paul's use of έν with οίκω, "indoors, at home." For Plummer this anarthrous use of σώμα is adverbial. Possibly the explanation is simply that εκτός is an example of an improper preposition. This is also seen in twelve three where Paul replaces εκτός with χωρίς, "apart from." In both cases it appears we have improper prepositions, for "proper" prepositions do not always require the article.
άρπαγέντα τον τοιούτον έως τρίτου ουρανού, "was caught up to the third heaven." After the parenthesis, Paul completes his thought: "A certain man fourteen years before had been caught up to the third heaven." The use of άρπαγέντα (aorist passive participle of αρπάζειν; such language reflects the idea of a "rapture of visions"; see Apoc. Mos. 37:5; also the idea of "catch up" is found in Wisd Sol 4:11; Acts 8:39; Rev 12:5), "caught up," is limited in Pauline literature. It is only found in our present verse and in one Thess 4:17, when Paul speaks of living Christians being caught up with Christ in the air. In Paul's time it was not uncommon to hear of someone being "raptured" into heaven. Much of apocalyptic literature is the product of the seer being granted insight into truths that are in heaven. Barrett makes out a case for this when he cites several sources that parallel Paul's experience. These sources are found in apocalyptic writings such as one Enoch (39:3-4; 52:1), two Enoch (7:1) and three Apoc. Bar. (2:2). But we also come across mystical speculation in rabbinic literature. Not surprisingly Barrett reports that hellenistic mysticism contains a similar phenomenon as found in Plato. Thus, Barrett is right when he concludes that Paul's rapture experience is not necessarily out of the ordinary. What is surprising is that Paul will soon depreciate the value of this experience.
What becomes a difficult question for scholars is one that centers on Paul's intended meaning behind his use of εως Τπitolov ουπavoι, "to the third heaven." A survey of extant literature does not really answer the question. The New
Testament is relatively silent concerning the number of heavens in Jewish cosmology. We find in Eph 1:10 the plural ουπavoι, "heavens," but this does little to help us. It has been noted that the plural "heavens," found in the New Testament, is probably the result of the Hebrew D'DU, samayim, "heavens," which is dual in form. In Ps 63:33 the psalmist describes God as riding upon the "heaven of heavens." This verse has led Hughes, who builds upon Bengel, to hold that Paul's reference to the third heaven is in line with the threefold division in the Old Testament. In this threefold division there is the atmospheric heaven, a stellar heaven (or firmament) and the limitless, or spiritual, heaven, where God is located. If this evaluation is correct, then we could say that Paul ascended to the highest heaven. But this conclusion is not certain, for there were other conceptions of the number of heavens.
At the time of Paul and in Jewish antiquity, the idea of a sevenfold division of heaven was becoming popular. This concept can be found in T. Levi (3:1), two Enoch (8-22) and Asc. Isa. (9). We also can locate the idea of seven heavens in rabbinic literature, such as the Hag. 11b. But three and seven are not the only numbers considered. The numbers five (see three Apoc. Bar. 11:1, "And taking me from this, the angel led me to the fifth heaven") and ten (two Enoch 20:3b, "and on the tenth heaven") are also suggested as identifying the levels of heavenly existence. With these differing accounts before them, some scholars have suggested that we simply cannot know the number of heavens in Paul's mind at the time of this writing. Though certainty may remain beyond our grasp, it does appear probable that Paul had three heavens in mind.
The closing point of the preceding paragraph can be seen by Paul's use of "up to." At first Plummer thinks that this "improper preposition" is not enough to prove that the third heaven is, in Paul's mind, the highest. But Tasker is correct to conclude (and Plummer later comes to a similar conclusion) that it would seem illogical for Paul to write of such blessedness if he were not in the ultimate heaven. That is, Paul would be open to the criticism that his vision and revelation were inadequate if the Corinthians believed there to be seven heavens and Paul only "journeyed" to number three. This argument was observed long ago by Irenaeus. Thus, logic dictates that "up to," in all probability, was used by Paul to show that he-whether in the body or out of it-was raptured up to the highest heaven, namely, the third heaven. This conclusion is also supported in light of the use of "up to," as found elsewhere in the New Testament. When used with the genitive, the preposition denotes "as far as." While one could argue that "as far as" does not say with certainty that Paul had reached the limit, our assumption appears to be the position with the least questions left unanswered. The use of "up to"
in the New Testament suggests that a limit had been reached. Also, in light of our preceding discussion, it seems that Paul needed to reach the zenith if he was to retain his credibility. Moreover, as we shall see in twelve: four, the idea of "paradise" which is to be equated with the "third heaven" suggests even more that Paul had reached the upper level. From our viewpoint, we see Paul as probably thinking of a threefold division of heaven.
Three. και οίδα τον τοιούτον άνθρωπον, "And I know that this man." This sentence begins a verse that parallels or repeats the event described in verse two. Plummer concludes that the opening kai strongly suggests that Paul is speaking of two separate events, one that took place in the third heaven and one in paradise, or at least two separate stages of the same event. Either hypothesis was popular with the patristic writers as well as with some modern commentators. These positions take on strength if one considers paradise as distinguished from the third heaven, for then it is quite apparent that Paul's writing has been accurately perceived. But this has not been accepted by all. Some argue that paradise and the third heaven are equivalent. Moreover, since there is only one date given (the fourteen years in twelve: one) and only one description of the content (twelve: four, albeit Paul shares little with his readers), it appears that in twelve: two and four Paul is speaking of the same event. Our present verse is a continuation of the subject of twelve: two. See pages three ninety-one, three ninety-two and Zmijewski, ibid., three thirty-five, for a line-by-line comparison of verse two with verses three, four, drawn from Windisch.
The use of this connecting kai, if the last position is adopted, does not go unnoticed. It does suggest the idea of additional information, but not in terms of a second experience or stage. Rather, the kai suggests that Paul has added information concerning the third heaven. Namely, he clarifies somewhat his use of the term "third heaven" and describes it as paradise. Hence, Paul resumes his retelling of a past experience.
είτε εν σώματι, κτλ. "whether in the body or apart from the body, I do not know, only God knows." For the second time in a short span, Paul inserts a parenthesis into his letter. This second "change of direction," though not verbatim with the first parenthesis in twelve: two b, is nevertheless congruent in thought. The only differences are that in twelve: three Paul uses the words ouk olsa, "I do not know," only once, and he uses xwpis, "apart from," instead of ÈKTOS. Neither change alters the meaning as described in twelve: two. This would lead us to believe, in light of our earlier discussion, that Paul uses twelve: three to continue his description (begun in twelve: two) of the visionary experience that transpired fourteen years before the writing of chapters ten through thirteen. We must not fail to see again Paul's use of the third person, as well as his admission of ignorance concerning the state he was in during this ecstatic experience, both evidently polemical devices to play down the opponents' claim to ecstatic experience as a validation of ministry. Paul, on the contrary, finds no edificatory value for the congregation in his experience.
Four. ότι ήρπάγη είς τον παράδεισον, "that was caught up to paradise." In this verse Paul has changed the aorist participle apayévra (twelve: two) to the aorist passive indicative of αρπάζειν, namely, ήρπάγη. But we must make note of how both uses of the verb, as well as oldoval, "give" (found in twelve: seven as cooln, "was given to me"), reflect passivity on Paul's part (the passive is also seen in twelve: twelve). We see that the agent of these passive verbs can be identified from their context as God. This use of the passivum divinum is important for understanding Paul's thought. His boasting cannot glorify himself, for God is the hidden agent behind these things. He took Paul up to the third heaven, namely paradise, as well as placed a thorn in his life. God also works through Paul (twelve: twelve). This fits well with our earlier discussion. Paul is God's apostle, for God has both proclaimed the message of reconciliation through the apostle (five: eighteen through twenty), and ministered in service to the Corinthians through the same apostle. Now, however, he steps up the presentation because he is in a serious conflict with his opponents. So intense is this conflict that Paul shares an event in his life perhaps, up to this time, unknown except to the Lord and himself.
Paul states that he was caught up to wapadeloos, "paradise." This word is probably Persian in origin, meaning an enclosure or a nobleman's park. Both the Hebrew (pardes; compare Ecclesiastes two: five) and the Greek (Tapadeloos) languages borrowed the word. Not all literature places the paradise in the third heaven. Sometimes we read that it is found in the seventh heaven. More likely, though, Paul considers the third heaven and paradise the same. Just such an equation is found in two Enoch eight and in Apoc. Mos. thirty-seven: five. An interesting note is that the LXX renders the earthly Garden of Eden as Tapadeloos (see Genesis two and three). The OT does not refer to the garden as the abode for the righteous after death or a final resting place for them. The development of the term is seen in apocalyptic literature.
The word "paradise" occurs only three times in the New Testament. In addition to our present text, we find it in Jesus' statement to the penitent thief (Luke twenty-three: forty-three) and in Revelation two: seven ("To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is the paradise of God"). It appears certain that the paradise mentioned in Revelation and the paradise of our own text are one and the same. We might even link the paradise of Revelation two: seven with Revelation twenty-two: one to five, a description that reminds us of the paradise that was originally lost. The heavenly paradise of Revelation two: seven is located in the heavenly garden. The mention of paradise in Luke twenty-three: forty-three offers us no location, but there is no doubt that it refers to the gathering of the righteous after death.
Hughes suggests that Paul's shift from "the third heaven" to "paradise" is for added information, that in this explication Paul discloses the nature of the third heaven. We are not privy to what Paul heard, as we shall see. Paul is granted the secrets of both the intermediate state and the glorious consummation. But since he cannot reveal the content of the vision described in twelve: two to four, this may be why Paul is so hesitant to expound the state of the believer after death.
H. Bietenhard is too rigid when he concludes that Paul saw a vision of the world to come but not of the future. We must not draw so sharp a distinction between the life hereafter and the future. Paul's understanding of eschatology will not permit it. But we also must be cautious and concede that whatever teaching we have on these subjects (both the hereafter and the future), little has been related to us by Paul from the experience of twelve: two to four. Whether because of being forbidden to speak by God concerning these things or because he was unable to translate heavenly thoughts into human language, Paul shares no details with his readers. More pointedly the "inexpressible words" are a counterblast to gnosticizing secrets putatively revealed to the opponents.
και ήκουσεν άρρητα ρήματα & ούκ έξον ανθρώπω λαλήσαι, "and he heard unspeakable words which a human being is not permitted to utter." Unlike his gnostic and mystical counterparts, Paul says practically nothing about what he saw or heard while in paradise. Whether or not Paul created a play on words is unclear, though we do notice paradoxical language. Paul heard words that are appmra, "ineffable," "unspeakable" (KJV/AV), "inexpressible" (NIV). The use of appnra, with -privatum, so "unutterable," is similar to that use in the mystery religions. Also, the notion of secret revelation is found in rabbinic literature. The idea of a sealed revelation, which is what Paul's revelation basically is, is found in the Old Testament. Though Paul's experience was not "unusual," we go too far in thinking Paul is dependent on borrowed tradition in order to compose his thought of twelve two through twelve four.
A closer look at άρρητα ρήματα reveals the meaning to be either words that are not able to be translated or those not able to be shared because of their sacredness, or simply "the language of the heavenly sphere," which may be what Romans eight twenty-six and twenty-seven also refer to. It is not too hard to imagine that what Paul heard was ineffable. But the clause that follows & ούκ έξον άνθρώπω λαλήσαι, "which a human being is not permitted to utter," places the emphasis on his being forbidden to relay what he heard. Paul was not to tell anyone else what he heard. While ouk egov may mean "it is not possible," most likely it means "it is not lawful," for the usual idea behind ¿¿ ETTI is "it is lawful."
But if our conclusion is true—that Paul is not permitted to share his adventure, except in general terms—then a needed question is, Of what value was Paul's experience? The sharing of this event would be quite valuable to the Corinthians in that they would be shown that indeed Paul can boast. Also they could see that his boasting, not that of his opponents, was grounded in God's strength. But moreover, and of utmost importance, this experience is invaluable to Paul in asserting his apostolic leadership at Corinth, and opposing a false eschatology of present glory, pneumatic ecstasy and a powerful presence in the influence of his rivals, whose ministry had so many tangible and sensory experiences to confirm it that it bypassed the weakness of the crucified Jesus and despised his suffering servant Paul.
Tasker is correct in saying that "this particular revelation was for Paul alone," as Paul's ministry was unique. Though we may come away somewhat frustrated and disappointed at the lack of information given here, perhaps Calvin's dictum is right in that this experience was "to strengthen Paul by special means that he might not give way, but might persevere undaunted." This experience, though not communicable, as a result of its sacredness, must have had an untold influence on Paul. If this event transpired around A.D. forty-four, then it was an incalculable boost to him as he embarked on his ministry. We may never know the many times Paul received inner strength, inward renewal, from his remembering this event. What is more, this "boast" did not end with him, but overflowed in blessing to the generation of his time.
Five. υπέρ του τοιούτου καυχήσομαι, "I will boast on behalf of this man." Paul continues his third person construction in a section, verses five through seven a, that looks like an insertion between verses one through four and seven b through nine a, which are both "reports." He still refrains from signaling to his readers that he is the man who received this revelation. Some have taken TOLOÚTOU to be neuter, thus leaving us with the words "of an experience" instead of "on behalf of this man." But this view has not been generally accepted. For one thing, Paul has used TOLOUTOS as masculine in twelve two and again in twelve three to refer to a human being. For another, ÚTrep . . . èuavro0, found in twelve five b, provides balance and it is surely masculine as it refers to Paul. Moreover, if Paul was thinking of the experience of twelve two through twelve four, rather than the man, when he used TOLOÚTOU, more likely than not he would have used the preposition èv, as he does with έν ταϊς ασθενείας, twelve five b, for Paul's penchant is to use ύπέρ, "on behalf of," with kavxaofal to signify a person.
What Paul appears to be doing in twelve five is preserving his desire to boast, but not in himself. The man mentioned in twelve five a of course is Paul. But by writing in this manner, he diverts any plaudits from himself, for in the second part of twelve five he openly speaks of himself and does so only in terms of weakness. Paul is seeking to avoid the accusation that he has sought to enhance his person in the eyes of the Corinthians through self-commendation. The goal in twelve five is to direct glory to God.
It has been suggested that in twelve five the apostle is distinguishing between two aspects of himself, as was discussed in twelve one. To be sure, on the surface it appears that way. But it is doubtful that he is discussing anthropology in our verse. There does not appear to be a duality of personhood as much as a desire of Paul to direct attention to God. Käsemann's suggestion that Paul downplays his vision because it fails to build up the church is closer to the truth than Lietzmann's contention that the apostle distinguishes between "Paul the apocalyptist" and "Paul the man," but it still fails to capture the desire of Paul to stay out of the limelight. Barrett is correct to suggest that the apostolic sign of weakness was foremost on Paul's mind. If twelve five is probably ironical and built on the antithesis kauchésomai/óu kauchésomai with a certain "distancing" between Paul the writer and his experience, Barrett's position is better. We shall see that the theme of weakness becomes an important one in twelve five b to ten.
υπέρ δέ έμαυτου ού καυχήσομαι εί μή εν ταις ασθενείας, "but I will not boast on my own behalf, except in my weaknesses." For the first time since twelve one Paul refers directly to himself. From twelve five b to twelve ten Paul is a visible figure in the discussion. And in twelve five b he presents the ground rules for the remainder of the passage. Apostolic weakness will be the topic of discussion. But this is not done in an attempt to gain pity; rather, it is to show that God works through this man. He is a legitimate apostle, and the Lord has appeared to him in a unique vision.
Earlier in this verse we saw the use of UTep with kavxaolat. In the second half of our present verse the same construction appears, except in the negative (ού καυχήσομαι). Paul will not boast on his own behalf (note use of έμαυτού, which is not ironical as Allo, three hundred nine, thinks), since this boasting could lead to his receiving a high place in the minds of the Corinthians for the wrong reasons. To ensure that this does not take place Paul adds "except in my weaknesses." Paul has put the idea of weakness before the Corinthians throughout this epistle. We saw this in six four through ten and more recently eleven twenty-three through twenty-eight. More specifically, in eleven thirty Paul states that he will boast only to show his weakness. He illustrated the thought of eleven thirty by relating the incident of being lowered down the Damascus wall (eleven thirty-two, thirty-three). In twelve seven Paul will again describe his weakness by speaking of the thorn in the flesh. Placed between the wall-incident and the thorn (both humbling experiences) is what may be called a highlight of Paul's life, namely, the ecstatic experience of fourteen years earlier (fourteen years, we may suppose, is a long time to remain silent about such a unique event as the experience of twelve two through four; such a silence may indicate that Paul considers any such experience as of little value for accrediting him in his apostleship). It appears that Paul has left no room for the objection that he was no true apostle of God. At one extreme, Paul has placed before his critics the true sign of apostleship, namely, weakness. At the other extreme, Paul has been in the presence of the new world, with possibly an experience no one else could share. But Paul was still vulnerable to any detractor who did not accept his understanding of "vocation as weakness." This verse therefore places side by side the two ideas of personal relationship to God and apostolic service in Paul's life.
Six. εάν γάρ θελήσω καυχήσασθαι, ούκ έσομαι άφρων, αλήθειαν γάρ έρω, "Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be foolish, for I speak the truth." The direction of our discussion of these words will point to the idea that Paul is writing in a polemical (though restrained) fashion. At the conclusion of twelve five, Paul has "introduced" himself into the present passage. (We know all along that the "other man" was Paul; but the Corinthians may not have been aware of that at the beginning of twelve one through ten.) Our present verse provides a transition (awkward with yap, which does not explain anything; Windisch, three hundred eighty-one) for Paul's readers because twelve six through ten reads as though Paul has been talking explicitly about himself. Moreover, as was discussed above, the weakness of Paul now becomes an important theme of twelve six through ten. Thus, twelve six provides a shift for the Corinthians. Their attention is now focused on Paul and in turn on his weakness.
Paul keeps the idea of weakness before his readers, but he does so in an interesting way. He opens twelve six with εάν γάρ θελήσω καυχήσασθαι, "even if I should choose to boast." The verb θελήσω, "to want," "to wish," is in the subjunctive mood. This is dictated by cav (Plummer, three hundred forty-six, for grammatical usage). We note that there is little difference at times between the aorist subjunctive and the future indicative ("It is quite possible that the future indicative is just a variation of the aorist subjunctive," Robertson, Grammar, nine hundred twenty-four), but the idea of the subjunctive fits better into our context. Barrett notes that θελήσω carries with it an element of deliberate choice. Considering the Sitz im Leben of two Corinthians, we can see that a boast by Paul would have been both expected and probably appreciated by the Corinthians. But Paul has chosen another way to go; instead of boasting of himself, he boasts of God.
Paul could choose to boast of himself, for he would have solid grounds on which to do so. Unlike his opponents, who probably boasted of visions they did not have, Paul has just related a vision which he has experienced. Paul's use of appwv, "foolish" (see eleven sixteen a), probably includes the idea of a person who is caught in making false claims. Paul avoids this problem because he speaks in truth (àAndelav . . . ¿ p@: Zmijewski, ibid., three hundred fifty-five), not only concerning the ecstatic experience of twelve two through four, but also about the other visions and revelations that he has been given and which he could relate if he were pressed to, but then he would be a "fool," or acting kard odpka: so Bultmann, two hundred twenty-five. Moreover, Paul's speaking in truth is a polemical stance against his opponents, as has been noted, for he did not consider his opponents as being truthful (see thirteen eight).
At first we might consider it a problem for Paul that he cannot offer "more proof" of his vision of twelve two through four. But this is just the point Paul will make. Neither can his opponents back up their claims in the sense of proving that they have experienced all the visions they may be reporting to the Corinthians. Paul will show that his visionary experience of twelve two through four led to his being weak. Furthermore, Paul is saying that (as will be seen) his visions are not the criteria by which to judge him. Rather, the way in which he has lived for God is the standard to use; or it is an appeal to the ministry that is performed according to the standard God has set (going back to ten thirteen through sixteen). Paul's ministry is characterized by weakness and church planting. Even Paul's opponents cannot deny the veracity of the stripes he has suffered for the Gospel nor can they overlook that he was the one who founded the church at Corinth. They may evaluate Paul's sufferings incorrectly, but what he is should be evident to all. He is a weak servant of God, chosen by him to be an apostle, which is what he is to the Corinthians.
φείδομαι δέ, μή τις είς έμε λογίσηται υπέρ ό βλέπει με ή ακούει [τι] έξ έμου, "But I refrain [from boasting] so that no one will think more of me than what he sees in me or hears from me." Paul knows that some Corinthians will accept and believe his experience of twelve two to four. With this in mind, Paul expresses his wish that he not receive more credit than is due him. If Paul is given too much praise for his vision, then the Gospel message would be clouded. This is the charge he brings against his opponents. Thus, Paul does not want to be regarded more highly than he should.
φείδομαι literally means “I spare.” If Héring is right that the idea of "not wishing to crush" those reading this message is behind our word, then possibly Paul also has his opponents directly in mind. This may explain the restraint that Paul exhibits in this polemic against his enemies. But when the verb is taken in the conative sense, it follows that Paul is refraining from leading the Corinthians down the wrong path. He could share more of his visionary experiences with the Corinthians, but he stops short of doing so. He takes this line of action so that people will not miss God's power in seeing his accomplishments and so that they will judge Paul by the acceptable criteria, i.e., not κατά σάρκα, but κατά κύριον. The people of Corinth cannot evaluate his visions, for such experiences remain hidden from them. However, they can judge what they see in and hear in his case. The coupling of the verbs βρῆται and αἰκωμαι is to be taken as more than simple references to the everyday events in Paul's life. The verbs are to be understood as referring to his humility and weakness and to his acceptance by God as a true and faithful apostle. Paul wished to be judged on more than simply the externals of his service. His service is the means by which others may see that he is an ambassador for Christ; his weakness is a means by which the power of Christ is truly displayed, i.e., in line with four seven.
The use of λογίσηται (aorist subjunctive from λογίζεσθαι) possibly carries with it the idea of commercial accounting. This would not be surprising in such a commerce-oriented city as Corinth; but it is evidently a slogan in this correspondence. Paul is emphatic in saying that one should not credit to his account any "wares" except those that are visible. His readers should turn from Paul's visions and reflect on the message he has preached and the sufferings he has endured. Paul invested himself greatly in the pathos of this verse. Not only is he the subject of four verbs (θελήσω, έσομαι, έρω, φείδομαι), but we also see three uses of personal pronouns in twelve six b (έμε, με, έμου; also cf. έμαυτου of twelve five). This should tell us that by the time the Corinthians read (or heard) the words in twelve seven, they were prepared to link the "unknown man" of twelve two to five a with Paul. The double accusative in "more" and "me" is to the point.
The apostle has exhibited much restraint at this point, for he could have directly attacked his opponents on the grounds that they misrepresented both himself and themselves. Rather, Paul leaves such a conclusion to be worked out in the mind of the Corinthians. He does this by indirectly showing that the true man of God will seek to avoid inordinate self-esteem based on visions and revelations. Perhaps the indefinite τίς ("no one"; Paul is not excluding anyone) is Paul's way of showing hope that both the Corinthian church and his opponents will evaluate him on what is (to him at least) self-evident.
Seven. και τη υπερβολή των αποκαλύψεων, "even the extraordinary revelations." The modern interpreter may wonder, after reading the Greek text of twelve seven, if Paul set this text down the way he had intended. We have already examined the textual questions surrounding the V and have opted to view the above phrase as completing the sentence in V six. Twelve six had closed with Paul saying that he refrained from boasting about what was unseen. He wished the people to evaluate him on what was tangible, by something they could see, i.e., his trials. But we may wonder if Paul was convinced that, after telling them of his vision, his Corinthian readers would heed his concern. There could possibly have been some who, with good intentions, would consider Paul to be an exceptional person because of his ecstatic experience. After all, Paul had his followers at Corinth. Moreover, he had won a majority back to him as recorded in seven eight through sixteen. In spite of new and recurring problems, there were some who would take this new piece of information and place Paul high in their estimation. Paul's choice of ÚTrepBorn, here a dativus causae, is somewhat ambiguous. The composite noun can mean either "excess" (UTrép- of quantity) or "extraordinary" (Urrép- of quality). Paul's use of the word in second Corinthians four seventeen; first eight; cf. also four seven; Romans seven thirteen; Galatians one thirteen; first Corinthians twelve thirty-one might tip the scales in favor of the qualitative aspect, but perhaps we should not draw too sharp a distinction here. The fact that αποκαλύψεις, "revelations," is plural has led Plummer, three forty-seven, to raise again the idea that twelve two through four speaks of two separate revelations. But we have already judged this position to be doubtful. Moreover, as has been stated before, the Corinthians were probably aware that Paul had some visions. He had been accused of being out of his mind. But the significance of the vision in twelve two through four is its dimension in terms of "revelation." In short, it probably fell as a bombshell on some, though ignored or scoffed at by others. There was no way on Paul's part that he would become too proud or conceited over this incident (he will presently explain why to the Corinthians this is so). But there was always the possibility that some at Corinth would treat his mystical experience in a way that Paul himself would disown.
διό ίνα μή υπεραίωμαι, εδόθη μοι σκόλοψ τη σαρκί, άγγελος σατανά, ίνα με κολαφίζη, ίνα μή υπεραίρωμαι, "Therefore, in order that I should not become conceited, I was given a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, in order to batter me, that I should not become conceited." Discussion of this verse will not lead the exegete to certainty regarding the identity of Paul's "thorn in the flesh." As Hughes aptly writes, the thorn "is another one of those questions which, on the evidence available, must remain unanswered." This is not to say that a study of past theories concerning the present topic will be of no benefit. Quite the contrary, for if we are to understand the basis for God's strength in Paul-namely, through weakness-then it is imperative that we consider the options and at least form general conclusions regarding Paul's situation. But this is to say that our present discussion offers no certain conclusion that has up to now eluded scholars.
διό ίνα μή υπεραίρωμαι, "Therefore, in order that I should not become conceited." The use of oto, "therefore," alerts Paul's readers that some form of summary statement is to follow in this new sentence, a view to be argued for against other possibilities, e.g., that Só is an afterthought, a textual corruption, an unstressed anticipation of iva, the next word; rather it introduces the "following connection" as an inferential conjunction. Paul has presented the Corinthians with the information that he experienced a unique vision. In turn, he has related to them that, in spite of this event, he will not boast about it (though essentially he has already boasted and feels that he has joined in the activity of his opponents, an activity which he devalues). Thus, Paul now proceeds to give, in general terms, one reason why he is unable to boast: God has sought to keep Paul from becoming conceited. The wa twice in one verse, "in order that," alerts us to three purpose clauses in close symmetry. First, there was a reason for the giving of the thorn and that reason is that Paul should not become proud. Second, the satanic messenger came in order to batter him. Third, this encounter was (again) to prevent his conceit. The word for "exalting oneself" ("becoming conceited," Unepaipo-pat) is found only one other place in the New Testament, where Paul describes "the man of lawlessness" as exalting himself against God. If Paul felt inclined to exalt himself, i.e., to be independent of God as an act of ußpis, "pride," the thorn was sent to prevent that from happening. More important, if the Corinthians wanted to place Paul "on a pedestal," the thorn would prevent such action. That Paul was intent on showing that he was not free to put himself above others is seen in this construction. The identical purpose clause ivα μή υπεραίρωμαι both begins and ends this verse. The emphasis is clear; Paul is weak and this is further demonstrated by the thorn in the flesh. (Surprisingly, the NIV fails to translate the second ivα μή υπεραίωμαι clause, and we may note how Schlatter, Paulus, six hundred sixty-five, in recognizing a "medley of two kinds of composition," seeks to attach the clauses to two different parts of the sentence, going back to verse six to connect the first ivα clause to the "abundance of revelations" as a kind of "intrusion.")
Paul confesses that he is not the agent responsible for this thorn. He reports that the thorn edoen pot, "was given to me." It is doubtful that Satan is the giver, even if σκόλοψ τη σαρκί is the grammatical subject of εδόθη. If Paul had intended to convey such information, he most likely would have chosen a word other than oldoval. This word was usually employed to denote that God's favor had been bestowed. Plummer suggests that if Satan was the agent, emTionut, "lay upon" (Luke ten: thirty; twenty-three: twenty-six; Acts sixteen: twenty-three), or βάλλω, "cast" (Revelation two: twenty-four), or επιβάλλω, "put on" (one Corinthians seven: thirty-five), would have been more appropriate. As mentioned earlier, we have an example of the passivum divinum. This "divine passive," speaking of God as the hidden agent behind events and experiences in human lives, fits well into Paul's thinking. He sees both the revelation and the thorn as from God. (Smith makes the point that Paul may not have viewed the thorn as a "gift." Moreover, he says that Paul refrains from saying the thorn was God's will. Paul viewed the thorn as a bitter reality that drew him closer to God. But whether or not Paul saw this as a good thing in the beginning remains beyond our ability to answer.) Hence Zmijewski, ibid., three hundred sixty-eight, is correct when he writes that though "thorn" can be assumed to be the grammatical subject of "was given," in reality "the evidence points to God being the essential acting subject."
σκόλοψ τη σαρκί, άγγελος σατανά, "a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan." Much scholarship has been devoted to this phrase, yet undeniably mystery and uncertainty remain. And as will be seen, this attention is not limited to modern times only, but has marked exegetical and devotional study throughout church history.
OKÓNov can be taken to mean "thorn" or "stake." Schlatter suggests that σκόλοψ could be equivalent to σταυρός, "cross." The more common rendering of "thorn" is well attested. A case can be made for rendering "stake." Park argues that "stake" could have been a concept borrowed from the military. Such stakes were used to slow an enemy's progress, or to torture and to execute an enemy. The idea of "stake" looks plausible except that Park makes too much of the severity of Paul's problem. To say that "stake" implies the intensity of Paul's problem whereas thorn suggests he has a superficial affliction is not satisfactory. Furthermore, to portray the situation by suggesting that Paul was helplessly impaled on a stake rather overlooks the power he felt was working in him. For these reasons we choose "thorn" as our rendering. For the moment, we postpone the discussion of the different possibilities that are attached to "thorn," in order to examine Paul's use of τη σαρκί.
There is uncertainty in identifying Paul's use of odp¿, in the expression "in the flesh." The question centers on whether to render this phrase "in the flesh" or "for the flesh." It is a question of whether to take Th oapki as locative dative or dative of disadvantage. If it is the former, then most likely Paul is speaking of a physical malady or ailment, for we should understand odp¿ in the neutral sense, namely, the physical body. The argument against taking the dative as locative is that, if Paul intended it this way, he would have included the preposition èv, "in." On the contrary, it has been proposed that this is the dative of disadvantage "for the flesh." If this position is adopted, then odpy takes on the Pauline sense of man's lower nature. Opponents of this position argue that if Paul had wanted to convey this meaning of cape he most likely would have contrasted it with some reference to the Spirit. On the basis of Hughes's thinking, we understand "flesh" to be of the nontheological category.
The exact meaning of thorn remains elusive. No one has yet given an interpretation that is generally accepted. The first interpretation was offered by Tertullian de Pudicitia thirteen point seventeen, who took the thorn to mean Paul had a pain in the ear or head. Chrysostom, Hom. twenty-six, understands oaravas, "Satan," in the general sense of adversary, and he concluded that Paul's thorn was his opponents. Specifically, Chrysostom has Alexander the coppersmith in mind. Recently this argument has been revived. The support of this position is well worth noting.
There are four basic points that endorse the position that the thorn refers to Paul's opponents. First, the phrase dyyeros carava, "messenger of Satan," could refer to a person, for this is the normal use of ayyeros. It appears that Paul does not use ayyeNos except to refer to a person. Second, one must not forget that chaps. ten through thirteen describe Paul's fight against his adversaries. We see in twelve point twelve that Paul is in conflict with those who would question his apostleship. Moreover, in eleven point thirteen through fifteen Paul understands his conflict with his opponents as a conflict between God and Satan. Paul sees himself as a representative of God and the false apostles as representing
Satan. In this conflict Paul views Satan as a false messenger of light. It follows that the use of messenger is in reference to a person, not an illness. If this is so, then the use of okoroy in twelve point seven should not be understood as referring to some physical malady.
A third point is seen in the clause ινα με κολαφίζη, "in order to batter me." The verb κολαφίζειν speaks of one who is beaten or battered about, especially by blows to the head. This has led some to conclude that the choice of okonoy refers specifically to a person, thus pointing to Paul's opponents. A fourth item is that in the LXX we find thorn associated with opponents of Israel. The Canaanites, who are permitted to remain in Israel, are "thorns." In Ezekiel the foes of Israel are described as "thorns." These four points show that a case can be made for considering Paul's thorn as the adversaries that dog him at Corinth.
However, there is much support for the view of the thorn as referring to something other than the opponents of Paul. The medieval thinkers (from Gregory the Great to Aquinas) understood the Vulgate rendering of stimulus carnis to imply sexual temptation. The Reformers (such as Calvin and Luther) viewed Paul's thorn in the flesh as spiritual temptation. Few modern commentators adopt this view. Rather, the majority opt for some form of physical ailment. One common ailment suggested was a severe form of ophthalmia. This is inferred from the colorful language of Galatians. In four point thirteen Paul speaks of a weakness of the flesh, and proceeds to acknowledge the willingness of the Galatians to pluck out their eyes and give them to him (four point fifteen). Also, Paul is seen as closing the Galatian epistle by noting that the handwriting is his own, for this writing is in large letters (six point eleven). Also appeal is made to the hypothetical case of Acts twenty-three point five where Paul fails to recognize the high priest. This defective eyesight may stem from, as the theory goes, the scales that fell from Paul's eyes after his conversion experience (Acts nine point nine, eighteen). This theory, though interesting, has received little support in recent times.
Another ailment suggested is epilepsy (Lightfoot), possibly as a result of the experience Paul had at his conversion. That is, the fact that Paul fell down on the road to Damascus has been seen as evidence that Paul was epileptic, but this is doubtful.
One of the more attractive hypotheses is that of W. M. Ramsay. Paul, it is said, suffered from a form of recurring malarial fever. It has been suggested that he contracted this disease (specifically Malta fever) in Pamphylia. For Ramsay, this theory covers all the symptoms Paul seems to exhibit. Accordingly, Paul was incapacitated by the attacks of this fever. If the fever seared the head, one can appreciate how Paul felt battered about.
in Pamphylia. For Ramsay, this theory covers all the symptoms Paul seems to exhibit. Accordingly, Paul was incapacitated by the attacks of this fever. If the fever seared the head, one can appreciate how Paul felt battered about.
Other forms of suffering have been suggested. The thorn, e.g., may have been the agony that Paul experienced at the Jewish rejection of the Gospel. We know this was a problem for Paul as recorded in Romans chapters nine through eleven, especially nine point one through three. Menoud does make the point that Paul never mentions sickness in his tribulation-lists. Clavier believes that Paul suffered disorders to his nervous system as a result of the hardships he endured and the shock his psyche received from his visions and revelations. Yet, with all these physical ailments suggested, one wonders with Binder whether or not a person who was so often on the "battlefield" could have been so physically weak and still have withstood the rigors of Paul's life.
But this is not to say that the supposition that Paul's suffering was physical cannot also be defended. It is worth noting that Satan is associated with physical illness in the biblical tradition. We see this in Job two verse five where Satan is allowed (by God's permission) to inflict sickness. Also in Luke thirteen verse sixteen, Satan is credited as the one responsible for the woman being bent over for eighteen years. There is nothing to suggest that a "literal" messenger (ayyedos) was the agent for these respective illnesses. In addition, the term "angel of Satan" was not necessarily a common phrase. Contrary to those who see ayyedos as signifying a "person" (specifically, adversaries), Paul may have simply been attributing his ailment to satanic origin (possibly through demonic agency), but always with the conviction that God was in control. Probably the most telling argument against the position that Paul was referring to human opponents as the thorn in the flesh (and by now it should be apparent that the possibilities offered concerning the thorn roughly fall into two categories, namely, human opponents and physical ailment) is found in twelve verse eight. This verse relates that Paul prayed that God would remove the thorn. Would the apostle pray to be spared persecution? This is doubtful, since persecution was the fuel on which Paul seemed to thrive. The more he was persecuted the more he seemed determined to press the claims of his apostolate. Moreover, if this thorn was given to Paul near the time of his revelation of twelve verses two to four, then it is doubtful Paul was speaking of the opponents in eleven verses thirteen to fifteen, for he had yet to confront them. Yet, we must honestly recognize (and so in recall of Binder's thesis) that a chronically ill Paul does not fit well with the picture of Paul found in the New Testament. Rather, Paul is one who must be seen as in robust health and with a strong constitution. On the other side, at Corinth where his apostolic role was under fire, any physical weakness would have seemed a liability, then Paul could not deny that the estimate of his person in ten verse ten; eleven verse twenty-one; twelve verse ten, is valid, however much it was exploited by his traducers.
Something in the nature of defective speech has also been suggested as Paul's thorn. This could account for his making a bad first impression at Corinth (one Corinthians two verses one to five; two Corinthians ten verse ten). Moreover, it may supply the reason why he was impressive in his letters, but "deficient" in his speech (ten verses one, nine, ten, eleven; eleven verse six). Such an ailment would not prove incapacitating nor drain one's strength, yet it would be humiliating, evoking ridicule and scorn. But again this is only a guess. We simply do not know the meaning behind "the thorn in the flesh." At best we can say with Bruce that the thorn attacked Paul some time after the ecstatic experience. From the present tense of koNapifew it appears that this was a continual problem. It seems also likely that Paul suffered a kind of physical disorder, but even that is uncertain. In all probability, the Corinthians knew of what Paul spoke. We, however, are left on the outside listening to one side of a two-sided conversation. We will probably never know the truth (or, at least, never know for sure we have the truth).
But this examination of the possible meanings of thorn is worthwhile. From studying the possibilities we can see two important points and several consequences. First of all, the thorn was inherently evil. Nowhere does Paul infer that this thorn was good. It was used to buffet Paul and caused him great consternation and pain. Second, and more important, the thorn served a good purpose as a gift from God. The importance of the passive verb ¿800n, "was given," can hardly be exaggerated. God is the unseen agent behind the bitter experience. The paradox is that behind the nonpersonal, passive word form of the verb lies "the veiled allusion to God as author." Some momentous consequences follow. First, this passive formulation with the divine concealed in a human trial places the experience on a theological plane, where the need for a theodicy is urgent. Paul will partly address this issue in verses nine and ten by introducing the christological motif and a vindication of his service for Christ. Then, Paul's suffering is viewed within the context of divine grace which not only allowed the affliction but sustained the sufferer in it. The thorn humbled (and humiliated) Paul; he could never revel in his great vision for very long before he would be reminded of his thorn. But, third, this negative factor, as twelve verses nine and ten tell us, was an opportunity for God to demonstrate his power. Paul acknowledged God's power as he acknowledged his own weakness. Maybe Paul reflected many times that, if he had not received the vision, he would have not received the thorn. But this made little or no difference to him. Because of his weakness, he became a powerful instrument for God. Paul's own personal interest is shown in the inclusio and chiastic form:
Eight. Concerning this I pleaded with the Lord three times to take it away from me. In twelve eight Paul proceeds to some autobiographical material concerning his beseeching the Lord to remove this messenger of Satan. Grammatically speaking, ÚTTep τούτου refers to άγγελος σατανά instead of σκόλοψ έν σαρκί. This is because àToorn (from apiorával, "to take away," again passive) is used of persons, not things, throughout the New Testament. At first thought, we might be inclined to translate the OUTos/TOUTOU as "he" instead of "this matter" or simply "it." This personification is tempting but undesirable. At best all we can say is that Paul considered the "messenger of Satan" in a quasi-personal sense. We need to note that in twelve seven the phrase "messenger of Satan" appears in apposition to the words "thorn in the flesh"; thus the "it" of twelve eight (the object that Paul wished removed from his life) may mean either the thorn or the messenger, without affecting the meaning of the verse. As stated earlier, it is quite probable that Paul did not have any special person in mind when he wrote twelve seven. Any persecution from opponents, especially that resulted in suffering, would not have been an item Paul would have sought to evade. For Paul, his sufferings, in some way, reflected the sufferings of Jesus. The ouros (see BDF section two hundred ninety point three) most likely is a reference to Paul's thorn; the use of the "messenger of Satan" probably is Paul's way of saying that evil forces (though permitted by God) were a part of his life.
Paul reports: τρίς τον κύριον παρεκάλεσα, "three times I pleaded with the Lord." In all probability, kuptos here is the personal object of a prayer directly to Christ. This can be seen from twelve: nine, which speaks first of "my power" (which refers to Christ) and then "Christ's power." Hering takes this as the only occasion (to the point of its being true "undeniably") during which Paul prayed directly to Christ and not to God the Father. But see possible examples to the contrary. Immediately, the reader is impressed by the number of times Paul sought (παρεκάλεσα: BDF two nine two; but not "begged") a subsequent cure. The number three is a reminder of Jesus' temptations in the Garden of Gethsemane and the three times he petitioned the Father to remove the cup from him. Chrysostom and Calvin suggest that Tpis is symbolic, representing many times. But also the "three"
could reflect the Jewish importance attached to this number when related to blessings. And three-fold prayers are well attested in Greco-Roman religion. Whatever Paul's meaning, it remains a question as to whether these three occasions of prayer were the result of three separate attacks of his malady or all are located during the time shortly after the first attack. The latter makes sense in light of the point that Paul had had sufficient time to accept this affliction and had learned to live with it. This is seen in what follows especially if the aorist tense in Tapekaneda "suggests that the fact had passed, so that Paul no longer prayed for this object," while the next line has a notable change of tense. But maybe the "three times" prayer is a stereotyped expression for urgency in praying.
Nine. και ειρηκέν μοι, "And he said to me." In oracular form the answer to his prayer came. It was not what he desired; rather (we may suppose) it was what he needed. The attention of most readers is drawn to the answer that follows but we should not overlook the construction of these opening words. είρηκεν, "he said," is the perfect of λέγω. That the use of the perfect speaks of something that happened in the past is evident. This suggests a decision that is regarded as final by Paul. But more than that, Paul's choice of the perfect tells us that he still hears the echo of this divine oracle. The answer, coming after Paul's third petition, "was ever sounding in the apostle's ears." When we examine the content of this answer, we shall see the reason. In all probability, what he had heard in the past remains a present source of power and comfort. While some could argue that the perfect can be understood in a punctil- iar sense it is not likely in this case. We noted in twelve: eight that Tapekadeda was in the aorist. Paul had pleaded with the Lord, but this was a thing of the past. Paul's use of the perfect and the aorist together in twelve: eight, nine appears as a conscious attempt on his part to tell the Corinthians that he had ceased to petition God to remove the thorn (aorist), while he still keeps the answer as an ever-present source of comfort (perfect). In twelve: nine a, though the answer was a thing of the past, it resounded with vibrancy and vitality in the present. The answer was final, but it also was advantageous for Paul for it was a means to strengthen him. In spite of his weakness, Paul would be strengthened. Though he had a thorn in the flesh, he still could carry on his work for God. This is indeed marked as "the veritable highpoint of the entire sentence sequence," in the light of the next line.
άρκεϊ σοι ή χάρις μου, ή γάρ δύναμις έν άσθενεία τελείται, "My grace is sufficient for you, for [my] power is fulfilled in weakness." The words that follow-
"he said to me"-reveal the answer Paul received. Hughes has called this answer, "the summit of the epistle. . . . From this vantage-point the entire range of Paul's apostleship is seen in focus." Though his petition for removal of the thorn was denied, Paul appears confident that, whenever the messenger of Satan "beats him about," he will have the strength to overcome. The words recorded here may have been a direct communication to Paul from Christ. These may be the only words of the risen Christ that we find in Pauline literature, though we may question O'Collins's position in light of one Corinthians eleven: twenty-three to twenty-six: but he is correct if the issue is one of discovering oratio recta.
Paul's use of xápis, "grace," may or may not refer specifically to his situation of twelve one through ten. Xápis has received wide use in our present epistle (one two, twelve; four fifteen; eight one, two, four, six, seven, nine, nineteen; nine eight, fourteen). For Paul "grace" can speak of his special call to apostleship (one Corinthians fifteen ten; see Romans one five; twelve three). The fundamental aspect of grace is God's love toward man shown in Christ (eight nine). Through it a person can be assured that no suffering (Romans eight thirty-eight, thirty-nine) can overpower those who are in Christ. This grace is the way by which "any man becomes the sort of Christian that he is." No doubt Paul had in mind the thorn in the flesh when he related the wording of twelve nine. But it is possible that he also had in mind the many sufferings that had accompanied his apostleship. We simply have to remember the tribulation-lists that dot the horizon of two Corinthians (six four through ten; eleven twenty-three through twenty-eight; twelve ten). Taking this one step farther, we may have a general principle for Christians concerning weakness. That is, we see a law in twelve nine regarding Christian service. O'Collins, however, disagrees. This last discussion will come up again at the conclusion of our comment on twelve nine. For now it is sufficient to note that the grace of God was exhibited in Paul's life though weakness. "This Divine gift is perpetually sufficient, good for his whole life,"
Apkeî, "to be sufficient," carries with it the idea of "being enough"; here the verb has a theological nuance, which makes it distinctive. The stoic parallels, for example, Epictetus Diss. One point one, seven through thirteen, Four point ten, fourteen through sixteen, are not really to the point, since the point of comparison is not inner freedom or adequacy but the possession of the Spirit or God's gift and an admission of human weakness to be reinforced by the divine strength; Bultmann makes this clear, drawing a contrast between Paul and the stoics. The contrast between Paul and Judaism is striking as well, since Deuteronomy three twenty-six is no adequate parallel, as this is more a pious resignation to necessity than a positive accession of súvais, "strength." What we can say is that Paul is convinced that neither the thorn nor trials of any sort will cause him to cease in his service to God. The following clause restates the same theme.
The power (ouvauis) spoken of is the power of Christ. This is why the "my" is inserted in the translation. At the conclusion of twelve nine Paul again speaks of the suvapis του Χριστού, "the power of Christ." It is right to take δύναμις and xápis as synonyms. By understanding power to represent the power of Christ, Paul is close to personifying power in our present v. See one Corinthians one twenty-four where Christ is said to be the power of God. This personification suggests that Christ reaches fulfillment in Paul. But such an understanding of Paul is unusual, for he likes to speak of believers being èv XploTW, "in Christ." In this phrase, Christ is treated as a personality in whom all Christians are incorporated.
The power Paul experienced is fulfilled (TENEÎTal: Delling, TDNT 8:58- 61) in weakness (àofévela: here "the most outstanding example of Paul's usage of dobévera"; Black, Paul, 151). The concept behind "fulfillment" is that of bringing to completion (TENEiwas). Some translate it as bringing power to perfection. But "perfection" does not here speak of moral behavior, rather of God's power as it is made the main focus of Paul's work. This is the main thrust behind 12:1-10. But unlike Paul's opponents-in whom God's glory was not an aim-the apostle boasts of his weakness (in particular, his thorn). Barrett is certainly correct, if slightly anachronistic, when he writes, "Divine power is scarcely perceptible in the impressive activities of the ecclesi- astical potentates with whom Paul has to contend" (317).
Some maintain that Paul's choice of TEXEu is a deliberate rebuttal of the gnostics. The connection is made when TéNetos is considered synonymous with πνευματικός. But the alternative proposal of Georgi that Paul's opponents were Jewish Christian missionaries cannot be ignored. If this position is true, then we can say, as does O'Collins, that the gnostics did not have a monopoly on the use of suvapis and dolévela. Moreover, Paul was not consciously responding to the Gnostics in this emotional and intimate passage under study. What can be said is that the fulfillment of God's power comes not in heavenly visions and ecstatic demonstrations, but in earthly weakness. And to mark off Paul from his opponents, it is clear that, while both groups shared a revelatory experience, Paul-unlike his rivals-does not report a healing, to provide a proof of the validity of his apostleship.
The notion of weakness is an important idea in twelve nine and ten. The noun appears three times and the verb once. O'Collins is right in pointing out that "Paul understands his weakness Christologically." What Paul has suffered has been done so for Christ. Furthermore, in the crucifixion, Paul can see Christ as weak. He can also see God's power manifested in the resurrection. Thus, in Christ's suffering, God's power was completed. That Paul is weak and even weaker because of the thorn is yet the "best possible hope for the display of divine power."
ήδιστα ούν μάλλον καυχήσομαι έν τας ασθενείας μου, "Therefore I will most gladly boast in my weaknesses." Having received the assurance that his weaknesses will not hinder his work for God, Paul presents the ruling attitude that prevails in his life. Instead of asking God yet again to remove the thorn, Paul understood this liability as a means tending to God's glory. The ouv, "therefore," tells Paul's readers that he has concluded something about his situation. noora, "all the more gladly," is the superlative of rows. Thus, a possible rendering is the elative "most gladly." Paul's prayer was answered in the negative. In time, Paul has come to accept this answer as in his best interest. That kavxnooual is in the future tense should not lead us to think Paul has yet to boast in his afflictions. A quick glance at four seven through eighteen affirms that Paul glories in God, not himself. But he had been driven to boast by the exigencies of the new situation consequent on the arrival of "false apostles" in eleven four, thirteen through fifteen. He has related his vision to the Corinthians. In turn, he says, as we have noticed, that this vision was not his "badge" of apostleship. Rather, his sufferings prove him a bona fide minister of God. Even more, Paul revels in his weaknesses, for in them God uses him as an instrument for truth and righteousness.
A question centers on Paul's use of paxNov. It has the idea of "rather" behind it. It is doubtful that it goes with ήδιστα as μάλλον does not strengthen superlatives. Paul will boast in his weaknesses rather than in something else. Possibly the something else is "revelations and visions."
να επισκηνώση έπ' έμε ή δύναμις του Χριστού, "in order that the power of Christ may rest upon me." The iva introduces the reason or purpose that Christ's power rests on Paul. This conjunction governs the subjunctive mood, an example of which we find in επισκηνώση. We might note that the use of the verb in twelve ten is a hapax legomenon. Plummer calls the idea behind ETLKnvouv a "bold metaphor." What we see is the Hebrew concept concerning the presence of God as it was found in the Jewish Tabernacle and first Temple. Many have noticed this point and related it to the Hebrew term iJ'DU, šekînāh. This term referred to the presence of God dwelling with the people. In the New Testament the root oknv- clearly suggests the Hebrew root for "abide," namely, thirteen, sakan. It is said in John one fourteen that Christ was "dwelling among us" (literally, "pitching his tent"), and in Revelation seven fourteen, twelve twelve, thirteen six, and twenty-one three that God will dwell with the saints. In some sense then, the power of Christ alighted on Paul as a result of his accepting God's will not to remove the thorn. But in examining this point, we are led to ask another question: Did Paul see weakness as a means of revealing a power already present in him, or is weakness the door through which comes the power of Christ? Another way to phrase the question is to inquire whether the prefix emt- in the verb Emlaknvouv is vertical (i.e., Christ's power descending onto Paul from above) or horizontal (i.e., Christ's power expressing itself through Paul and his apostolic career).
Bultmann interprets twelve nine as referring to a revelatory function of weakness. For him, struggle is not approved by God as a means for living the Christian life. Rather, for Bultmann, God is only satisfied with total surrender, which signifies no more struggle. By doing this, the person will know and, only then will he truly know, that he is a sinner. By discerning weakness, a person discovers the power within. For Bultmann, Paul's dictum for power holds true for any Christian. Plummer concurs, for he writes that God's power becomes more evident in weakness, not more real. Betz views the weakness of Paul, not as the indwelling of the messenger of Satan but as an "epiphany" of the crucified Lord.
An opposite point of view is taken by Käsemann. He understands weakness as an ontological reality. Windisch sees Paul's weakness as a precondition for the power of Christ to enter him. Strachan shows a similar understanding, but O'Collins may be right in spotting a Pelagian tendency in Strachan's thinking.
O'Collins favors the position that weakness is ontological rather than revelatory. However, he does allow for "something in the order of revelation." The ontological reality of the gift of power leads to an "epiphany" of this presence. Possibly O'Collins sums up best the role that weakness played in Paul's life. What we can see is that Paul has experienced a higher degree of communion with God because of suffering in general and the thorn in particular. We probably will never know the invaluable aid the experience of twelve one through ten played in strengthening Paul over the arduous years of his ministry.
O'Collins, however, parts company with Käsemann (who is followed by Schmithals, Gnosticism, one hundred sixty-three; Windisch, ibid.; Wendland, two hundred twenty-four, two hundred twenty-five) concerning whether or not Paul's teaching of twelve nine is to be understood as a general rule for the Church as a whole. O'Collins maintains that in twelve one through ten Paul is speaking of himself-his vision (twelve one), his thorn (twelve seven), his prayer twelve eight-and thus we should follow Betz's contention that the oracle was directed at Paul and not the community. But we wonder if Paul would want to be understood like this. More likely he would not accept this exclusivist interpretation, for it would make him out as somebody special. This is an elitist idea that Paul fights against throughout his letter (one twenty-four; three three, eighteen; six three; seven three; ten thirteen; eleven twenty-one, and especially thirteen nine). Surprisingly, O'Collins admits that Christians have the right to apply Paul's words of twelve nine to their lives. But this, in effect, undercuts O'Collins's position.
For this reason, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in anguish, in persecutions and distress for the sake of Christ. We observed the use of eighth letter O in twelve seven. Possibly this is a connection between the thought there ("therefore in order that I not become conceited") and the summary he gives in this verse. Paul has not fallen into conceit because of the thorn in the flesh God gave him; yet, Paul has overcome-in a spiritual sense-this thorn and its attendant weakness by accepting it and learning to live with it. He has overcome his handicap because the power of Christ rests upon him, exactly as in four seven.
Because this power is now Paul's (in a secondary sense), he delights in what has happened to him. The rendering of Eu as "content" or "well content" misses the point of this verse. Paul is so aware ("conscious," is how Tasker puts it) of the power of Christ (i.e., the grace of Christ) that he delights in his afflictions and weaknesses. A semitism with implies consent to, approval of, saying yes to. is used by Paul only here, and has specific allusion to his Corinthian enemies who resisted him in mockery (eleven nineteen through twenty-one) and by opposing his Gospel. So Windisch, three hundred ninety-three. The ASV translation of "injuries" for is not commonly followed. For "in anguish" see Comment on six four. Here it goes in close association with "insults," directed at his apostolic work.
enjoy") misses the point of this verse. Paul is so aware ("conscious," is how Tasker, 179, puts it) of the power of Christ (i.e., the grace of Christ) that he delights in (a semitism with ], be, BDF § 196, 206.2, and implying consent to, approval of, saying yes to [ja sagen zu, Bultmann, 230]) his afflictions and weaknesses (ασθένειαι, κτλ .: a mini “catalogue of crises"). ύβρεις, “insults," a noun to be taken passively (G. Bertram, TDNT 8:305), is used by Paul only here (see Acts 27:10, 21), and has specific allusion to his Corinthian enemies who resisted him in mockery (11:19-21) and by opposing his Gospel. So Windisch, 393. The ASV translation of "injuries" for v ußpeow is not com- monly followed. For "in anguish" (èv avaykais) see Comment on 6:4. Here it goes in close association with "insults," directed at his apostolic work.
translates as "persecutions" and suggests such persecutions as those resulting from religious reasons. We have orevoxwpia in six four, and see four eight for the verb.
The tribulation-list supplements and illustrates Paul's discussion on weakness. We note that the afflictions are endured for the sake of Christ. Such an idea repels the mistaken concept of suffering that has sometimes pervaded church history. Those who have experienced or encouraged self-afflicted wounds, endured martyrdom simply as a means of seeking to become righteous, and practiced asceticism solely as a means of securing God's favor are guilty of emphasizing merit, not faith. Human suffering in and of itself does not display divine power. Such bravado only produces rewards for the morbid fanatic or the foolish. Or, as Hughes proposes, "a joyless theology of insecurity" is the outcome of such endeavors. Rather, Paul exhibits a joyful walk with God undergirded by a firm security in God's grace. So deep-seated is Paul's delight that what he has endured does not compare to what is his in Christ.
When I am weak, then I am powerful. This sentence is the gnomic climax of twelve one through ten. Perhaps this is a parody, but no more than in a peripheral sense. Paul has stated in succinct terms and a concise manner the essence of his apostolic ministry. The temporal particle orav, "when," introduces the idea of the indefinite. Possibly, if being weak referred to a specific time, then we would have had ore. In one sense, Paul is weak because of the thorn. But in an added sense, Paul has brought his whole ministry [weaknesses, insults, anguish, persecutions, and distress] into the picture. Paul is not only concerned with the thorn when he writes twelve ten b; he is concerned with his ministry [or any Christian's ministry in general]. Whenever God's servants humble themselves and acknowledge their weakness, then the power of Christ can flow through them. This is a justification of "My grace is sufficient for you." God has more than compensated for the fact that the thorn was not removed. In short, the response of twelve nine a as a divine drókpqua is the "answer" in Paul's best interest. We have translated ouvarós as "powerful," so that there is consistency in twelve nine, ten with respect to suvapis, i.e., God's might in human frailty. This translation procedure is not usually followed.